Note: This article is put forward as a grand overview of historical names for Rusyns and their homeland and is intended as a reference as much as a work of prose. As a result, the following table of contents can help navigate:

Introduction

“I come from nowhere.” Those mystifying words of Andy Warhol have both simultaneously illustrated and also haunted the reality of Rusyn cultural awareness in the diaspora.

We should not however laugh at these words, as regardless of his intentions, whether he said it in humility, to seem mysterious, or even as a joke, we mustn’t forget that in all likelihood, like so many other Rusyns, Warhol very likely struggled to understand concretely from whence came his family and his roots.

Without making assumptions, we may say that Warhol certainly wasn’t trying to imply with these words, that one day he literally materialized ex nihilo out of the land of oblivion. Rather he was faced with the dilemma which has tormented millions of Rusyns.

How does one understand and describe where they are from when it is not contained within a single country when its borders have changed dramatically over the last century alone when one’s people have never really had a distinct self-contained state when one is born across the ocean from their ancestral land to parents who possibly identified as anything from Russian to Hungarian and from Greeks to Uniates. One could literally be faced with an issue where their parents were born in different states from both each other and their own parents and grandparents, even if they were all born in the same exact land or villages. One could be an Orthodox Christian and call themselves a Russian Greek Catholic or one could be a Uniate and call themselves Orthodox.

This was a reality for many people. In the case of Mr. Warhol, his parents were born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, though they would have been neither Austrian nor Hungarian. And at the time he uttered the famous phrase, their land was likely already Czechoslovakia, though they were neither Czechs nor Slovaks and most likely, many from this land would be called Russian in America, even if the people never set foot in the Russian Empire or the lands of modern Russia.

So, what is the fate of Andy Warhol’s people from nowhere? Shall we just accept they are from “nowhere”, and forget about it.

No. Warhol was wrong. These people are not from nowhere, they have a home, these people are not nameless, they gave a name, these people are not fatherless and orphaned, they are children of God. And as sure as God has protected them through the storms of the ages, by this protection, and that of the Theotokos, may they never forget that they were, are, and will forever be Rusyns. This is their name, and may it be forever known that Carpathian Rus’ is their home.

In a previous article, we discussed how the idea of Holy Rus’ — a national calling to holiness in Christ — is the most important national idea of the Rusyn people. It’s their spiritual homeland.

Now, considering the many names for Rusyns and their lands, and also the disinformation, in this article, let’s examine these names in detail, and discuss their history, and meaning to Rusyns throughout the ages. To get to the root of these issues, we have to start at the beginning of the story.

The Tale of the Bygone Years

While it is not good, nor just, to say that Rusyns come from nowhere, but if we instead change Warhol’s words from a statement into a question, this changes matters. There is no shame in not knowing, and asking where one comes from. In fact, “Where do I come from?” may indeed be the most Rusian of questions.

It is essentially with these words, that the first history of Rus’ peoples’ begins. The Primary Chronicle of Saint Nestor of Kiev begins with the immortal words:

Or in English:

“This is the tale of the bygone years, from whence came the lands of Rus’, where in Kiev the first princes ruled, and from what source the lands of Rus’ have their origin.”

Rus’ is the keyword here, as it is from this word that essentially all our other names, including Rusyn, have their origin. Before we examine the names of the people, let’s look at the various names for Rus’, as we will find, like all things in our history, even this is a matter of great controversy…

National Names

Rus’

This story begins with Rus’ and the East Slavic tribes, a brief history would be as follows.

Rus’ history traditionally begins with the landing of Rurik in 862 A.D., Rurik, and his folk were Varangians, essentially Norse Vikings from Scandinavia. Rus’ was baptized and became Christian under Rurik’s great-grandson Saint Vladimir (In Church Slavonic spelling; In Old East Slavic: Volodimer; In Old Norse: Valdamarr) of Kiev in 988 A.D., after receiving the faith “from the Greeks,” i.e. from the Roman Empire in Constantinople.

The first Metropolitan of Rus’ was St. Michael of Kiev, a Syrian. Here it should be noted that Carpathian Rus’, in the opinion of most scholars,^[1][2][3] was baptized prior to the Kievan Baptism, by Greek Saints Cyril and Methodius, during their mission to the Slavs beginning around 862, around the same time the pagan Rus’ landed at Novgorod. Most Orthodox Christians generally connect both the earlier Cyrillo-Methodian mission in Carpathian Rus’, and the later Baptism of Kievan Rus’ together, and celebrate them as part of a single Russian (i.e. Rusian) Orthodox tradition.^[4]

This does essentially mean, however, Carpathian Rus’ was Christian prior to the Kievan Baptism, which already sets her apart. By this logic some claim that Rusyns, being descendants of autochthonous Carpathian peoples, like White Croats and Vlachs, are not in fact, from the same Rus’ branch as the historical Kievans or Volhynians, or modern-day Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians, but that Rusyns simply received their name from them. This is one theory, not truly that of this author, and beyond the scope of this article, however, it’s worth mentioning.

It should also be worth noting that the identity of the early Rus’ peoples is debated, though they were likely Scandinavians who formed a warrior elite among the East Slavs who later took their name; in any case, they were not the only tribe of East Slavs, but merely absorbed the others such as Drevlians and Volhynians.

Though initially ruled primarily from Kiev, the Rus’ would be devastated and even “ruined” by the Mongol Invasion, and by 1360, they were already divided into two distinct halves, the north-east and the south-west. This now becomes the story of how we went from both Rus’ to Russia and Rus’ to Ruthenia respectively.

Ruthenia

Simply put, South-Western Rus’ would come under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the Rzeczpospolita). Subcarpathian Rus’ was already under the Hungarian crown at this time. Due to this western influence, the Rus’ lands in the Rzeczpospolita would come to be known, especially in academic terms, as Ruthenia, which is a Latin word for Rus’ or even Russia. Ruthenia is largely synonymous with South-Western Rus’, especially, though not exclusively, during the Polish-Lithuanian, or Austro-Hungarian periods. The Ruthenian ideal outcome would have been to achieve a commonwealth of three nations (Rzeczpospolita trojga narodów), Poles, Lithuanians, and Rusyns.

This however fell short of realization, with the death of great figures such as St. Peter Mohyla, Adam Kisiel, and King Władysław of Poland, and the rise of tragic internecine wars; the rights of the Orthodox Ruthenians were not respected, and a deluge of violence from all sides erupted, flooding down on the common folk, who as always, are the ones hurt the most in wars started by power-hungry rulers. The situation was best described by the great writer Henryk Sienkiewicz, we feel no better words have been written to illustrate the fall of the Commonwealth, and Ruthenia with it, and thus, we will end this history of Ruthenia with them:

---

In English: Hatred grew in the hearts of men and poisoned the blood of brotherly peoples. And for a long time, no lips could exchange the words: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace to people of goodwill.”

In Polish: Nienawiść wrosła w serca i zatruła krew pobratymczą – i żadne usta długo nie mówiły: „Chwała na wysokościach Bogu, a na ziemi pokój ludziom dobrej woli”

In Lemko: Ненавист вросла в серця люди і отровила кров братніх народів — і долгій час жадны уста не казали: «Слава во вышніх Богу, і на земли мир людям доброй волі».

---

Russia

North-Eastern Rus’ would consolidate initially around Vladimir-Suzdal and later completely under the firm rule of Muscovy, which would form the Russian Centralized State (российское централизованное государство) or RCS (РЦГ) as it’s known in Muscovite Russian histography. This process is also called in Russian histography the “gathering of the Russian lands.”

Here a great issue arises over the names Rus’ and Russia and their relationship. The issue is exacerbated in English due to language barriers. Whereas “Russia” is essentially Rus’ with an added “s” and the typical suffix -ia, essentially meaning Russland, as in the German, in the Slavic languages themselves, we see a different word used for “Russia”, as in the contemporary country—Rossia or Россія. ^[5]

Here is where the grand debate begins between all sides, Russophiles, Moscophiles, Ukrainophiles, all argue over the meaning and relation of this word to Rus’.

The historical reality is this word simply comes from the Greek word for Rus’— Ρωσσία. Essentially, just as Ruthenia is Latin for Rus’, Rossia is Greek for the same.

The Moscovite state adapted the Greek form after Ivan the Great to emphasize the Byzantine connection and the idea of “Moscow — the Third Rome’”, and later, this form would be fermented by Peter the Great by naming Russia the Russian (Rossiiskaya) Empire (Россійская Имперія). Interestingly enough, he took the Greek name for Russia but imported the Latin word for empire in place of the Slavic Czardome (Czarstwo), and from 1721 onward to this day, Rossia or Россія would become the name of the polity, while the people are remained known as Russians or Russkie.

It is very important to understand that in a literal philological sense, whether we say Rus’, Russia, Rossia, or Ruthenia, we are expressing the exact same concept, the same name, simply in different languages.

To say that Rossia is a foreign name unrelated to Rus’ would be like saying Saint Petersburg is not in Rossia, it’s in Russia. It would be like saying the Colosseum isn’t in Rome, it’s in Roma.

However, we should understand that languages do evolve as we use them. And in modern contexts, when we say Russia or Rossia, most people will rightly associate these words with the lands of the modern Russian Federation, i.e. the north-eastern part of Rus’ which consolidated and formed the Russian Centralized State around Moscovy. The Rossia form in Slavic is almost always associated only with this North-Eastern Moscovite part of Rus’.

This does not mean, however, that Russia (with a double “s”) has never been applied to the Ruthenian lands. We should remember that in many ways, especially in the understanding of the majority of Europe, there was a time when Galicia was understood as “Russia”, and the successor of Kievan Rus’, and the north-eastern Russian state was often known, (externally and in Ruthenia), as Moscovia. This is illustrated by the famous map of Sebastian Münster, published in 1552 A.D., “Polonia et Ungaria XX Nova Tabula” (a new map of Poland and Hungary).

On the map, we see that the Galician land around Lwów (Leopolis), is known as RVSSIA (Russia), whereas in the northeast, we see Moscovia and Rvssia Alba (White Russia). Note that White Rus’/Russia is a translation of the Slavic “Belarus’” or “Belorussia”^[6] and can also refer to this land, which was historically part of Lithuanian Rus’ and Ruthenia, and whose people are also “Ruthenians”.  The map above has been reprinted in other contemporary sources, for example, this rare colored version.

It is worth noting these are works of a German cartographer depicting the lands of the Rzeczpospolita and Moscovia. We can certainly not accuse him of bias in favor of Rusyns, for naming Galicia “Russia”, this simply reflects the common understanding of the time, that this land, formerly the Kingdom of Rus’, belongs to—well, Rus’. And a common Latin form for the land of Rus’ is Russia.

In the very significant map “Ukrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum cum vicinis Walachiae, Moldoviae…” (Ukraine the land of the Cossacks, Wallachia, Moldova…), published in Nuremberg in 1720, we find the geographical terms Ukraine (Ukraina), close together with “Red Russia” (Russia Rubra)^[7], and Moscovia off to the side.

See also the 1507 Map “Polonia Minor​; Russia” by Martin Waldseemüller. This helps to demonstrate that although it is not the exclusive form, the word “Russia” though not necessarily Rossia, can indeed be applied with historical accuracy to South-Western Rus’, and can appear in sources this way.

Concerning Rossia, it is far more out of context to apply this word to these lands. There are exceptions, however, of this word being applied even in South-Western Rus’.

For example, a facsimile copy of the Kievan Trebnik of Saint Peter Mohyla surprisingly renders his title as “Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia, all Russia”^[8], “vseja Rossii—with the “o” form and the double “s” (всеѧ̀ Рꙍ́ссїи), as opposed to the more common and expected “of all Rus’”.

It is both peculiar and very interesting that this example uses the Rossia “o” form, which is rather anomalous to South-Western Rus’. This however is just that, an exception to a general rule, though if we observe closely, it is not really the omicron “o” form; rather the omega form “ώ”.

We should note that the Slavonic form used, is written with the omega, emphasizing the fact that this word is taken from the Greek word for Rus’—which is Ῥῶς or Ρωσσία. It is very interesting to note that in modern Greek, Ρωσσία/Russia is spelled Ρωσία (Rosia), with one sigma “s”. This means that when say Rossia in this (old Greek) context, we are talking about the same word as Rus’, simply translated into a different language, i.e. whether we say Rus’, Russia, Ῥῶς, Ρωσσία, or Ruthenia, we are in fact expressing the same concept, just in different languages!

This does not mean, therefore, that because he is called Metropolitan of all Rossia (Russia in Greek), that his land is the same as Moscovia, that he was the bishop of Moscow or modern Russia. On the contrary, St. Peter Mohyla was not subordinate to Moscow, nor did he live in the Muscovite state. He lived in Poland, served as a Polish knight, and his great-nephew would become the King of Poland. St. Peter was metropolitan of the Kievan Metropolia, essentially the Orthodox Church in the Rzeczpospolita, corresponding to the modern lands of Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland, however, his territory did not include modern Russia.

This is incredibly important to note, as this indicates that if he was called the Metropolitan of all Russia (Rossia), his territory did not include Muscovite Russia. This means that Rossia, as the Greek form for Rus’ was applied to Kievan lands as well, and moreover, that these lands required no subordination or even attachment to Moscow to constitute in and of themselves “all Russia”. That is to say, the fullness of the Russian soul, i.e. of Rus’ itself, may be found in one member, and even one member can truly be in and of itself—all Rus’. This is possible through the understanding of Rus’ Soborna, which is a term we must return to, however, suffice to say, we have demonstrated how even Rossia can—in the right contexts—be applied to Rus’.

Little Russia

Little Russia is a very important historical-geographical for the central former lands centered around Kiev and central Ukraine which were incorporated into the Russian Empire after the Khmelnytskyi Uprising of 1654. Little Russia, in the original language, can be written either Малая Россія (Malaya Rossia), Малороссія (Malorossia), or Малая Русь (Malaya Rus’), and while historically they were more or less synonymous, each of those names have their own context, especially due to the “o” vs “u” dichotomy in the word Rossia/Russia. Inhabitants of Little Russia may be called Little Russians or Малороссіяне or Малороссы.

Little Russia in the Russian Empire is essentially a synonym for what we would come to call Ukraine today, however, we should note this did not include Galicia or certainly not Carpathia. Even if these people were considered to be part of the “Little Russian nation”, in some historical times, Little Russia proper should refer primarily to the former nucleus of Kievan Rus’ and the Cossack Hetmanate, essentially Dnieper Ukraine or North-Central Ukraine.

By the 18th and 19th centuries, we may say that what is today modern Ukraine was divided between three cultural regions.

1. Little Russia
2. New Russia
3. Galicia-Volhynia

New Russia refers to the South-Eastern lands, the former “Wild Fields”, once dominated by Asiatic steppe nomads like Tatars, which were never truly integrated into Kievan Rus’ or the Commonwealth, but we’re finally settled by the Cossacks and the Russian Empire and developed by the latter especially under Catherine II. All the major cities in these regions, such as Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, and the Slavic Crimean cities were essentially founded by Catherine the Great and under the direct rule of her centralized Russian state, making these new territories quite different and rather russified compared to the strong Cossack culture of Dnieper Ukraine, the former Kievan Rus’, and the western lands of Galicia in Poland. Just as Ukraine can be divided into three regions, the national idea of the Russian Empire itself became that Russia is three lands, three Russias, Great Russia (modern Russia), Little Russia (Ukraine), and White Russia (Belarus), and thus we hear the term “Czar of all the Russias”.

The political, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and even at times religious divide between these regions is so strong, it heavily affects Ukrainian politics to this day. It is often said that Ukraine is like two nations, east, and west, split right down the Dnieper into Left and Right Bank Ukraine’s, but in reality, it is more properly divided into three. Western Ukraine (Galicia-Volhynia), Central Ukraine (Dnieper Ukraine), and South-Eastern Ukraine (Novorossia).

Acknowledging this reality on the ground does not indicate in any way we can’t support Ukraine or her territorial sovereignty today, it merely means we should be conscious of these historical differences and cultural regions and not dismiss them. The voices of both Galicia and Eastern Ukraine must be heard for peace in these lands to be lasting.

Unfortunately, due to modern politics, terms such as Malorossia and Novorossia have become controversial and taken outside of their historical contexts by Russian and Ukrainian nationalism.

In particular, the term Little Russia and especially “Little Russians”, is often perceived by Ukrainians today as perjurious or belittling to Ukrainians. While it is true that some Russian nationalists may (or may not) use this term to imply Ukrainians are just the “little brothers” to Russians, this is not historical.

The historical meaning of Little Russia is by no means belittlingly or meant to imply that Ukraine or Ukrainians are lesser than Russia. Specifically, it’s said that Little Russia (Ukraine) is meant to be juxtaposed against Great Russia (modern Russia) thus implying one is greater than the other which is completely untrue and not the intended context.

Little here is primarily a geographical indicator, meaning southern, or smaller in size, compare this with Asia Minor or (Little Asia).

Krakow, the capital of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth located in the region called Little Poland, which is located to the south of greater Poland.

Surely nobody is saying by calling these lands “Little”, the imperial city of Constantinople or the crownlands of Krakow are inferior to the rest of Asia, or Poland.

Little or lesser does not imply inferior, it means either southern or smaller.

We should also note that “little” in Slavic languages is often considered a positive or endearing thing. Little Russia can also be understood to mean the heart of, or the essential Rus’, not belittlingly but elevating Little Russia, as if anything, Ukrainians are not the little siblings of Russians, they’re the older siblings!

It’s important to understand that Little Russia is a term used by the Ukrainian or Cossack inhabitants of the land themselves, not simply a term imposed upon them to take away the name Ukrainian, as in the 17th century, they were not calling themselves Ukrainians but instead Rusyns or Cossacks. For example, Little Russia is used extensively to refer to himself and his people by Gogol, whom Lina Kostenko would note was a “Russian (language) author”, but “a Ukrainian genius.” There is also the famous History of Little Russia, written after 1792, likely up until the 1840s, which extensively uses the term.

The most important example to illustrate that little Russia was not simply some tool of Muscovite terminology was its extensive use in the Constitution of Philip Orlyk, written in 1710 A.D., which can be read here on the website of the Ukrainian parliament.^[9] The constitution is a monumental work in human history, among the first extant documents displaying a modern democratic concept of separation of powers. Orlyk was a Cossack colonel and ally of Ivan Mazepa, who fought for a free and independent Cossack State in “Little Russia”, and was strictly opposed to the Muscovite state.

In his constitution, by my account, Orlyk uses the term “Ukraine” eight times, and only in a geographical sense,^[10] whereas Little Russia^[11] appears ten or eleven times^[12] in both geographical and national terms.

He speaks of the “Little Russian Fatherland” (Отчизны Малороссийской),^[13] and uses Little Russian as an ethnonym for the people or at least as an adjective.^[14]

This is very important to note as Orlyk can be no means be considered an ally of the Muscovite state he actively fought for freedom against, but he still used the term “Little Russia” in his Constitution, equally or even more times than “Ukraine”, even though he was a hero of and an advocate for the idea of what we would now call a “free and independent Ukraine.” This does not mean we should now call Ukraine “Little Russia”, but it demonstrates even Ukrainophiles may use the term Little Russia historically, and Ukrainians have just as much, if not an even greater responsibility to be true to the name of Holy Rus’, as Rus’ began in what is now Ukraine.^[15]

Conclusion: Little Russia is a historical term for north and central Ukraine, the former nucleus of the Kievan state, which may also be called Dnieper Ukraine. It may be contrasted historically with Galicia-Volhynia to the west and the region of Novorossia to the south-east. Little Russia was used by its own inhabitants to refer to the southern heart of the historical Rus’ lands, and while it can also be used in the context of Russian nationalism, it was also used by natives of the Ukrainian lands to refer to themselves. As contexts change, today we should not use the term Little Russia or Little Russians to refer to Ukrainians as this is perjurious, and we should respect these people now wish to be identified as Ukrainians, while at the same time, not calling into historical revisionism and ignoring the fact that names such as Rusyn, Cossack, Ruthenian, and Little Russian were real historical terms for the people, prior to the rather late appearance and popularization of the name Ukrainian in essentially the very late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Context is Key

As a result, we should be aware of context both historic and modern when using these words and their adjective forms.

Often it is the case that it’s easier to say, Russian, when we mean “of Rus’” as opposed to “of modern Russia”. Simply put, saying this is a Rus’ city, or it’s a Rus’ word, or these are Rus’ people does not seem as natural in English as saying “Russian”, however due to misconceptions that can arise, it is valuable to clarify when we mean “Rus’” and when we mean the modern understanding of Russian.

When we say the Russian Orthodox Faith, for example, we are referring to the whole faith of Rus’, not just the Muscovite lands.

Another alternative form worth using and discussing may be Rusian, with one “S”, as this may be a way to form a more natural adjective form for the noun Rus’ while remaining neutral and avoiding politically charged connotations of words such as Russian when applied to Rus’ things outside the territory of modern Russia.

The great professor and Russian medievalist Dmitry Likhachov,^[16] doctor of philological science, once famously described perhaps the greatest issue in Russian history, which is namely the interpretation of that history:

No other country in the world is cloaked in such contradictory myths about its history as is Russia, and no other nation in the world interprets its history as variously as do the Russian people.^[17]

This may perfectly be applied to all East Slavs, including Carpatho-Rusyns. All East Slavs, essentially all Rusian peoples, have this same scandal or stumbling block in their historiographies—that is few other peoples have so many varying ways to interpret their own history and identity.

They may consider each other to be the same nation, brothers, or mortal enemies, they may speak each other’s languages natively, and even if Russian is, for all intents and purposes, their primary and best-spoken language, and they do not speak another language at the same level, they may tell you—in native Russian—that they are not Russian.

They all variably claim Rus’ as their direct heritage, while occasionally claiming they have a greater claim to it than the others; Ukrainians have even changed the name of their state and people from Rus’ and Rusyn, to a word with no etymological relation, but many Ukrainian nationalists still insist they are “more Rusian than the Russians”, so to speak, and that Carpatho-Rusyns, even those whose ancestral homeland has always been in Slovakia, are Ukrainians.

The very fact that within the East Slavic family, there may be heated debates that Ruskii spelled with one “s” is very different semantically than Russkii, and that Russkie has no relation to Rus’, (note: these words are pronounced identically in all languages [!]) the fact that even Rus’kii with or without an apostrophe can be controversial or that within the Rusyn community it can be a scandal to argue whether or not a certain Carpathian tribe are Rusyns or not (few nations are unable to agree on something as simple as who they are), the fact that you can even meet Rusyns who could ask you in Rusyn “Who are these Rusyns?”(see this video)—is all illustrative of this grand issue in Rus’ history which professor Likhachov aforetime noted.

As we examine these different names and national identities, we should bear in mind therefore that they often overlap, often the same Slavic spoken word can be written differently (i.e. Rus’kii vs Russkii), or translated as different as Russian, Ruthenian, Rusyn, Rusin, or even occasionally Ukrainian.

We must all decide for ourselves where we stand on the issue, should we choose to make a stand at all, however for the sake of accurately comprehending the meaning of these politically charged names, it is important to study and understand their complex context.

Carpathian Rus’ and the Rusyn Homeland

Carpathian Rus’

The homeland of the Carpatho-Rusyns is Carpathian Rus’ (Rusyn: Карпатска Русь – Karpatska Rus’), which broadly speaking, are the regions of the Carpathian Mountains which are traditionally inhabited by the East Slavs who identify as Rusyns.

According to the Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture [emphasis mine]:

[Carpathian Rus’] covers approximately 18,000 square kilometers located along the southern and, in part, northern slopes of the Eastern Carpathian mountain ranges, stretching about 375 kilometers from the Poprad River in the west to the upper Tisza/Tysa and Ruscova/Rus’kova rivers in the east. According to present-day boundaries, this territory is divided among Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, and a small part of Romania. Carpathian Rus’ may be subdivided into four regions, whose boundaries are determined by the states in which each is located: the Lemko Region (in Poland), the Presov Region (in Slovakia), Subcarpathian Rus’ (in Ukraine), and the Maramures Region (in Romania).

Both the concept of Carpathian Rus’ and its territorial extent have varied. During the second half of the nineteenth-century scholars in the Russian Empire (Lakiv Holovats’kyi, 1875; Ivan Filevich, 1895; Fedor Aristov, 1916) understood Carpathian Rus’ to include “Russian-inhabited” lands within the Habsburg Empire, that is, all of eastern Galicia and northern Bukovina as well as Ugorskaia Rus’ (i.e., Subcarpathian Rus’ and the Presov Region in Hungary). As early as 1850 the Rusyn historian Andrei Deshko understood the term Carpathian Rus’ to include only Rusyn-inhabited lands in the Hungarian Kingdom (Subcarpathian Rus’ and the Presov Region). At the close of World War I, however, Carpatho- Rusyn political leaders, in petitions submitted along with maps to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), defined Carpathian Rus’ to mean Subcarpathian Rus’, the Presov Region, and, on the northern slopes of the mountains, the Lemko Region (as far east as the San River).^[18]

Due to complex historical circumstances, this homeland is primarily divided between modern-day Ukraine (Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia), Poland (Lemkovyna and the Subcarpathian Voivodeship), and Slovakia (the Prešov region or Pryashevskaya Rus’), but also includes parts of Serbia (Ruski Krstur in Vojvodina, where Pannonian Rusyns live), and Romania (Maramureș), and Hungary.

Carpathian Rus’ is as noted, often divided into sub-regions such as:

Transcarpathia — Zakarpatia — Закарпатя

In modern contexts, Transcarpathia (Rusyn: Закарпатя – Zakarpatia) corresponds to the Transcarpathian Oblast of Ukraine, the capital of which is Uzhhorod. The name in Latin and Slavic means “Beyond the Carpathian Mountains”, as we will begin to see with similar terms, this depends vastly on one’s literal point of view. If one is standing in Kiev or Lviv and looking west/south, Transcarpathia is beyond (across) the Carpathian Mountains, the mountains are between the rest of Ukraine and Zakarpatia, walling off the Rusyn region from the rest of the country. However, that perspective changes if one looks from Budapest, Vienna, or Western Europe. Today Transcarpathia generally refers to the Oblast.

According to the 2021 Census, the current population of the Zakarpattia Oblast is 1,250,129 with 784,799 or around 63 percent of them being rural,^[19] keeping with the tradition of the local village being the heart of culture.

Transcarpathia may be understood as the land before the Carpathian Mountains, after crossing which one enters the rest of Rus’. What we call the Ukrainian Carpathians today, were strategically very important in history, as being the lowest part of the Mountains, it was the only portion a large army could both reasonably conveniently and safely pass. The famous Verecke Pass in the mountains is thus called the Gates of Rus’.

It was for this reason that Stalin insisted on annexing Zakarpatia to the Soviet Union, and made it a strategic priority at the close of WW2, and was not content to leave it even with a socialist (allied) Czechoslovakia, as he knew what a problem getting over even the lowest of the mountains was for Russian armies. Indeed, the Soviet Union would use Transcarpathia as a staging area for its subsequent invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

A very interesting episode comes from this time, demonstrating the national consciousness of Rusyns and their desire to be recognized as a people.

Saint Alexis Kabaliuk, “the Carpatho-Russian/Rusyn”, a native of Zakarpatia and the spiritual leader Subcarpathian Rusyns at the time, being trusted by all the people, was chosen as the plenipotentiary on behalf of not just the Church, but all of Zakarpatia as a territory, to negotiate with Stalin as to the fate of Transcarpathia. Saint Alexis emphasized throughout the process that while Rusyns were looking forward to living with their fellow Slavs and Rus’ peoples, they consider themselves to be Rusyns and did not wish to be identified as Ukrainians.

Furthermore, in a letter to Stalin dated on the 18th of November, 1944 in Mukachevo, understanding that being joined to the Soviet Union was a non-negotiable inevitability, we read how the Rusyn leaders requested and insisted they at least be given autonomy and full recognition as Rusyns and very specifically NOT to be included in the Soviet Ukrainian Republic, as to not be Ukrainianized:

“We, the undersigned representatives of the Orthodox communities of Carpathian Rus’, expressing he will of our entire Russian Orthodox People, ask that [Carpathian Rus’] be included into the USSR in the form of: “The Carpatho-Russian Soviet Republic”^[20]

The letter was signed by St. Alexis himself, Igumen Theophan Sabov, the administrator of the eparchy of Mukachevo and Prešov, and Rusyn Professor Petro Vasylevych Lyntur.

The context of the letter must also be understood clearly in its pragmatic context. This did not mean that Saint Alexis or the Rusyns wanted to join the Soviet Union, but at this point, they had no say in the matter and were merely trying to achieve the best possible conditions for Rusyns from their new and latest occupiers. Any platitudes towards Stalin or the USSR is not genuine support for the communist authorities, but merely their attempt to diplomatically negotiate from a very weak position.

The letter is very important as it demonstrates as late as 1944 that Subcarpathian Rusyns still identified as Rusyns, (after Galician Rusyns were already mostly Ukrainianized) and Rusyns desired recognition and even territorial self-rule as such and refute the claim that Rusyn is merely an old term for Ukrainian and by the 20th century, they became Ukrainians, as with Galicians.

Furthermore, they emphasize that the people are Rusyns, and “sons of Rus’” and do not identify as Ukrainians, saying, “The name ‘Ukraine’ and ‘Ukrainian” became known to them “only after WW2.”[21] The letter emphasized that while Galicians adopted that name, with foreign backing, Subcarpathian Rusyns did not.

Close to the end, the letter again emphasizes that the people are Rusyns who do not wish to be Ukrainianized and they request that a Carpatho-Rusyn republic be formed “Yasinia to the Poprad, from Uzok to Dobrochyn (Debrecen)^[22]”, so that Rusyns may be together with their brother Slavs and Rus’ “kinsmen”, but still remain Rusyns.^[23]

They knew that if they were to be included into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, they would be Ukrainianized, which is what inevitably did happen, as though Stalin received Saint Alexis, and even perceived something special about the old monk,^[24] the Soviet tyrant did not respect the rights of the Rusyn people much less a delegation led by the Orthodox Church.

In the end, these events show us how great Orthodoxy and Rusyn identity suffered together, and the unbreakable historic bonds between the faith and the Rusyn people.

Subcarpathia — Podkarpatska Rus’ — Подкарпатска Русь

Subcarpathian Rus’ (Подкарпатска Русь, in the Prešov standardization – Підкарпатьска Русь, variably in vernacular Subcarpathian dialects – Пудкарпатя. Pronounced Podkarpatska and Pidkarpatska Rus’ respectively and Pudkarpatia) can have several meanings. First and foremost, it can refer broadly to all the Rusyn regions “below” (pod/pid in Slavic) the Carpathian Mountains. Since we generally orient maps with north at the top, this effectively means all the Rusyn regions below Lemkovyna, which may be seen as being above the Carpathians (or on the northern polish side). It is worth noting that this Subcarpathia should not be confused with the Subcarpathian Voivodeship of Poland (Województwo podkarpackie), which mostly corresponds to Red Ruthenia, however, which overlaps with the Lemko region. As a result, using Subcarpathia to refer to all of Carpathian Rus’ is not ideal.

Subcarpathia is in today’s context primarily used as a synonym for the Zakarpatia Oblast of Ukraine, as this land is directly beneath the Carpathian Mountains, and when we speak of Subcarpathian Rusyns today, we generally refer to those from Ukraine, though it should be noted historically the word was used to refer to people in the Prešov region as well, for example, by Dukhnovych. Subcarpathia may also be understood as the lands which were under the Hungarian crown in particular, which historically was called Uhorian Rus’ (Угорска Русь) or some form thereof, meaning Hungarian Rus’.

Subcarpathian Rus’ was also the name of the brief inter-war political territory or proto-state in Czechoslovakia between 1920 and 1938. The first governor was Rusyn-American Gregory Žatkovich.

Precarpathia — Прикарпатя — Prycarpatia

Precarpathia (Rusyn: Прикарпатя – Prycarpatia) is the region immediately before the Carpathian Mountains, again by the point of observation of the rest of Rus’ (east to west). Therefore, Precarpathia refers primarily to Pokuttya and the lands of Galicia which border Transcarpathia, and are separated from it by the mountains. This is primarily the Ivano-Frankivsk and southern Lviv Oblast, though technically it can refer to all of Galicia, as in the famous monumental work “Subcarpathian Rus’ under the rule of Austria”. From the Russian/Ukrainian point of view, Precarpathia may be called in English Ciscarpathia.

Ciscarpathia

Ciscarpathia, meaning “On this side of the Carpathians”, is another term that depends on the point of observation. From the Russian/Ukrainian perspective, it is Precarpathia, but we can also speak of Ciscarpathian Romania. It is an English term, which does not apply to the homelands.

The Lemko Region or Lemkovyna — Лемковина

Lemkovyna (Rusyn: Лемковина) is the region of Poland where Lemkos traditionally dwell. It should also be noted in Poland there is the Subcarpathian Voivodeship, which contains parts of Red Ruthenia.

According to the Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture:

[The Lemko region] refers to an area encompassing compassing about 250 villages, at least 50 percent of whose inhabitants (and usually much more) were Rusyns at the outset of the twentieth century. The territory itself is only about 25 to 50 kilometers wide and is bordered along its entire length in the south by the crests of the Carpathian Mountains, which coincide with the present-day Polish-Slovak border. In the west, the Lemko Region begins near the Tatra mountain range and stretches eastward for about 140 kilometers. There is no consensus regarding its eastern boundary: according to linguistic and ethnographic criteria that boundary lies somewhere between the Oslawa and Solinka rivers; according to criteria put forth by political activists, the boundary is the upper San River, i.e., the present-day Polish-Ukrainian border.^[25]

Lemkovyna was generally considered to be relatively unpopulated prior to the 15^th and 16^th centuries. Feudal manorial landowners were unable to make much use of the rugged mountain highlands between Poland and Slovakia, as the terrane was simply not suited for the agrarian methods of their typical Slavic peasants, be they I mean Galicians, Poles, or Slovaks. This was a land in which the “Wallach-Rusyns”, with their pastoral lifestyle from the Vlach influence, could not only survive in, but thrive, and thus we see them begin to populate the region.^[26] The Polish Goral people, who live just beyond the western border of Lemkovyna, near Zakopane, in the same mountainous conditions, adopted a very similar pastoral lifestyle. Connections between Goral culture and Vlach-Rusyn-Lemko culture is very interesting and requires further study. Linguist Michal Vašíček has done seminal and tremendous trailblazing work in this field, collecting data on peripheral Rusyn dialects with various influences. Based on available data, it seems the Rusyn village of Osturňa is the most “Goralised” Rusyn locality, which is interesting because Osturňa is located across the Tatry in Slovakia, not Poland, but there are others villages in Poland and Slovakia that have somewhat fewer connections to the Goraly. More information on this obscure Rusyn dialect can be found in this video with English subtitles.

Saint Maxim Sandovich, the Lemko Protomartyr, was a native of Lemkovyna.

The Prešov Region or Presiovian Rus’ — Пряшівска Русь

The Prešov Region or Priashiv Region (Rusyn: Пряшівский край – Priashivskii Krai; Slovak: Prešovský Kraj) is the Rusyn region of Slovakia, also called traditionally Priashivska Rus’ (Rusyn: Пряшівска Русь – Priashivska Rus’) or Prešovian Rus’. This is the land of the great Saint Alexis Toth the “Father of American Rus’”, the national awakener Alexander Dukhnovych, and many other important figures.

According to the Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture:

[The Prešov Region] refers to approximately 300 villages, at least 50 percent of whose inhabitants were Rusyns at the outset of the twentieth century (ca. 1910).^[27]

The concept of a defined Prešov Region is of relatively recent origin, prior to WW1,^[28] Prešov was understood in Rusyn histography as being together with Transcarpathia, under Subcarpathian Rus’, as they both sat at the on the southern side of the mountains.

The Prešov region today is arguably the most successful Rusyn region, at least in terms of institutional progress and development, especially thanks to the tremendous work done at the University of Prešov which has its own Rusyn language department and theological faculty, and also hosts the Studium Carpatho-Ruthenorum. The Prešov dialect has been fully standardized which was a major milestone.

The Prešov region is ecclesiastically part of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which is an autocephalic church, equal to all the other local churches like the Greek and Russian, and is headed by a wonderful primate, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Rastislav, who is the archbishop of Prešov. The Orthodox Church there is filled with pious clergy, and in eastern Slovakia is largely dominated by Rusyns. The beautiful Cyrillo-Methodian traditions are alive and well in Czechia and Slovakia.

In the interwar period, the Prešov region was home to the famous Carpathian Skete of St. Job of Pochaev, and its printing press, directly continuing the medieval Pochaev-Ostrog printing tradition. The brotherhood printed the famous journal Orthodox Carpathian Rus’ in the village of Ladomirová,^[29] Slovakia.

Among the brothers was the young future First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Laurus Škurla. After WW2, they moved to Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, and the Saint Job of Pochaev Press and the journal survives to this day, printed by ROCOR as Orthodox Rus’.

The Prešov region is one of the most dynamic and perspective parts of the Rusyn homeland.

Other “Rusyn” Lands

Galicia

Galicia (Галиція; Галичина́ – Halitsia or Halyczyna) is the jewel or crownland of Western Rus’, it is the westernmost part of which constituted a powerful Principality and later the Kingdom of Rus’ (Ruthenia). Due to its preeminence among the Western Rusian lands, Galicia is often used (sometimes too broadly) to refer to all the lands of western Rus’, even those which more properly belong to Volhynia, Podolia, or Carpathian Rus’

Galicia takes its name from the city of Halych (Га́лич – Halycz. The so-called G “Г” in Galicia is pronounced as an H) in today’s Ivano-Frankivsk region. Halych was quickly overshadowed and replaced as the capital of Galicia, by the royal city of Leopolis or Lvov, modern-day Lviv (In Polish: Lwów; in German: Lemberg).

Lviv was founded by Daniel Romanovich of Galicia. It must be remembered that Daniel of Galicia was not a prince, but a King. Though he was his entire life a faithful Orthodox Christian, he was crowned and granted the title of King by the Pope, a very clever political move, and one which would define the position of Galicia as a Rusian land in between east and west to this day.

Daniel represented the Romanovichi, the elder branch of Rurikids, the ruling Grand Princes of Kiev, who after the fall of Kievan Rus’, went westward into Galicia. In Ruthenian histography, the tradition of Kievan Rus’ did not fall forever in 1240, rather it shifted to the west, to Galicia.

Galicia is therefore always intimately tied to Kiev, and the ruler or heir of one is often considered the ruler or heir of both, thus the true title of Kievan Metropolitans became “Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia, and all Rus’”.

Galicia is therefore considered the successor of Kievan Rus’, whereas the younger siblings of Daniel’s father, who went to Vladimir-Suzdal, and later Moscow, also laid claim to Rus’. This began the old conflict and division between South-Western Rus’, and North-Eastern Rus’, as to who is the true successor with the right to demand the loyalty of the Russian lands and gather them together, Halych/Lvov or Vladimir/Moscow.

King Daniel, named Lviv in honor of his son Lev, meaning Lion, hence the name of the city means Leopolis—the city of the Lion. The Lion of Galicia is the symbol of Lviv and Galicia itself. In an account of a meeting of the Supreme Ruthenian Council (Holovna Rus’ka Rada) in 1848, we read:

«знамя земли рускои тутейшои єсть левъ, а цвѣты руски жовтый и синый» (Trans: The banner of this land of Rus’ (ruskoi) is the lion, and the Rus’ colors are yellow and gold (i.e. the colors of the Ukrainian flag).^[30]

It’s interesting to note that the Galician Lion is called the Russian lion, as it was in fact Galicia which was as demonstrated on the European maps, even called Russia when today’s Russia was called Muscovy, thus, supporters of the “Galician claim”, may even argue that Galicia is the senior among the Russias.

In the Duel Monarchy, the Polish region and its capital Krakow were included in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (as West Galicia), which together with Bucovina were part of Austria, whereas Subcarpathia was part of Hungary. Due to this, the Lemko regions in Poland such as Gorlice and Sanok were technically part of Galicia as well, however, this is a “new Galicia”, and represents an expansion of the region outside its historical borders which end at Red Ruthenia.

Galicia today is comprised mostly of the Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil Oblasts.

While Galicia proper is not part of the Carpatho-Rusyn homeland, save for Precarpathia, Pokuttya and the Hutsul region in Ivano-Frankivsk, and the Beskid region of Red Ruthenia, due to its dominant role in the life of Western Rus’, and the fact that many historical Rusyn awakeners lived in Galicia, the histories are intertwined, as were the fates of Galician and Carpathian Rusyns, however now the vast majority of its inhabitants identify as Ukrainians.

It’s important to understand, however, that although today it is considered the center of Ukrainian nationalism, Galicia was historically a very Rusin land.

The first Ukrainian national and cultural awakening movements did not begin in Galicia, but rather in Dnipro Ukraine (i.e. Central Ukraine), in the Russian Empire, decades before the Ukrainophile movement or even the names such as “Ukraine” and especially “Ukrainian” were even popularized in Galicia. It was, in particular, the interaction between the original Ukrainophiles from Dnipro Ukraine, figures such as Drahomanov and Hrushevsky, with the budding national-populist movement in Galicia, with figures such as Ivan Franko, which formed or midwifed the budding Galician Ukrainophile movement.^[31][32][33]

Prior to this, Galicia was associated primarily with Rus’ or rather we may say contextually Ruthenia, the part of Rus’ in Poland, the Russian Palatinate. The people considered themselves Rusins or even Poles. Galicia was culturally and ethno-religiously very conservative, people identified primarily by their religious and cultural identity, not so much on a national basis, whereas the Ukrainian movement in a way, elevated the national element over the religious identity.

Indeed, as nearly the entirety of the Galician intelligentsia were clergy, or coming from sacerdotal families, they looked with suspicion on the often anti-clerical element and the secular idea of radicalism emerging among the Ukrainophiles.^[34] Figures such as Drahomanov, the works of Galicians like Franko and Lesya Ukrainka, and the radical national-populists were viewed with suspicion by traditionalist intelligentsia, due to their association with socialism and anticlericalism,^[35] their perceived secularism or ambivalence towards organized religion, ^[36][37] and were even outright considered atheists by some.

Even though many Galician Ukrainophiles, the youngest of the three national movements in Galicia, were themselves from sacerdotal families, they too were viewed with this same suspicion by the Old Ruthenians and Russophiles, due to their emphasis of the national element and the populist vernacular “low culture” over religious identities and values.^[38][39] Ukrainian nationalists were seen as emphasizing earthly Ukraine over the kingdom of heaven, and invoking God merely to bless the Ukrainian movement, and viewing religion as secondary or axillary to the goal of promoting the national movement,^[40] whereas most Rusyn activists were staunchly religious and prioritized their religious identity over the national. As hieromonk and professor Constantin (Simon) Ph.D., of Red Ruthenian decent writes:

“…in time, several clergymen would support the [Ukrainophile] movement, seeing it as a way of asserting for themselves a separate religious and ethnic identity and as a means of propagating a nationalistic ideal. In time it became the dominant ideology among the clergy who remained at home and remained Uniate.”

An example of this may be a comparison of the hymns of Dukhnovych, where Rusyns humbly ask God to bless their cause and grant them to see another day,^[42] vs the Ukrainian national anthem, influenced by the Ukrainian school of polish literature, which declares “We will give our souls and bodies”, for freedom and Ukraine. To Christians, the idea of giving your life for your nation is acceptable, but not the soul which rightfully belongs to God,^[43] however this is a microcosm of the religious difference between the movements. Broadly speaking, we may say the Ukrainian movement was more “liberal”, and the Russophile more conservative.

We see this divide in the diaspora as well. Among the Orthodox, a large majority of the original Ukrainian Autocephalites came from the Lypkivsky schism from central (Dnieper) Ukraine, from the Russian Empire.

It was the Ukrainian Orthodox who first started fighting for Ukrainian to be used in services in place of Church Slavonic, whereas the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox and Ruthenian Uniates were very conservative in liturgical and ecclesiastical matters.

Indeed, the Ruthenian Uniate diaspora was by far one of the most conservative and loyal to the Holy See, and analogous to the Orthodox Carpatho-Russians, preserved far longer their Ruthenophile orientation compared to the Dnieper Ukrainians. It was as late as the 60s when the Ukrainian Patriarchal movement gained dominance among Ruthenian Uniates, even employing violence against the Rusyn Bishop in England.^[44] Even though the Rusyn Basilian hierarchy preserved their religious focus and loyalty to Rome, whereas the Ukrainian Patriarchal movement seemingly placed a “Soborna Ukraine” and a “Pomisna Tserkva” for her above all, the Vatican in the end seemingly favored the Ukrainophiles as the last Ruthenians began to die out.^[45] Then the Uniate Church began to be dominated by Ukrainophiles, as it is today, however historically, it was also Ruthenophile if not even Russophile during the spring of nations.

This synthesis of the Dnieper Ukraine, with its Cossack myth of national origin, and the Western-leaning culture of old Galicia is what birthed the Ukrainian national movement as we recognize it today.

Cossacks, despite being largely out of place in Galician and Carpathian vernacular culture, began to appear as part of the national identity in Galicia. Today in Galicia it’s common to see Cossack costumes and hairstyles in nationalist marches when ironically the ancestors of most Galicians fought for Poland against the Cossack independence uprisings. The following anecdotal passage is very telling of the conflict between members of the Old Ruthenian and Young National-Populist movements, which at times could be hateful and violent:

“It is said that one of the superiors at the Vienna seminary boasted that he had developed an excellent method for dealing with any Ukrainophile under his jurisdiction: he would have the offender shave his head until all he had left was his Cossack forelock, then he would grab him by this forelock and behead him with a sabre.”^[46]

A romanticization of the Cossacks and their foundational role in the Ukrainian national myth vs the emphasis on Old Ruthenia is a key difference between the movements. Both historically, as part of the Galician populist movements,^[47] and to this day, we see Cossack costumes and styles employed slightly out of place, or anachronistically, in Galicia. This is not to say there was no overlap between Cossacks and Galicia, as many Cossacks, such as the great Orthodox and heroic Hetman Petro Sahajdaczny, came from the Precarpathian and Galician regions, however, it’s the emphasis on Cossacks that distinguished the Ukrainian movement.

Ukrainophiles tended to look to the democratic and free Cossack state (the Zaporizhian Sich or Hetmanschina i.e. “The Hetman’s Land”) of the early modern period for inspiration and as the basis of their national origin, whereas the Ruthenians looked to the knightly feudal and medieval lands of the Kingdom of Galicia and Volhynia, and even the Rzeczpospolita. Simply put, the old citizens of Lwów were far more likely to have been Polish winged hussars than Zaporizhian Cossacks.

This identity is perhaps not completely organic, but a result of that relatively recent synthesis of Dnipro Ukraine and Galicia.

Drahomanov, criticizing the perceived famous short-sightedness of the Ruthenians, would quip that the Ruthenian movements imagined creating a Uniate Paraguay,^[48] that is to say, a small “nation of three million”,^[49] whereas his goal and that of the Ukrainophiles was to create a Soborna Ukraine.

Subcarpathian Rus’ however was far less enthusiastic about this project than Galicia. Drahomanov, having visited “Hungarian Rus’” in 1875 and 1876 was horrified by the lack of interest for Ukrainianism among Subcarpathian Rusyns, writing that this land was “farther separated, even from Galicia than Australia is from Europe.”^[50] Just as Galicia was more culturally conservative than Dnipro Ukraine with regards to identities, Subcarpathia under Hungary was more conservative or perhaps even primitive than Austrian Galicia.^[51]

In the end, however, recent histography and destiny would show that Galicia truly became the jewel of Ukraine’s crown, becoming not a Ruthenian Paraguay but instead a Ukrainian Piedmont.^[52]

While Ukrainian nationalism did truly come originally from Dnipro Ukraine, due to Galicia’s unique position at the crossroads of central and eastern Europe and between many ancient states and peoples, in the midst of the spring of nations, Galicia became what would be called the Ukrainian Piedmont (See Magocsi: Galicia as Ukraine’s Piedmont), the fertile seedbed from which the Ukrainian nation could grow and flourish, free from the agenda of the Russian Empire in Ukraine, which was to gather the Ruthenian lands into the Russian Empire.

As a result, though Galician and Carpathian Rus’ began as sisters, their paths have now departed as Galicia became the fountain of Ukraine, of what began in Dnipro Ukraine, though they all still remain bound by common faith, blood, and culture. For now, in modern contexts, Galicia is more related to Ukraine than to the Rusyn movement, however, ideally, Galicia and Ukraine can come to recognize Rusyns, Ruthenians, Cossacks, Poles, Belarusians, even Romanians and Russians, and all the cultures who together made her one of the most beautiful lands in the world.

Red Ruthenia

Red Ruthenia is broadly speaking the western part region of Rus’, between Galicia (the modern Lviv Oblast) and Poland. Red Ruthenia is another term that is difficult to precisely define as its borders changed throughout history. Strictly speaking, it refers to the lands of the Cherven Cities or castles, mentioned in the Primary Chronicle, as being incorporated into Kievan Rus’ by Saint Volodimer (Vladimir) the Great, who was quite possibly born in nearby and related Volhynia.[53] According to Chronicle:

В лѣт̑о [6489] иде [Володимеръ] к Лѧхомъ и заꙗ градꙑ их̑ . Перемъıшль Червенъ . и инꙑ градꙑ. єже суть и до сего дн҃е подъ Русью .^[54]

Which means:

In the year 6489 (981), [Volodimer] marched to the Ljachs (the Poles) and claimed their cities. Przemyśl, Czerwień, and other cities, which are and to this day under Rus’.

Among the Cherven Cities are principly Przemyśl, Czerwień (Cherven), Belz, Sanok, Rzeszów, Chełm, Wołyń, and several others.

Red Ruthenia should not however be seen as being only a certain number of cities, but rather, the broader region and lands between Galicia-Volyn Rus’ and Poland, which were especially contested between the Kingdoms of Rus’ and Poland. When Poland later incorporated the Kingdom of Ruthenia, these lands were divided between the Przemyśl, Belz, and Rus’ Palatinates.

Red Ruthenia is therefore not a defined historical polity, but a broad cultural region equally tied to both Galician Rus’ and Poland, and its definition has changed with changing historical borders.

The southwestern part of Red Ruthenia roughly overlaps with Lemkovyna, around Sanok (typically Lemkovyna does not extend north of Sanok), though the terms are not synonymous nor do they incorporate all of the same lands. Almost no Rusyns from Red Ruthenia called themselves Lemkos. Another area of Polish Red Ruthenia which had a significant Ruthenian population was Lesko and its county, and there are many Rusyn/Ruthenian/Carpatho-Russian immigrants in America from this area between Sanok, Lesko, and Przemyśl and this broader Beskid region.

Today Red Ruthenia is divided between the Lviv and Volyn Oblasts of Ukraine, and primarily the Subcarpathian Voivodeship of Poland, but also to a lesser degree the Lublin Voivodeship.

Parts of Red Ruthenia may be considered a part of the Carpatho-Rusyn homeland, such as the Beskid region, however, the region around Lublin has more relation to Belarus and Volhynia. Most of Red Ruthenia is not part of Carpathian Rus’ and the terms are not synonymous, though there is overlap, and due to its roots, Red Ruthenia may be considered an extension of Galician Rus’, or the region bridging Lemkovyna with Galician, Volhynian, and White Rus’.

Pannonian Rusyns in Serbia

Pannonian Rusyns are Rusyns from West Bačka in Vojvodina, a northern autonomous province of Serbia. They likely immigrated to the Serbian lands in the 18th century. On the 7^th of January 1751, the regional administrator of Bačka, Franz Joseph von Redl, signed an agreement with Mihajlo Munkači from the village of Červenovo to bring Rusyn families to the modern area of Ruski Krstur, when this entire territory was under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The name Pannonian refers to the Pannonian Basin, also called the Carpathian Basin, which as the name implies, is roughly speaking, the large and fair Danube Basin or plains between the Carpathian Mountains, nearly to the Adriatic Sea.  Essentially, the land between Subcarpathia, through Hungary, to Serbia. This territory roughly comprises all of Hungary, parts of western Romania, and Northern Serbia (Vojvodina). In the past, it was called the Hungarian Plains, much like the mountains were called the Hungarian Mountains, and Subcarpathia was called “Hungarian Rus’” because historically these territories were under the Hungarian Crown.

Pannonian Rusyns are mostly native to the Kula municipality of the West Bačka District of Voivodina, Serbia, where the center of Pannonian Rusyn culture is the village of Ruski Krstur.

There is also a minority of Pannonian Rusyns in the region of Slavonia, Croatia, which borders Vojvodina to the west.

Vojvodina is an ethnically diverse region, though the majority population has always been Serbs, it has been home to many minority communities made up of other nations from the former Dual Monarchy, such as Romanians (particularly in Banat), Hungarians, Czechs, and Slovaks, in addition to the Pannonian Rusyns.

Vojvodina currently consists of three regions, Bačka, the plains of Srem, and Banat, bordering Romania on the Danube.

The capital of the province of Vojvodina is the beautiful city of Novi Sad, which has many architectural features typical of that rustic and opulent baroque Central European style which distinguishes it. Novi Sad could be likened in many ways to Lviv and Mukachevo, in Ukraine, Timișoara or Brașov în Romania, Prešov or Košice in Slovakia, or Gorlice and Sanok in Poland, having all the beauty of Krakow, Budapest, or Vienna, which distinguishes the great cities of Carpathia and Pannonia.

It is worth noting that Vojvodina is also home to Sremski Karlovci, not far from Novi Sad, which for a time was the seat of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, led by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), of Kiev and Galicia. He was the spiritual father of many Rusyn saints like Maxim Sandovich, who was one of the champions of the Carpathian Orthodox mission. He brought with him a significant portion of the White Russian emigration and nobility, forced to flee from the godless authorities, after the Bolshevik revolution, and from here he led the Provisional Synod which became the ROCOR.

In Serbia, he ordained his spiritual son, John, a “Little Russian”, born in Ukraine near the “Holy Mountains” of Svyatogorsk, with old Rusin and Serbian ancestry. He would of course go on to be one of the greatest saints of our times, St. John (Maximovich), Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, the wonderworker. In general, Serbia was a major center of White Russian emigration.

The Carpathian Orthodox eparchies and territories in Subcarpathia and Prešov were administered and well cared for here between the Serbian Patriarchate and the ROCOR, during the inter-war period, until the godless authorities and the Red Army seized these lands from equally godless occupiers in 1945. The brotherhood of Serbs and the children of Rus’ is well known, as their fates were in many ways tied together in the great mystery of the 20th century.

Vojvodina itself can be compared as a Serbian analog to the cultural regions of Galicia in Ukraine and Poland, Transylvania in Romania, and Eastern Slovakia, each of these regions having historically Orthodox roots, a Uniate population, a centuries-long Austro-Hungarian occupation, and each lying at a certain crossroads between east and west, north and south.

The collision of two or even more worlds produces a culture that is hard to replicate.

This diversity is one of the features which makes the mysterious and ancient lands of Carpathia, Pannonia, and the Danube Basin so majestically beautiful.

Conclusion

The ideal name for the Rusyn homeland as a whole is “Carpathian Rus’” as it is all-encompassing, simple—without any of the baggage of other terms—and includes all Carpathian regions where Rusyns live.

Ethnonyms and Xenonyms

Rusyns

Now we reach our keyword. The primary name for the people to whom our literary society is dedicated is Rusyns, and this is a name with an ancient and rich history.

First, it should be said, as explained by the title of one of the great Professor Magocsi’s works, “All Carpatho-Rusyns are Rusyns, but not all Rusyns are Carpatho-Rusyns.”

We often add the geographic prefix “Carpatho-” to assist people in identifying where Rusyns come from — if it hasn’t been made abundantly clear — it’s not from nowhere!

Many prefer not to add this Carpatho– prefix to their names, and be known simply as Rusyns, because Rusyns in the homeland, in organic speech, do not call themselves Carpatho-Rusyns. While the word does appear in early Carpatho-Rusyn histories,^[55] the prefix is primarily used not internally, but for the rest of the world to understand where Rusyns come from, while they call themselves by their own local names like Rusnaks, Lemkos, Rusyns, etc.

Rusyns are from the Carpathian Mountains, but they are from a very particular part of the mountains, where this particular East Slavic Rusian people live.

The name Rusyn however, does not strictly apply only to Carpatho-Rusyns, although these people are the primary bearers of this name today. As noted, the word Rusyn is old going back to the very beginning of Rus’ itself, as one of the oldest words for a Russian or Rusian person, and inhabitant of Rus’.

The ethnonym Rusyn appears in written sources as early as the tenth century.

Docent Sergey G. Sulyak, doctoral candidate of historical sciences, and founder of the international academic journal Rusin,^[56] wrote in 2007, an article on the historical roots of Rusyns and their names.

In his article, Sulyak sites that the name Rusyn appears seven times in the Rus’–Byzantine Treaty of 911 (912),^[57] conducted between Constantinople and Oleg of Rus’, (which is considered one of the oldest Rusian texts), and six times in the treaty conducted by Igor son of Rurik in 944/945.^[58]

The name Rusyn later appears in the first Rusian codex of Laws, the Rus’ka Pravda, which was compiled by Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev, in the early eleventh century and later expounded upon throughout the centuries; Rusyn appears (in bold below) at the beginning of the codex:

Убьеть муж мужа, то мьстить брату брата, или сынови отца, любо отцю сына, или братучаду, любо сестрину сынови; аще не будеть кто мьстя, то 40 гривенъ за голову; аще будеть русинъ, любо гридинъ, любо купчина, любо ябетникъ, любо мечникъ, аще изъгои будеть, любо словенинъ, то 40 гривенъ положити за нь.^[59]

The name further appears in the first Rusian history, the Primary Chronicle of Saint Nestor of Kiev which was originally compiled around 1113 A.D., the example below, given from the Laurentian Codex, dates from 1377.^[60]

A passage from the Tale above says:

Постави Ꙗрославъ Лариѡна митрополитомь . Русина . въ ст҃ѣи Соѳьи . собравъ єпс̑пꙑ[61]

In English this is (by my translation):

“And Yaroslav installed the Rusyn (Hi)larion as Metropolitan in (the Kiev Church of) Holy Sophia, having gathered the bishops (for this).”

St. Hilarion of Kiev was the first Rusin primate and Metropolitan of Kiev, and author of one of the most famous sermons in ancient Rus’, still relevant to this day, known as the Sermon on the Law and Grace.^[62] Based on these words, St. Hilarion of Kiev is known in Russian histography as Hilarion the Rusyn (Rusin)^[63].

Despite this, it is noteworthy that the given translation into modern Russian reads: Поставил Ярослав Илариона в митрополиты, русского родом, в церкви святой Софии or in English (my translation): and Yaroslav installed Hilarion of the Russian nation^[64] as metropolitan […].

We note the original phrase “Hilarion [the] Rusin”, was rendered in translation as “Илариона…русского родом” or Hilarion of the Russian (Russkii with the double “s”) nation.

This is because Rusin/Rusyn is understood in its historical context here as meaning a person of the Rus’ nation, not as a particular name for the people we call Carpatho-Rusyns. It is translated as Russian here, because Russians, as well as Ukrainians, and other East Slavs have a shared history and decent from old Kievan Rus’, and each consider themselves successors of the old Rus’ state; as a result, in both languages and schools of histography, Rusin/Rusyn is considered an archaic name for their people. Therefore from the Russian point of view, Russian (Russkii) means “a person of Rus’”, and thus Hilarion “the Rusin”, is understood as saying Hilarion the (Ancient) Russian.

Professor Paul Robert Magocsi also notes that the Rusyns themselves have begun using this term as an endonym already by at least the 11^th century.^[65]

According to historian A. Solovyov, a graduate of the University of Warsaw, the first plural use of the word Rusyn is recorded already by 1501 A.D.,^[66] in documentation from the Belz Voivodeship in Poland, which was, of course, once part of the lands of the Rusian King Daniel of Galicia. Seeing as Belz is part of Galicia, more specifically Red Ruthenia, located in the modern-day Lviv region of Ukraine, we can see that Rusyn is again used not to mean Carpatho-Rusyn specifically, but as a general name to describe East Slavic peoples in the lands of the Polish Crown, who are often called Ruthenians in translation.

It is interesting that depending on the translator and their orientation, this same word Русинъ can be translated Rusin, Rusyn, Russian, or Ruthenian among others, and each of these words carries its own context with it, therefore it’s important to understand the original context of the word, and how it is used, and not to apply to it an anachronistic or politically charged context.

For example, the word may honestly be translated as Russian, however, this could create the impression that the person is a modern Russian, and not from ancient Rus’.

Ruthenian could imply a later period, with its connections to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the word is also slightly anachronistic, as it was especially in this era certainly not an endonym, and unlikely to have been used at all yet. While Ruthenian is valuable for carrying certain academic neutrality, and may fairly be used here, it still has its own entangled context.

Even Rusin/Rusyn, while being direct transliterations, and the most accurate choice may cause one to think the individual was a Carpatho-Rusyn, as opposed to simply meaning “a person from Rus’”. There is also the matter of orthography, while in Cyrillic there is only one form Русин(ъ), in transliteration, an issue can emerge as to whether to use the “y” or “i” spelling.

Rusyn or Rusin

The issue of whether to spell the Slavic word Русин with a “y” or “i”, is naturally one which only emerges in the English or rather Latin alphabet-based languages, therefore it is not an issue that affects East Slavs in their own languages. This is obviously not a matter which has any real relevance for ancient Rus’.

There are some arguments that one or the other spelling is preferred, due to a real or perceived semantic value, but in reality, the issue seems to come down to how “и” is transliterated. It is generally agreed upon with regards to the (Carpatho) Rusyn Language, that the и sound is best represented with a Latin “y”, and thus, Rusyn is the preferred and standardized spelling.

I have heard arguments, that “Rusyn” was an attempt of western or catholic nations to divide Rusyns from their Rus’ identity, however this position is dubious, considering that first of all, local western (and “Catholic” Slavic languages such as Polish and Slovak spell the word as Rusin (Rusiński, etc). The standard German spelling seems to also be Russinen, not only with an “i” but even with a double “s”. The Rusin spelling seems to originate from, and reflect the use in the Hungarian language, also written in a Latin-based system. This is why you find early newspapers and monuments in American have Uhro-Rusin or Rusin.

So, if anything, the Magyars, West Slavs, and Germanics seem to support the “i” spelling, and it cannot be said in any way that they imposed a “y” spelling on the Rusyns.

Finally, considering that Rusyn and all east Slavic languages are written in Cyrillic where there is only one spelling, the supposed i/y dilemma would only truly exist and be relevant for the English-speaking diaspora.

Concerning the context of the primary chronicle however, an argument may be made that generally speaking, the traditional transliteration of “и” from Church Slavonic^[67], is “i”.

Therefore, one could argue that Rusin is a better spelling in this context than Rusyn, as the language in question is not Rusyn but rather Old East Slavonic/Slavonic.

In the end, regardless of which spelling one uses, the most important thing to understand is the word Rusin/Rusyn, in this time period and for many centuries simply meant an inhabitant of Rus’.

This is an example of when Rusian may be the best word choice, as it directly suggests “of Rus’” and in a neutral way, without the baggage of the other words. This is closest to the original context of the word Rusin/Rusyn, and not what they’ve come to mean today.

It is however of paramount importance for the Rusyn cause to recognize how the context of the word has changed to mean a Carpatho-Rusyn today. To do this, we must recognize when the Carpatho-Rusyns transitioned from the grey haze of pre-literary history into golden history written in stone.

The Beginning of Carpatho-Rusyn History

History is not simply the study of anything that happened in the past, this is a major misconception; the key is how are these events studied, what is the methodology, by what sources. History as an academic discipline is primarily the study of past events through recorded history, meaning literary records and sources from the time in question, as a result, history is in many ways primarily a school and study of literature.

There is another misconception that prehistory or a prehistoric period refers to a single time in human history—a stone age of cavemen—however prehistory is simply pre-literary history, the time before these historical records and sources existed or are extant, without which we can not in a proper sense study history. We may study archeology for example, but not history proper, which is based on recorded sources.

As a result, every people have a different pre-historical and historical period, before and after written sources exist. We may speak of Greek bronze-age history; however, we cannot truly speak of bronze-age British or Slavic history or their history before the 6^th century, not because Slavs didn’t exist, or were invented, but simply because we have no historical sources from these people at that time.

History—strictly speaking as an academic discipline, as opposed to archaeology—can tell us nothing about a prehistoric people, as we cannot read history before it was recorded. Simply put, the prehistory of a people ends when their own recorded history begins.

So, to understand when Carpatho-Rusyn history begins, as opposed to general Rusin history, we must look to the earliest literary sources. To be sure, the word Rusyn appears in historical records from around the tenth and eleventh century, but as we demonstrated, this was referring to all inhabitants of the Rus’ state.

So, when do the Carpatho-Rusyn people begin to awaken their national self-consciousness, and become the distinct people we know and love today?

When do these God-loving people awake from their furtive slumber, and take their first steps out of the terra incognita from beyond the lonely Carpathian Mountains, from Prehistory into History, and claim their destiny as a people in the chronicles of the history of man?

Historia Carpatho-Ruthenorum

In 1843, Rusyn priest Michaelem Lutskay^[68] published in Košice^[69] his monumental work Historia Carpato-Ruthenorum for which he may be considered the first Carpatho-Rusyn historian. This is in many ways the beginning of Carpatho-Rusyn literary history, as it is to our knowledge, the first well-known extant history, written by and about “Carpatho-Rusyns,” with a Carpathian focus and perspective.

It is noteworthy that Lutskay also published another keystone work, the first Carpatho-Rusyn grammar in Hungarian Rus’, in Budapest in 1830, entitled: “Grammatica slavo-ruthena : seu vetero-slavicae, et actu in montibus Carpathicis parvo-Russicae, ceu dialecti vigentis lingvae.”^[70]

Once again, older Ruthenian grammars exist, such as the famous 16^th century Bukvar of Ivan Fyodorov or the 17th-century grammar of M. Smotrycki, but these were published in the Rzeczpospolita, and concern general Ruthenians, whereas in the works of Lutskay, we see a historiographic tradition develop from “beneath,” and “beyond the Carpathians”, from not just a Rusyn but a Carpatho-Rusyn perspective.

While Ancient Chronicles exist telling of the Rusyns of Kiev, Galicia, and Volhynia, this is Rusyn in a general sense. Galicians may indeed be considered the same Rusyns in previous centuries, but they have since by-in-large been Ukrainianized, and now belong to a different school of histography.

Concerning Carpatho-Rusyn history, we must here give an honorable mention to the hegumen Joannicio Basilovits (1742-1821+),^[71] who is also often considered the “first Rusyn historian”. In 1799 and 1804, Basilovits published a two-volume work on Ruthenian prince Teodoras (Fyodor/Fedir) Koriatovych, entitled “Brevis notitia fundationis Theodori Koriathovits, olim ducis de Munkacs.” Koriatovych was a keystone figure in the history of Transcarpathia, and his patronage of the holy sites and castles in the region helped preserve them to this day. Koriatovych hailed from Lithuanian Rus’, and was a powerful ruler in Podolia; he was born in the 1330s and died in 1414, and though he is considered an important leader in Carpatho-Rusyn histography and ruler in Carpathian Rus’, he is not himself a Carpatho-Rusyn, and this period is not very well documented, and there are many legends surrounding it.^[72] This is once again, also a period before the (19^th century) emergence of modern nations, nationalism, and their national historiographies. For these reasons, we may consider this a Carpatho-Rusyn protohistory. Koriatovych was nonetheless the lord of Mukachevo Palanok Castle and may be considered both a great Rusyn prince and also a connection between Carpathian Rus’ and the other Ruthenian lands.

One can mention the work of the Austrian historian Hermann J. Bidermann, “Die ungarischen Ruthenen, ihr Wohngebiet, ihr Erwerb, und ihre Geschichte” which is closer to an academic study, than Historia or Brevis which resemble more a 19th century ecclesiastical chronicle of the old Rus’ tradition.

However, Bidermann is an Austrian, and his work concerns “ungarischen Ruthenen” (Hungarian Ruthenians), who are of course, the same people as the Carpatho-Rusyns, however this does not represent a work written by Carpatho-Rusyns, on their own history, calling themselves by that name, thereby making them distinct from other Rusyns. It is not so much a Rusyn history but a history about Rusyns, but perhaps the first ethnographical study on Rusyns in the historical-academic sense.

Still, the criteria by which we judge the beginning of Carpatho-Rusyn Literary history is when they themselves produce their own history, with a degree of cultural self-consciousness and distinction from their neighbors, and using the names we know them by today.

Lutskay’s history is the first to use “Carpatho-Ruthenian” in the title, dedicated not to Rusyns in a general sense, but to Carpatho-Rusyns, and thus, represents the beginning of their literary history. There is only one distinction to be made, and that is that Historia is written in Latin, not Rusyn or Slavono-Ruthenian. So, what may be considered the start of Slavic language Rusyn history?

The Mermaid of the Dniester

As if risen from the pure springs of the Beskids to the free waters of pontos, the Mermaid of the Dniester carries with her the songs of Precarpathia.

When seeking the beginning of Rusyn Literature, we must give an honorable mention to the Rusalka Dnistrovaya (Русалка днѣстровая) or “The Mermaid of the Dniester.”

The Rusalka Dnistrovaya is a great monument of Rusyn literary history, considered the first work published in the vernacular language of Galicia and Precarpathia.

The Mermaid is a collection of songs and poems compiled and published in Budapest in 1837 by Markiyan Shashkevych, and Yakub Holovatsky, and Ivan Vahylevych, who together formed the Ruthenian Troika, possibly the three most influential ruthenian awakeners in Galicia. As a result, it predates the Historia, and unlike both Historia and Brevis, it is genuinely written in what may be considered a living, spoken language of the Rusin nation (In the text: Нарід Руский – Narid Ruski).^[73] As a matter of fact, it is unique, both among other works of the Ruthenian Troika and other early awakeners like Dukhnovych, in that it is genuinely written in the vernacular, and not the so-called iazichie or a semi-artificial literary language. The mermaid represents the beautiful flower of Galician song, awoken from the depths of a sea of enigma and into the fair and noetic light of dawn. It can be read here.

It should be noted however that the Rusalka reflects more the Galician Rusyn language or a dialect depending on one’s point of view, and does not necessarily reflect modern Carpatho-Rusyn, however in some ways, it could be argued that the language of Rusalka is closer to vernacular Carpatho-Rusyn than the poems of Dukhnovych. As Galicia has by in large now adapted the Ukrainian identity, the Mermaid may equally be considered the first work in what we would now call vernacular Galician Ukrainian, and this is acceptable, however in the interest of avoiding revisionism, we should note the word “Ukrainian” is not used to describe the people in Rusalka, and authors belonged to the Galician Russophile orientation. This author believes that Russophilia may be neutral (i.e. not mandate Moscophila) or that it’s even possible to reconcile Rusynophilia, Russophilia, and Ukrainophilia, however, we must start with honesty and avoid historical revisionism, and try to represent periods and historical figures as accurately to how they viewed themselves as possible, and not as we would want to view them.

It should also be noted here that Rusalka may be called the first vernacular Galician Ukrainian book, it is not the first “vernacular” Ukrainian book of the early modern period, a title which essentially belongs to the Eneyida of Ivan Kotlyarevsky in 1798, a work of Dnieper Ukraine published in the Russian Empire. While the beginning of vernacular Ukrainian or “Little Russian”, Literature is beyond the scope of this article, we may say that works such as Shevchenko’s Kobzar (1840) roughly date to the same era as these Carpathian and Galician works in the first half of the 19th century.

We have already noted that Ruthenian literature as a whole developed organically from the ancient Rus’ tradition and was particularly strong in Kiev and Galicia from the 16th to the 17th centuries, with numerous keystone literary monuments published in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Russian Empire. Rusalka merely represents the beginning of Galician vernacular literature in this early modern era.

Though Rusałka predates Historia, when seeking the beginning of Rusyn recorded history, as a literary monument, it belongs more to what would be considered cultural heritage than to History, unlike other examples given here, as The Mermaid is an almanac or collection of songs and folklore, and does not attempt to describe systematically or otherwise the history of the Ruthenians.

While the Mermaid is not necessarily a work of history, it is indeed a historical work, due to its monumental status as the first vernacular Galician work of its age.

The Pozdravlenie to the Rusyns of 1851 — The Rusyns Awaken from their Mountains

The priest Alexander Dukhnovych is without a doubt the man of the epoch concerning the Rusyn awakening. While people like the Ruthenian Troika, Adolf Dobryansky, and others are also keystone figures, Dukhnovych is something else, in that he literally wrote the immortal words which came to define Rusyn identity.

In 1851 he wrote his Pozravlenia to the Rusyns, and in this almanac, he wrote the poem “Вручанiе”(Vruchanie – Dedication)—the hymn of the entire Rusyn awakening, the legendary anthem “I was, am, and will be a Rusyn.”

Я Русин был, есмь, и буду,
Я родился Русином,
Честный мой род не забуду,
Останусь его сыном;

It must be noted, however, that this monumental poem is not quite written in vernacular, spoken Rusyn, but rather what we may call Slavono-Russian. Provided below is a translation of the poem into modern vernacular Rusyn:

Я Русин, быв, єм тай буду,
Я ся родив Русином,
Славный свôй род ни забуду,
Убстану ся його сыном;

Dukhnovych, like most writers of the period, wrote in a literary language that combined Church Slavonic with local vernacular (Subcarpathian and Galician) words, and the literary Russian language, which itself was heavily influenced by Church Slavonic.^[74] This language, as an attempt to create a literary high language, was called (often perjuriously) the iazychie, and it cannot be said to represent the vernacular spoken Rusyn. It can be called Slavono-Ruthenian, analogous to Slavono-Russian or the Slavono-Serbian literary tradition. Here, this author believes it is necessary to defend and explain the historical role of this literary language.

While we fully support and believe that living Rusyn, should be the first language of the Rusyns, and that in today’s time, a standardized Rusyn, like what was done in Prešov should be used to write Rusyn scientific and literary works, we feel there is an occasionally undue prejudice towards the very idea of Slavono-Russian, and an often an honest ignorance towards its historical value and context. As we look to a Rusyn future, we should not condemn the past with all its storms, and the figures, many of whom were yes—Russophiles—who paved the way to what we have today. That does not mean we are not Rusynophiles, but this is part of our history, and we should at least seek to understand the past.

In Defense of the Iazichie

Slavono-Russian sometimes called perjuriously iazichie does possess very valuable historical qualities and utilities we should not ignore. While it is not a vernacular language, we should also bear in mind it was not necessarily intended by all parties to be one, but rather it often served as a “high” language or a lingua franca, essentially a high literary language. Whether or not an archaic or artificial language should be used as the literary language, rather than a standardization of the common vernacular is a separate debate, however by in large, figures such as Dukhnovych were not claiming this was the daily language of Rusyns, and to be fair, it was also largely comprehensible to everyone with at least a rudimentary education, it was not as if they were writing in Latin to Portuguese speakers, but closer to the language of the King James Bible in relation to modern American English.

Often when attempting to debunk one common misconception, we may unintentionally go to the opposite extreme and create another.

For example, in attempting to demonstrate that iazichie does not reflect spoken Rusyn, we may imply it is a terrible contrived pidgin speech with no valuable features, and this is also equally untrue.

Though iazichie is not a good language to demonstrate the living spoken language of Rusyns today, there is one area in which it is very valuable.

Slavono-Rusian shows its true value and utility as an ecclesiastical language, a language for church sermons, spiritual literature, and cultural philosophy.

We should bear in mind that the majority of the intelligentsia in Carpathia and Galicia were clergy or from the families of clergy.

Before we criticize them anachronistically for not using the vernacular, we should be clear that the Church to this day by in large does not use the vernacular, but instead uses sacral languages such as Koine and Byzantine Greek, and Church Slavonic.

It befits the Divine to be spoken about well in a high and dignified language with reverence, and not to be trivialized in the same language as vulgar and profane matters.

This does not mean the language should be elitist and incomprehensible to the people, but at the same time, using a “kitchen language”, to discuss theology is often ineffective if not at times irreverent.

How could one discuss the incarnation of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, or the mystery of the Transfiguration in unstandardized rural speech, without using terms such as: Единородный (English: Only-Begotten; Greek: Μονογενὴς), единосущный, (Greek: ὁμοούσιον; consubstantial) пресуществление (Greek: μετουσίωσις; Latin: transsubstantiatio).

Holy Mother Church has by means of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition so dear to Rusyns given all Slavs a beautiful and dignified high sacral language—Church Slavonic, in which to approach these mysteries with the reverence they are due.

Again, this does not mean they are to be spoken about in a way incomprehensible to people—while this matter is a separate debate, it is the firm position of this author that pious Slavic speaking Orthodox Christians who have been churched we fully capable of understanding Church Slavonic, when often the primary difference is like the difference between this and the vernacular is like saying Christos Voskrese and Christos Voskres. The latter is simply a vulgar and profane renovationism.

In any case, Ruthenian Clergy often did not write in Church Slavonic, but in a Slavonified literary Russian language incorporating some elements of local dialects which could serve primarily as a tool of inter-Slavic and inter-Orthodox communication.

We should remember that Orthodox Christians confess One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, not One Holy Russian Church, Rusyn Church, or One Holy Ukrainian Church.

The word Catholic—Sobornaya—meaning gathered together, completely full, lacking in nothing, in some cases universal is a key mark of the Church.

It is not the goal of Rusyn, Ukrainian, or Russian priests to be Rusyn or Ukrainian or Russian, it is the goal to be Christian, religion should not be used as a tool to promote nationalism.

It is perfectly fine to love and support your nation and for priests to participate in these national literary movements, but this is distinct from their role as clergy.

Often when speaking to the people in spiritual contexts, it befits the clergy to speak in an ecclesiastical language.

Slavono-Russian is a very useful language especially for sermons and letters between Slavic Christians. Those who think in nationalistic terms first may argue why not the vernacular, but they are forgetting the Catholicity of the Church.

What if a priest is speaking or writing not only for Carpatho-Rusyns but also for Belarusians, for Moldovans or Romanians, or for Serbs? In what language should he speak, his local dialect which others may not understand, or should he discuss grand matters of faith and nation with the broader world in a lingua franca of the time which could be understood by more people. The primary goal of language is after all to communicate and be understood.

This is no different than Rusyn activists engaging the broader world in English rather than in Rusyn, if they can speak English as a language of international communication, why is English acceptable but another Slavic language unacceptable and contrived.

If one is arguing this language reflects the everyday spoken language of the people, this is incorrect and a separate matter, however just because it’s not vernacular does not mean it does not possess its own cultural and historical value and context.

Again, we should remember nobody in the Church at the time of Dukhnovych was using the vernacular language to communicate, services were always in Slavonic, Greek or Latin, so we should not apply these modern concepts of a vernacular language to a time when a sacral was still dominant in church matters.

We should consider the fine example of Saint Nikolai Velimirovich and his Slavono-Serbian language, which essentially fulfilled the same role within the Cyrillo-Methodian traditions.

If Dukhnovych and others had written only in the vernacular language, his works would only have largely been known to local peoples, and would never have gained the acclaim and readability they have by other Slavic nations, as to this day we are still fighting to promote Rusyn literacy.

Slavono-Russisn in some ways can be seen as a perfectly natural evolution of the Slavonic literary tradition, even if the end result itself was an artificial literary language, it still belongs to the broader tradition of Slavonic literacy.

So, while we can’t call it vernacular, we must also not look down on it as contrived when much of its common Slavonic lexicon may even be far older than the spoken languages of Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Rusyn today. Even if it appeared to take “Russian words” it is often the case that the Russian language itself was standardized and elevated by the use of Slavonic and Ruthenian texts, and these “Russian” words are in fact common and universal Slavonic words.

Dukhnovych and others simply elevated the Rusyn word from the local and regional to the Catholic (Sobornii) and Universal world. Now that the Rusyn people have survived the storms, we now may promote spoken vernacular Rusyn on that world stage, but we should respect what came before.

Regardless of its language, the symbolic value of Dukhnovych’s to Rusyn literature cannot be overstated. It may very well be considered the beginning of Rusyn literary tradition, not because the language used is particularly close to vernacular Rusyn, but for its symbolic value alone.

Ya Rusyn Byl’, in the most literal and straightforward way, openly declares to the world that Rusyns are Rusyns, they always were, and always will be. It goes on to emphasize this and the connection with the Carpathians (mentioning the Beskids of Poland) and contains the piety of the Cyrillo-Methodian Traditions.

It can be considered as beginning Rusyn Literary History in that it’s a work of Rusyn Literature that begins by literally declaring one’s Rusyness. What could be more Rusyn? As a result, we may conclude that regardless of whichever of these works we consider the beginning of Rusyn literature, Rusyn literary history begins in the 19^th century, along with many others, around the spring of nations.

To be clear, when we say Rusyn history begins with these 19th-century works, this does not mean that Carpatho-Rusyns only existed from, or were invented in the 1800s! They existed ages before, there are just little extant documents to study recorded, literary history, but this does not mean the people were not there. The monumental and immortal words of Dukhnovych merely represent the symbolic cultural and literary milestone when the Carpatho-Rusyns first begin affirming themselves as Rusyns.

The anthem and prayer make absolute their resolve, that having had withstood the shock and storms of Mongolia, of Austria, of Hungary, and the world, they were, are, and will always be Rusyns.

As an Orthodox Christian could say:

All the nations have surrounded them, surrounding them and encompassing them about, but in the name of the Lord they have overcame them, and this little Carpathian rock of faith, though she was smaller than a mustard seed, has risen taller than a mountain, and become the cornerstone of a resurrected people. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

It must be emphasized again, that if we accept the 1851 Pozravlenia of Dukhnovych as the beginning of Carpatho-Rusyn national-literary history, this does not mean they did not exist centuries before. It is the same as we know Slavs existed long before the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius, however without written sources, we cannot study their history, but there are other archeological and linguistic means of learning about prehistoric people, such as attempting to learn from remains and foreign sources, or academic reconstruction of language and culture.

Carpatho-Rusyns also have every right to claim the earlier Pan-Rusian histories, such as the medieval Primary Chronicle, as the start of their literary history. the Pozravlenia may merely represent the start of a distinct Carpatho-Rusyn literary tradition, but the legacy of Old Rus’ shall always belong to Rusyns by birthright.

Who may claim Rus’?

The Legacy of Rus’, is highly contested; not only who may claim it, but what it means and entails to be a part of Rus’, is highly debated among East Slavs.

The issue does not so much pertain to Rusyns, as it does to the larger East Slavic nations.

Rusynophilia is not hostile to other East Slavs — Rusyns just want to be Rusyn

Rusyns were practically Carpathian Lambs compared to the violent and often vitriolic nationalist movements we see surrounding them. Whereas Rusyns have never been chauvinistic towards Ukrainians, Russians, and other neighbors, they are not always mutually treated so equitably.

Rusyns for example, have never denied Ukrainians or Russians their identity, they were never collectively against either people, whereas particularly Ukrainian and Russian nationalists may be quite hostile, chauvinistic, or imperialistic towards each other.

Ukrainian nationalists for example, often perceive Rusyn identity or even Rusyn nationalism as some kind of threat to them, as separatism of aggression, when it couldn’t be farther than the truth! Rusyn identity is by in large, with relation to Ukrainians, defensive, not attacking but simply defending its place. Rusyns do not wish to harm Ukrainians, and most have no desire to take part in some conflict between a Russian or Ukrainian world, Rusyns merely ask for their basic God-given human right — the right to exist.

So, the fact is, Rusyns are not the ones denying anyone’s nationality or claims to Rus’, and for that matter, nobody—at least among Russians and Ukrainians—are particularly denying Rusyn claims to Rus’, if anything they emphasize their Rus’ heritage and ignore the significant Vlach or White Croat aspect, which makes them distinct from all other Rus’ peoples. In any case, Rusyns are not causing internecine strife over the legacy of Rus’.

We know that by the 14th century, there were effectively two poles, two worlds which Rus’ was divided to, the South-West and the North-East, and a conflict or disparity would emerge between the two of them in nearly all spheres, political, theological, philosophical and cultural.

The two primary polities which these lands evolved into are the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and here is where we see the conflict over succession to Rus’ most heated—by in large between Russian and Ukrainian histographies and nationalists.

The primary argument is simple: who is the successor of Rus’, and what does it mean to be part of Rus’.

The primary stumbling block here is the false issue of subordination and the role of the nation-state.

That is to say, people assume that if they belong to Rus’, they must be subordinated to the ruling polity and state of Rus’.

Therefore, many Ukrainians do not wish to be part of a “Russian World” in as much as this could be understood by both sides to mean subordination to Russia, to Moscow.

Ukrainians may emphasize their claim to be the successor of Kievan Rus’ as meaning that Ukraine is the mother of the world of Rus’. Likewise, they may apply this to Rusyns, saying: “You are Rusyns, Rusyn is an old word for Rus’, this land is now Ukraine, so you are Ukrainians.”

For this reason, many young Rusyn activists want to distance themselves from association with Kievan Rus’ and the broader Rus’ world—with other East Slavs—to avoid this pitfall of subordination.

The issue here however is a false understanding that subordination is necessary. The fact is—one can be a member of Rus’ and at the same time a separate east Slavic people, requiring no subordination to another Rus’ nation-state or polity.

In other words, Ukrainians may be part of a Rus’ world without having anything to do with Russia one way or the other, not in spite of Russia, or pro-Russia, but simply regardless of Russia. They may be Rus’ simply because they are Rus’.

Likewise, Rusnaks in Poland or Slovakia, for example, even though they live in another state, have every right claim to be a part of Rus’, without requiring any subordination to either Russia or Ukraine. They are Rus’ by virtue of their own blood-right and require no subordination to another state to substantiate that right.

Rus’ Soborna

There is a guiding principle, an idea in Orthodox and Rusian philosophical thought, that all individual members of Rus’, are in and of themselves, the fullness of Rus’ requiring no subordination to another to be Rus’.

The idea is that each member of Rus’, whether Carpathian, Galician, Moscovian, Lithuanian, or Siberian, carries within themselves the essential aspects of Rusness (руськость / ruskost’) in its universal fullness, lacking in absolutely nothing and that they are at the same time both one member of Rus’ (meaning there may be more members), and the fullness of Rus’ in and of themselves.

Therefore, any member of Rus’ is ipso facto Rus’, simply by being themselves, requiring no political union or subordination to a larger gathering of Rus’. Rus’ would be understood—by Orthodox Christians who ascribe to this idea—as being one spiritually and culturally, while they may be politically or even ethnically divided into separate nations. This is why early Orthodox settlement in America has even be called American Rus’.

This concept is called Rus’ Soborna, and is an incredibly important concept to study and understand, perhaps second only to the idea of Holy Rus’, in order to understand the spiritual concepts of Rusian identity. The word Soborna(ya) literally means Catholic, and is related to the way Orthodox Christians understand Catholicity, i.e. the way administratively separated churches, even divided into national churches, are all considered one single church.

This concept must be explored further in another work. Suffice to say, this is the way Orthodox Christians understand the place of the Russian Church, not as the Church of Moscow or the Russian Federation, but the Church of Rus’.

In any case, this idea is not broadly spread among modern young Rusyns, nor is it presented here to imply they must accept it.

Rather, it is presented both as a potential model for reconciliation, and to emphasize why neighboring nations should not “claim” Rusyns against their will—even if they would “claim” them as a member of Rus’, being a member of Rus’ does not have to mean any subordination to another East Slavic nation.

This is a very important perspective to bear in mind, with regards to the relations between Rusyns and other East Slavs.

The necessity of a distinct Rusyn identity

To be fair, we should also discuss why many in the Rusyn community are not particularly enthusiastic about being associated with other East Slavs, i.e. speaking about them as “part of Rus’”.

The fact of the matter is that we can all agree, the primary goal of Rusyn cultural movements, of what we may call Rusynophilia, is to promote Rusyn culture and identity as unique, distinct, and absolute.

We can understand that when dealing with a minority culture and language, particularly one which has a long history of being absorbed, assimilated, or classified as belonging to another nation, there is now a desire to assert its uniqueness.

In the last, we may argue that it was neither a necessity for survival or potentially beneficial to associate with another nation. Simply put the idea of minority rights and tolerance did not exist 300 years ago, or really as recently as the early 20th century. It is reasonable that Rusyns felt the need to look to stronger East Slavic nations in those times, however, those times are past. Now is the time to assert the Rusyn identity.

Modern Rusyn activism is not focusing on what makes Rusyns similar to other East Slavs (though we can’t deny these things), but understandably, the focus must be on what makes Rusyns different, what makes them unique.

This is what we must show the world if we want Rusyns to be fully recognized and understood, and archaic ideas which blur the lines of Rusyn identity are discouraged.

This doesn’t mean that what we discussed above, a general claim to Rus’ must deny Rusyn identity, not at all, however a certain understanding or interpretation of that could imply that Rusyns are just a member of the single Rus’ people from the Carpathian Mountains, therefore no different in any significant cultural way to Russians from Uzbekistan, and this neither true nor the goal of the Rusyn movement.

We are not trying to focus on Carpatho-Ruthenians, or Carpatho-Russians, but simply The Rusyns. As Rusyns are the only modern people to keep this name, we will know this movement is successful when finally, we may say “Rusyn”, and people around the world will not think, “Oh is that like a Russian or Ukrainian”, but when we need only say Rusyn, and not even Carpatho-Rusyn, but simply Rusyn, and this name and their land would be just as recognizable as Czechs, Assyrians, Cypriots, or any other small nation in the world.

For this reason, it is not so much the Rusyn claim to Rus’ which is contested, but rather the idea that being a member of Rus’, entails subordination or simply being mixed up as just one peculiar word for “Rus’ people”, and not as Rusyns—a distinct people.

Rus’ as a common Ecumene — Not a Nation-State

It is best if we understand that this Rus’ is the ancestor of the modern East Slavs, who are both equally descended from, related to, and removed from that old Rus’ state, therefore no one can claim to be Rus’ itself, and subordinate the others to itself as sub-ethnoi. If anything, all the East Slavs—Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Carpatho-Rusyns—could be considered sub-ethnoi of a general Rus’ family, however that Rus’ would not be embodied by the Russian Federation or any other state.

What we should understand about old Rus’, and these early uses of the name Rusyn, is at that time, there were no nationalistic differences between Rus’ peoples. We may speak of tribal differences, and the paramount role of the local region, however there were no great distinguishments made at that time, on a nationalistic basis, as we understand it today. It stands to reason that these differences only emerged after the age of nationalism, as anthropologist Ernest Gellner said:

“It is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way around.”

So, we can see, while Rusyn was indeed used at one point for all inhabitants of Rus’, based on our maxim that language and its context evolves, today, the word Rusyn is primarily used to describe Carpatho-Rusyns.

Rusyn is not simply or rather exclusively an archaic word for Ukrainian — rather (and I say this as a Ukrainophilic person) — Ukrainian is a relatively new word for people who used to call themselves Rusyns! However, the Carpatho-Rusyn people wish to preserve the name Rus’ and most importantly Rusyn.

We will not argue over the origin of the ethnonym Ukrainian, however suffice to say it is far younger than Rusyn, and most likely emerged as late as the 19^th century, ironically, due in no small part to ethnographic research and revival conducted in the Russian Empire from the late 18^th century.^[75] If Ukrainians wish to reject Rus’ as the primary name for their country, they cannot also claim to be in the same breath “more Rusian than the Russians”, so to speak, and that a people called “Russian” have no relation whatsoever to Rus’, when ancient Rus’ cities far from being Ukrainian, such as Novgorod the Great, are also located in Russia.

Rus’ is best understood as a shared identity between all East Slavs, though the term Ukraine-Rus’ of Mykhailo Hrushevsky may help us to emphasize Ukraine’s ties with Rus’, it is best if the Rus’ peoples don’t fight over who is more Rusian, and simply be themselves.

In other words, if you want to be Rus’, be Rus’, if you wish to be separate, be separate, but if you are a part of Rus’, you shouldn’t have to do anything more than be yourself to be Rus’, and any implication that to be a “true Rusian”, you must be subordinated to a particular polity is just that—a political ploy, and nothing more.

It should be understood therefore that while all Carpatho-Rusyns are Rusyns, but not all Rusyns are Carpatho-Rusyns, the Carpatho-Rusyn people have made their firm conviction known to the world, that they were, are, and will always be Rusyns. Glory to Jesus Christ, may they always preserve their right to their name.

Conclusion

A summary of the history and context of the ethnonym Rusyn is as follows:

• Rusyn appears in the earliest Rus’ texts, such as the Rus’-Byzantine Treaties, Russka Pravda, and the Primary Chronicle, among others, beginning from around 911 A.D.
• In earliest time and for centuries, Rusyn was understood as simply meaning a person from Rus’.
• Slowly, while retaining the above meaning in theory, Rusyn began to develop a context as referring to the East Slavic inhabitants of South-Western Rus’.
• By the eleventh century, Professor Magocsi notes Carpatho-Rusyns in particular began using this name.
• In 1501, the first plural form of Rusyn is recorded.^[76]
• Eventually, the name Ruthenian would be applied to these people in the Rzeczpospolita and Austro-Hungarian Empire, primarily as a xenonym, while the people continued to call themselves Rusyns or closely related variants, such as Rusnaks among Carpatho-Rusyns.
• In the Russian Empire, names such as Ruthenian/Rusyn began to be phased out in favor of terms such as Malorossianin, Maloros, Russkii (with the double s) in the Ukraine.
  • It is also in Russian Dnipro Ukraine where the first Ukrainian movements begin, which would later exert influence on then-Russophile and Rusyn Galicia.
• After 1848 and the spring of nations, the national revival movement begins among Carpathian and Galician Rusyns.
• In 1851, the national awakener of the Rusyns Alexander Dukhnovych wrote the immortal words, “I was, am, and will be a Rusyn.”, in his Pozdravlenia. This may be considered to mark the beginning of Rusyn national-literary tradition and a historical source written by a Carpatho-Rusyn.
• The Russophile faction becomes dominant among the intelligentsia of the region. Some Russophiles advocate that Rusyns are simply the western branch of the Great Russian nation, and advocate names such as Russkii and Karpato-Rossy.
• National-Populists or Ukrainophile. The National-Populists or Ukrainophiles, as the name suggested, were the (primarily Galician and Precarpathian Rusyns), who with the help of the Ukrainophile movement in the Russian Empire, would come to consider Rusyns to be part of the Ukrainian nation. Though younger and initially far weaker in society than the Old and New Ruthenians who were entrenched in their institutional and clerical positions, the Ukrainophiles outmaneuvered them essentially through more successful propagation of their position especially among the peasants, by creating educational societies, and for lack of a better term, through what we could call better PR today. They were also greatly supported later on by the agendas of neighboring powers, who wanted a way to divide or insulate the national self-consciousness of Galicians from neighboring peoples in the Russian Empire.
• Initially, Austrian authorities even supported the Ruthenian movements as a counterbalance to other nationalisms in the region, like that of the Poles, (inventing the Ruysns). As tensions would begin to rise in Europe close to the breakout of WW1, for fear that Russophilia and the mass conversions to Orthodoxy which began in the diaspora (the movement of St. Alexis Toth, which already began to influence the homeland) would lead to Rusyns siding with their fellow East Slavs in the Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian authorities would begin to persecute the Orthodox and Russphiles and firmly shift support to the growing Ukrainophiles. Consider the martyrdom of St. Maxim Sandovich and the Marmarosh-Sigot trials^[77]. With the start of WW1, the authorities became violently hostile to the Rusynophiles and Russophiles.
• Between 1914 and 1917, the Rusyns became victims of the first concentration camp and essentially state-sponsored genocide in the modern era during the Talerhof Tragedy. U.S. Congressman Medill McCormick reported that prisoners were beaten and tortured^[78], eyewitness accounts are horrifying. This began a series of tragedies and brutal repressions against Rusyns in the 20^th century, as Rusyns were forced to Ukrainianize and made to forget their national identity or be suppressed. The fact that this unprecedented genocide is not discussed more is a direct result of the lack of well-organized Rusyn institutions.
• On the 1921 Polish census, nearly four million Rusyns are listed. Ukrainian is not a category yet on the census. By the 1931 census, however, Ukrainian is introduced and the tide has turned, now there are around three million new Ukrainians, and the Rusyns have dwindled to around one million. Around this time, the inter-war period and especially by WW2, Ukrainian nationalism is at its height, and the Ukrainian identity begins to replace the Rusyn one, which in Ukrainian histography is understood as an archaic word for Ukrainian.
• Between 1920-1921, the state (more accurately autonomous region) of Subcarpathian Rus’ is created under the protection of (and as part of) Czechoslovakia. This was perhaps the closest Rusyns ever came to forming a state. Subcarpathian Rus’ was first led by a Rusyn American, and Rusyn culture had a chance to flourish in Czechoslovakia in the inter-war period. Sadly, this ideal was never achieved; in 1938, Carpatho-Ukraine was formed, the idea is put forward among Ukrainophiles of a so-called “Soborna Ukraine”, from the San or Tysa to the Caucuses.
• Thanks to the work and martyrdom of 20^th century Rusyn Saints, The Orthodox Church was resurrected at the diocesan level, and is placed under the care of the Serbian Orthodox Church, with which Carpathia has historic roots, and the ROCOR, led in Serbia by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Galicia, himself descended from Polish-Ruthenian Szlachta who became Russified. Met. Anthony championed the Rusyn Orthodox cause and mentored Rusyn saints such as Alexis (Kabaliuk) and Maxim Sandovich. After WW2, in the words of Churchill, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.” Rusyns, sadly, would find themselves imprisoned behind that curtain.
• In 1947, the communist, totalitarian authorities conducted Akcja Wisła, the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Rusyns from Lemkovyna and Ukrainians from other regions of Poland to the Recovered Territories (far from the Rusyn/Lemko homeland). This effectively decimated Rusyn culture especially in Poland, as the Rusyns were removed from their homeland and scattered, entire village ecosystems and cultural regions simply ceased to exist.
• After Akcja Wisła, Rusyn identity was effectively suppressed behind the shadow of the iron curtain, “with their backs to the mountains”, until the fall of the godless authorities. A glimmer of home could be found in the name Transcarpathia itself, meaning “Beyond the Carpathians”, no matter where in the world Rusyns find themselves, they would always be somewhere beyond the lonely Carpathian Mountains, and with the memory of the homeland in their hearts, even “if tears were not enough”, just as the Israelites wept when they remembered Zion, where God would later return, so too could Rusyns return to their holy mountains when the communist authorities fall. And fall they did…
• With the fall of the godless authorities in the late 80s, and after 1991, Orthodox Christianity and freedom finally returned to these long-suffering lands. There was a great revival of the Orthodox Church, and also of Rusyn culture. Ukrainian nationalism would also be revived in Galicia and Ukraine, where unfortunately, despite Rusyns being friendly to their Ukrainian siblings, their identity was seen as being a separatist element. Despite being Rusyn in recent memory, Galicia essentially became completely Ukrainianized, and Galician-Rusyn identity evolved into, or was replaced by Ukrainian. Rusyns would fair better in other lands. Already by the 80s young Rusyns began to unite especially in Slovakia and Poland.
• Carpatho-Rusyns are by now, in the twenty-first century, only people to keep using the name Rusyn, which has now evolved to refer primarily to them in modern contexts. In Slovakia and Poland, and other nearby lands, Rusyns would be recognized officially as nation. In Slovakia especially they faired very well, having both a theological faculty and linguistics department in the University of Prešov. Dissertations have been written and defended in Rusyn. This is a major milestone, especially with regards to Rusyn Literary History. North American Rusyns finally can also reconnect with homeland!
• Now we stand at the precedent looking back and forward on the life of the Rusyn people. On July, 27 / August 8, 1866, Rusyn Priest Ivan Naumovych wrote his famous “Glimpse into the Future”. Now we, in July of 2021, over a century later may take our own glimpse into the future. Rusyns indeed have many issues facing them, but prospects for the long-term future in the homeland may indeed be bright. If Rusyns focus on forming and strengthening themselves at the institutional level, and consolidating as a recognized minority nation in Europe. We will know we have prevailed when identifying as Rusyn, speaking and writing a book in Rusyn is no longer seen as a fascinating novelty, or display of Carpathian folklore, or something connected to the “Russian world”, but when it becomes as normal, recognized, and accepted as someone identifying as Moldovan or speaking Lithuanian. Once the name Rusyn no longer is seen as an archaic relic or another word for Russian, but this name instantly makes people think of the East Slavs of the Carpathian Mountains, then the Rusyns have finally cemented their place in the historic memory of man as a living nation. Then they may say, as aforetime did Dukhnovych, “I was, am, and will be a Rusyn, I was born a Rusyn,” and God will have finally granted the Rusyns to see “a better age.”

Conclusion: Rusyn is most obviously the best and preferred word for the people, though Carpatho-Rusyn can and should be used when a geographical description is helpful, or for differentiating this specific East Slavic people from other Rus’ peoples who may also be called Rusyns.

On Identity—National vs. Regional

As we examine national names and identities, we should take a moment to understand that ultimately, the modern, 19th-century concept of nationalism and the nation-states it produced, are relatively new phenomena. For most of human history, people identified primarily in tribal, then in cultural, regional, or religious terms, rather than national ones. This was especially true for the over-millennia-long reign of the Roman Empire, particularly after the adoption of Orthodox Christianity as its state religion. The Empire was a multi-ethnic single ecumene. All peoples within its borders, regardless of ethnicity, were seen as being united by the common faith and their Roman identity, which was an imperial identity that superseded and united all the ethnoi within the ecumene.

In this sense, it was not national, but transnational, supernational, or in a Greek sense, metanational. In a way, this Roman identity and Imperial State could be seen as being more advanced or enlightened than later feudal Europe, and its future nationalistic model, which may be seen as a regression of human progress closer to tribalism—another example that antiquity was not necessarily more primitive than later periods. This concept had a very strong influence in Eastern Orthodox Europe, and affected the national thoughts of many nations. For better or worse, for a long time, much of this region of Europe was under the rule of multi-national empires, including the Rusyn homeland, and this may be said to have an effect on the way people thought historically.

Due to these circumstances, we would argue that for much of history prior to the 20^th century, peoples, including Rusyns, primarily identified either in tribal—that is to say familial identities, a connected family of families—religious, or regional contexts. It was the cultural region that dominated before the birth of nationalism.

Rusyns would hear people speaking “their” language, who believe in “their” faith, who come from “their” villages, and thus, they are “our people”, in their eyes. Classical identities were not based on genetics or DNA, before humans knew what these things were, they were based on the kinship (rod) of a people (narod)^[79] who shared the same cultural region, a shared ecumene. The Slavic narod, while often translated as nation, has a deeper meaning[80] than “natsia”, which has a cold and political implication.

We can not apply modern concepts of nationalism to faith or ancient polities such as the Byzantine Empire or medieval Carpathian Rus’.

Modern people, after the birth of nationalism and spring of nations it produced, either because they believe ideologically that the nation-state is the ideal form of human civilization and that it constitutes an existential reality, or because the modern world is dominated by them, can’t help but look at everything in national terms.

And it’s ok to believe in the modern nation-state model, so long as we understand that nations, or the nation-state, for the most part as we understand it today—these nationalistic entities with strictly defined borders, flags and national anthems, and strong or even absolute divisions between nations—is a relatively new, modern concept. As a matter of fact, it’s a very German concept, a result of the transformation of the ambition of German statesmen to transform what was then a series of ancient regional duchies and culturally diverse territories into a homogenous, monolithic nation-state.

This idea of a homogenous, monolithic nation, as separate on a substantial level from others, is a modern invention! It cannot be accurately applied to classical people who did not think in nationalistic terms, it is at best an anachronism and at worst revisionism. This is particularly damaging when religion and radical nationalism are mixed together, as we have seen in the religious conflicts in Carpathia and Galicia.

One of the best arguments I have ever seen for why we must avoid the pitfall of applying nationalist thinking to pre-nationalists times and religion comes from an ironically serendipitous source, Dr. John-Paul Himka’s study of “Carpathian Iconography”.

In his study of iconography (a tradition which comes from ancient times, before nationalism), in Carpathian Rus’, Professor Himka avoids this pitfall by not calling the icons in his study “Ukrainian Icons”, “Rusyn Icons”, or “Russian Icons”, but rather “Carpathian Icons”, empathizing the regional aspect which was predominant in the time, as Orthodoxy classically defines her territories in regional-canonical territories, and not nationalistic ones.

Informed by Gellner’s theory of nationalism, Himka writes:

I have reservations about the way modern nations appropriate past cultural artifacts, but there is no question in my mind that, although there may be exceptions, these icons were produced by and for people whose descendants consider themselves to be Ukrainian or Rusyn. But I am trying to avoid an intellectual pitfall by insisting on the regional character of these icons instead of the national. When they were produced, the local was important, and it is the local that determines much about them. Their incorporation later into a particular projection of a national cultural past is misleading when we are trying to set the context for their emergence and development.^[81]

Himka begins his work with a very sobering observation. That the 19th-century nationalist philosophers, rather than preserving traditional local culture, in their goals to form a monolithic nation-state or high culture, were actually “replacing” it, or I would even say, contriving an imagined nation (natsia;—for example Carpatho-Ukraine or Karpato-Rossy) at the expense of and over the ruins of the real, traditional, and local culture of the people (narod;—the Rusnaks).

Take for example, when Ukrainian or Russian nationalists rename Rusyns and their cultural works, like if they say Hutsuls are “Ukrainian Highlanders”, or if they call Rusyn things “Carpatho-Rusyn”. They may, (and most often do seem to) genuinely believe that they are simply restoring the “low culture” or regional culture of Rusyns to the broader Ukrainian-Rus’ world, but they are in fact simply appropriating the distinct culture of a fully independent people (Rusyns) and subordinating it to themselves. They are applying nationalistic revisionism to pre-nationalist Rus’, using Rus’ heritage, as if it exclusively belongs to them, as a tool for state-building and national mythology, rather than letting the local culture develop on its own path organically. Old Rus’ was a narod, but not a natsia in the modern Germanic sense of the word, the Slavic concept of the rod is linked much more to the local “kinship community,” to the local native land, and is a concept far more ancient than the modern nation, which cannot be applied to classical peoples.

Old Rus’ was a narod, a cultural ecumene ruled by a feudal polity, and to claim that due to their relation to Rus’, Rusyns must be part of other East Slavic nations is to apply a modern concept that hadn’t exist in old Rus’.

Himka explains how he came to his conclusion of the importance of the local and regional context early on in his work, quoting Gellner who said:

“Generally speaking, nationalist ideology suffers from pervasive false consciousness. Its myths invert reality: it claims to defend folk culture while in fact, it is forging a high culture … It preaches and defends continuity, but owes everything to a decisive and unutterably profound break in human history. It preaches and defends cultural diversity, when in fact it imposes homogeneity … Its self-image and its true nature are inversely related, with an ironic neatness seldom equaled even by other successful ideologies.”^[82]

This author believes Himka’s observations are truly latchkey in understanding issues of nation and identity among many peoples, especially in the Carpathian region, more so if we consider Likhachov’s observation as to how Rusian peoples may interpret their own histories so differently.

It is often said, especially in Orthodox tradition, that if you went to old Rus’ and asked someone not simply who they were, but what they were, they may simply say “I’m an Orthodox Christian”, if pressed further, they may look at you puzzled and perhaps give you their occupation and the name of their village or locality, and only in the end, would they perhaps say that they are of the Rusian narod (nation/kinship).

We should remember this regional and local context when studying the history of Rusyns before the birth of nationalism. Rusyns have the right to adopt whichever national identity they choose, but it should never be imposed on them, it should be organic and natural, or at least a matter of self-determination.

Rusyns did not, in their natural homeland, say they were Carpatho-Russian, they did not say they were Carpatho-Ukrainians, they did not call themselves Ruthenians (Ruteny). They did not even say they were Carpatho-Rusyns, what would the need be, nobody in Carpathian Rus’, sitting atop his mountain meadow, needs to call himself a Carpathian Rusyn just to remind himself where he lives. What people would need to remind themselves where they live?

There is often this pernicious myth that Rusyns did not understand who they were, and thus, this is often justified as an excuse to simply assimilate them to a nearby nation as some peculiar highland tribe. But this is not the case!

Rusyns never had an issue intrinsically and internally understanding who they are, they could always recognize other Rusyns. They had no need to call themselves “Carpathian” precisely because they always had a very strong and highly developed local, regional, religious, and cultural identity.

Their only issue was precisely that they didn’t have a very developed nationalistic one historically, so it became difficult for them to explain who they were exactly to outsiders, to other nations. This in a sense could prove that Rusyns don’t belong to other nations, because whereas they naturally and organically understand who they were amongst each other, it’s only when among foreign nations, outside their shires, that they have had difficulty explaining who they were.

Rusyns didn’t need grand national pretensions or ideologies to be themselves. They called themselves simply Rusnaks. And they understood themselves, their home, and others in terms of close, familiar, kinship-related (narodny)^[83] terms.

It is the local culture of Carpathian Rus’ which Rusyns know best. A Rusyn recognizes the Rusyn language, even if it comes in the forms of a plethora of regional dialects, not by cold academic terms, but simply that it’s “our speech” (наша бісїда / nasha bisida) and he knows another Rusyn, speaking “in our way” (po-nashômu), simply because he is one of Our People. And Rusyns have always, and will always know their own. They did not need other people to tell them who they are—they never needed this.

Our People—now that’s who Rusyns are.

Other Names for “Our People”

Our People (Rusyn: Наши Люди – Nashi Lyudi) is one of the sweetest names Rusyns have called themselves. The idea of “Our People”, comes from the reality that most Rusyns in bygone times, being simple montane pastoral folk, and not having access to historical literature or possessing a developed national consciousness, were unable to describe in ethno-nationalistic terms who they were, especially in relation to other similar peoples. To be sure they knew and understood the differences, but they did not have the national terminology to articulate it, therefore they understood Rusyn identity in the context of what was “ours”.

Rusyn language was often called Our Language “наш язик / наша бісїда” (nash iazyk /  nasha bisyida). And “to speak Rusyn” was often called “to speak our way”, or «говорити (але) бісїдовати по нашому»  (hovoriti (or bisiduvati) po nashomu).

The essence of “Our People” is the regional vernacular culture, and when dealing with these issues, we should never forget the paramount role of the Carpathian region, rather than nationalism, for Rusyn identity, as essentially all modern nationalistic identities are a fairly new concept, emerging in the 19th century.

Professor Himka notes this was the reason he chooses to describe local religious icons in one of his books as “Carpathian icons”, rather than Rusyn, Ruthenian, Galician or Ukrainian icons, to emphasize the prevailing role or the region and the local culture, over a potentially artificially imposed “high culture”.^[84]

The reality is these same peoples and objects could be identified as any of those terms, and by many different names, however, for most of human history, the natural point of reference was the local culture, and not nationalistic identities which are largely artificial constructs. For Rusyns historically, it was the native cultural region, what we may call the “mother” culture or материньска култура (materinska kultura)^[85], and the feeling that something was “Ours” which determined if it was what we today call Carpatho-Rusyn.

Rusyns historically had a very developed and strong religious, cultural-folkloric, and regional identity—it is wrong to say Rusyns did not know who they were, they very well knew—they simply had a very underdeveloped nationalistic identity, as nationalism and nationalistic identities emerged relatively recently in human history, and are arguably artificial constructs.

It may sound strange to say that “Our People” is one of the sweetest or most endearing names Rusyns have called themselves, but the fact is, especially in the immigration, Rusyns have often called themselves far worse things, for example, the infamous “Slavish people”, which they sometimes described themselves as, illustrating the identity crisis.

Hieromonk and professor Constantin (Simon) Ph.D., describes to us in his seminal dissertation, the various convoluted names Rusyns were identified as in immigration records:

Upon their arrival, almost none of the early immigrants from Galicia or Transcarpathia were able to reply to the immigrant official’s inquires…The best reply that these early immigrants…could offer was Rusyn or Rusnak…These terms could hardly have helped the immigration official, whose job it was to place all immigrants in a national identity category. Thus, many of those immigrants ultimately represented themselves as members of the neighboring nationalities — the Poles or the Russians. Others gave the state from which they came; thus, they became Austrians or Hungarians in the immigration records. Still, others gave their religious membership as a means of their identification: they consequently were referred to as Greeks or Greek Catholics. Obviously, the American immigration records are confusing and hardly a reliable source.^[86] “Toungless or Bez Jazyka” was the title of a humorous novella by the Russian populists V.G. Korolenko. The fictional adventures of Korolenko’s peasants from the South-West of the Russian Empire lost in America without knowing a word of English could serve as a parallel to the everyday reality of the first experiences of the newly found community of “American Rus’”^[87]

It is important to remember the obscure, transitory, and under-developed national identity Rusyns often had, can be juxtaposed to their very strong local village culture, and religious identity, which was much stronger than in western societies, as we examine other names for Rusyns.

Rusnak / Rusnjak

These names are simply common vernacular words for Carpatho-Rusyns, used by the people interchangeably with Rusyn, and having the same meaning. While Ruskii may be the more historical literary term for the Rusyn language, Rusnatckii may indeed be a very common vernacular word for it, before Rusynskii emerged or became more standardized.

Lemko

Lemko is a word for the Rusyn people native to Lemkovyna in Poland. It derives from the common word lem (лeм) meaning “only”. It is worth noting that Lemkos also referred to themselves primarily as Rusnaks or Rusini historically, and Lemko emerged relatively late and is not in fact as universal and historic as those other names. The word can and should be used for the people of Lemkovyna, but we should not succumb to tribalism, and divide Lemkos from other Rusyns.

Verhovinci or Highlanders

This is a non-specific word used for any Highlander. It may also refer to those inhabitants specifically of the mountain ridge in Transcarpathia, to distinguish them from the dolinyani or valley dwellers below in the oblast.

Conclusion: While the term may be used in those general contexts, or in common speech, it should not be applied to all Rusyns as a national term, as this in fact denies their peoplehood and makes them as if they’re just colorful Ukrainian mountain folk.

On Hutsuls, Boikos, and Mazurs

There are countless debates about these peoples or tribes, which are beyond the scope of this article. The Hutsuls of Pokuttya especially have been mythologized very extensively by Ukrainian historians as these stereotypical Carpathian Highlanders, the debates concerning boiki and mazurs are no less obscure yet strangely controversial. This author thinks it best to avoid the whole debate and operate based on a very simple principle: seeing as all inhabitants of South-Western Rus’ were once called Rusyns, if someone is from the Carpathian region and wishes to identify as Rusyn, they’re Rusyns. If they want to be a totally separate group or Ukrainians, there’s no point arguing over their own self-identity. There’s no reason to complicate the already complicated matter further. All these divisions of Rusyns into tribes or sub-tribes are detrimental to Rusyn unity. Of course, the names and cultures are valuable for folklore and vernacular ethnography, and shouldn’t be forgotten, but they shouldn’t be emphasized to the point where they overshadow the name Rusyn or Rusnak.

Ruthenian

Ruthenian is a very useful word particularly in academia and histography, due to the fact that it’s both rather neutral, broad enough, yet also very specific to a particular time in the history of South-Western Rus’.

Ruthenian broadly may refer to any East Slavic inhabitant of either the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

As noted above, Ruthenian comes from a Latin word for Rus’/Russia — Ruthenia.

Just as Rossia is the Greek word for Rus’ (Russia), and was later adopted by Moscovy to emphasize their Byzantine connection, it naturally follows that western (Latin Christian) empires like Poland or the Dual Monarchy would refer to Rus’ by the Latin name.

The word however is very valuable, as it does give us a neutral and scholarly term for a very broad but distinct period and culture in Rus’ history, and it carries with it a distinct connotation. One already pictures the Sarmatian style and iconic mustaches, the Cossacks, the baroque architecture of Lwow and Kiev, etc. when they hear the word.

It also allows us to speak in a neutral academic tone about a time period before there were distinct national differences between the inhabitants of Ukraine, Carpathia, and/or Belarus, free of more ethnically or politically charged names.

For example, we may say “Ruthenian brotherhoods from Lwow, Precarpathia (Pokuttya), and Minsk,” without starting a scandal between Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Carpatho-Rusyns. The word, with its archaic, broad, historical, and academic context, retains a degree of national neutrality if/when that is desired.

It is for this same reasoning, that the great professor John-Paul Himka chooses to use the term Ruthenian in his book:

I use the old-fashioned term “Ruthenian.” […] the contemporary sources I rely on never use the word “Ukrainian” to refer to the Galician Ruthenians; instead they refer to them (or to themselves) as ruteni (Italian), Ruthenen (German), rusini (Polish), and rusyny (Ruthenian-Ukrainian).9 The main reason, however, for retaining the old nomenclature is that it is neutral with regard to the two competing paradigms of national identity that divided the Ruthenians in the late nineteenth century, the all-Russian and the Ukrainian. Since the division between Russophiles and Ukrainophiles is a central factor in the narrative that follows, I selected a designation that would allow me to make a distinction between the ethnic group as such and the alternative constructions of its nationality.

I also considered using the term “Rusyn,” which is finding increasing application in English language scholarship as an appellation for the East Slavic, Eastern Christian inhabitants of the Carpathian region. In the end, I decided to retain the term “Ruthenian,” […] mainly because “Rusyn” is developing into a term for a particular national construction, that is, for […] a fourth East Slavic nationality comprising the Ruthenians of Transcarpathia and the Lemko region, and is thus losing the virtue of neutrality still present in “Ruthenian.”^[88]

This passage accurately describes the pros, cons, and the neutral context of the name Ruthenian.

It is worth noting that a leading Galician Russophile Priest Ivan Naumovych famously declared that having crossed their Rubicon, Rusyns are no longer Ruthenians (Ruteny) but “real/true Russians” (“nastoiashchii russkii” i.e. with the double “s”).^[89]

This demonstrates that Ruthenian does indeed have a political connotation to it, and would be more charged towards the Western Rus’ or even Polonophilic world, than towards the Moscowphile. This quote could be understood as saying “we are no longer Ruthenians (i.e. Rus’ people part of the Polish/Austro-Hungarian world), we are Russians (i.e. under the cultural world of the Russian Empire).”

It should be understood however that Ruthenian is primarily a xenonym, used by Poles and Austrians, and now primarily international academics to refer to the east Slavic inhabitants of Poland-Lithuania and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Ruthenian (Ruteny) was largely the xenonym for the people who called themselves Rusini (i.e. Rusins/Rusyns), i.e. much like the people whom we call Germans, call themselves Deutsche.

While it is true that some Ruthenian members of the Polish Szlachta, being Polonized and having Latin educations, may have referred to themselves as “Gente Rutheni, Natione Poloni” (of the Ruthenian race and the Polish nation), and the loan word Ruteny does exist in Slavic (Руте́ни), by in large, this is not a word which the common Rusyn would have used and seems very foreign to common Slavic speech.

By in large, when we see Ruthenia and Ruthenian in print in English, and in history books, the living local Slavic words for these would have been Rus’ and Rusin/Rusyn respectively.

You would not have heard a normal inhabitant of Kiev, Galicia, or Carpathia say “I’m a Ruthenian, I speak Ruthenian.” They would have identified most likely as a Rusin and said they speak the Rusian (Rus’kii) language, or in Carpathia, very likely they could call themselves a Rusnak.

That is important to remember, so that the word Ruthenian is used in its correct historical context, but would not be used either intentionally or unintentionally to obscure the name and identity of Rusyns, which is an important point raised by my colleague, RLS Editor Starik Pollock.

Conclusion: Ruthenian is a very descriptive word, very useful when used to describe the East Slavic inhabitants of the Rzeczpospolita and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, especially during the Cossack baroque epoch in South-Western Rus’. It may be used to describe a very broad people from Belarus to Carpathia though was primarily used as a Xenonym for people who referred to themselves almost universally as Rusin/Rusyn. While the word may be employed well in historical and academic contexts for its very specific context, it is still best to use Rusyn when referring to Carpatho-Rusyns as to not blur the lines or obscure Rusyn identity.

Rusian

As noted, Rusian has promise as an alternative word for all Rus’ things and people, as it is truly neutral, and keeps the original context without falling into any politicized camp.

Adjective Forms

Is that Russian with one “S” or two? — Rus’kii vs Russkii

As an example of how the same name or aspect of Rus’ history can be interpreted so differently between peoples, we can look to a conflict that emerged among the Galician intelligentsia over how to spell the adjective form of Rus’ i.e. “something of Rus’”, as described by Professor Himka:

Another attempt at papering over substantive differences was contained in point 5, which concerned the language issue. It began by affirming that “we should use our particular Galician-Ruthenian (Little Russian) language.” And then it proceeded to advocate two contradictory principles for standardizing that language: the vernacular principle favored by the national populists and the historical principle favored by the Russophiles. Also, since the Russophiles spelled the word for Ruthenian with two s’s so as to suggest unity with the Russians (russkii) and the national populists spelled it with one s and a soft sign in the Ukrainian manner (Rus’kii), Malynovsky proposed that from now on, in order to eliminate this stumbling block to cooperation, all Ruthenians should use the compromise form ruskii, that is, with ones, but no soft sign.^[90]

This is a perfect example of how very small differences can have powerful contextual and political meaning in Rus’. Even though the word itself is pronounced exactly the same, the spelling is already a political statement.

I even had difficulty finding a neutral word to describe this word above the quote, in the end, I choose the more awkward “something of Rus’”, as it was the most neutral phrase. It would not be possible to write this word above as Rus’kii, Ruskii, or Russkii, without essentially already implying one word is the “correct” choice. In translation the issue is even worse, what word I am describing, Rusin, Rusyn, Rusian, Ruthenian, Russian? It is not even possible to write this word without essentially leaning towards one of the politically charged forms in this context. If I said this was the adjective form of Rusyn/Rusin, one could argue that this could imply Carpatho-Rusyn, while the word is being used by Galician Rusyns, and in the Galician contexts, Russophiles understood it to mean of a broader Rus’ including Russia, whereas Ukrainophiles did not share this view. If I said Russkii or certainly Russian, this would be biased to the Moscowphile position. If I said Rus’kii this could be Ukrainophile. Ruskii (рускій) is seldom used today. If I used Ruthenian it would simply introduce another term with its extra baggage. And again, while Rusian may be the best term, it is not widespread. The only option is to say “the adjective form of Rus’”, to name all the possible forms, or to settle on a single form that would imply bias.

The fact that within Rusian community we cannot even agree on basic forms of the most important ethnonyms, we cannot even say certain words without leaning to a particular side or school of histography, is indicative of a major issue. We can at times not even agree on the basic definition of these words, or even who is and isn’t a Rusyn. This scandalous stumbling block must be overcome.

Carpatho-Russian

Carpatho-Russian (Карпаторускій, alternatively in Moscophile usage Карпаторусский or even Карпато-российский) is a term which naturally comes from the Russophile or the Moscophile movement among Rusyns. A rough Russian equivalent for the people, as opposed to Carpatho-Rusyn things, is Карпато-Россы, though this has a more negative connotation in the Rusyn community, due to the contextual meaning of the “o” spelling discussed above.

The name Carpatho-Russian and its forms primarily mean that Rusyns are understood as “Russian people from the Carpathians”, or the westernmost part of the “Russian nation”.

This can be understood in one of two ways:

1.) In a neutral Russophile understanding, “Russian” in this context is a synonym for Rusian i.e. “of Rus’, emphasizing that Rusyns are part of a common descent or cultural world of peoples defended from ancient Rus’, therefore making them “siblings” of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. This does not have to imply any subordination to the modern Russian state and is compatible with the position that Rusyns are a unique nation within the Eastern Slav branch.

This is roughly comparable to the Old Ruthenian movement and the Saint Yuri Faction in Galicia, who advocated that Rusyns were a distinct and unique people descended from ancient Galician Rus’, that they were a Ruskii narod (Russian or more accurately Rusian people), and therefore distinct from other nations in the dual monarchy, and advocated for their own cultural development, but fell short of or did not support unification with the Russian Empire, or the Ukrainian movement in the empire, as the Young Russophile or Ukrainophile movements did respectively.

As a result, Carpatho-Russian in this understanding can be considered a synonym of Carpatho-Rusyn, however it raises the question as to why not just say Carpatho-Rusyn. Carpatho-Russian in this context has, much like the positions of the Old Ruthenian movement, largely become archaic in the Rusyn community, where the focus is a distinct Rusyn identity, with this we make respect the historical roots of this term, and where it is used in its historic context.

2.) In the Moscophile understanding, Carpatho-Russian is understood as not simply meaning that they are Rus’ people from the Carpathians, but that quite literally, there is no or should be no significant difference between Russians from Moscow, and “Russians” from Carpathia, and that Rusyns are not a separate member within a “Rus’” family, but that this Rus’ family itself is rightly one single nation headed and led by the Russian Centralized State, today embodied by the Russian Federation.

Under this model, Rusyns are seen as being the same nation as Moscovite Russians, who were simply separated from the latter due to the conquest of Subcarpathia by Hungary and Precarpathia by Poland, and that Rusyns should be “gathered” back into one single Russian nation.

Some, though admittingly only the most extreme minority, will even go as far as to say there are no significant cultural, linguistic, or ethnic differences between Rusyns and Moscovites.

Opinions aside, this understanding is factually wrong on many levels.

We will not bother to debate nationalistic histographies, i.e. “Who is the true Rus’”, “What does it mean to be a ‘true’ Russian?” etc. as in reality, these ideas of nations are all artificial constructs, and a person can believe they belong to whichever nation they want.

It is often a matter of nature vs. nurture. People’s DNA does not determine which national culture they belong to, but rather what they are raised in and later choose to adopt or identify with. We may not examine the soul of a Rusyn, and see how it is distinct from that of a Ukrainian or a Russian, or a Pole or Romanian for that matter, these are all esoteric concepts.

Arguments based on “what it means to be a “true” [insert nation]”, i.e. the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, are largely fruitless, as they are not base on tangible, empirical realities, but rather on ideologies. And arguing over someone’s firm ideological convictions seldom bears fruit.

We will however demonstrate why Rusyns may be considered a distinct nation, and why they are not simply “Russians from the Carpathians”.

We may identify three primary criteria for what constitutes a naturally formed nation:

Applied to Rusyns and other Rus’ peoples, we may observe the following:

The beginning of Russian history is considered Rurik’s landing. Rusyns however can trace their protohistory to the White Croatians, and to the semi-legendary prince Laborec, mentioned for example in the Gesta Hungarorum. As a result, Rusyns trace their prehistory to the native Slavic and Vlach autochthonic peoples of the Carpathians, and not to the arrival of the (Scandinavian) Rus’ at Novgorod.

Concerning the beginning of their Christian history, Rusyns were baptized before Kievan Rus’. The Christianization of Carpathian Rus’ is traced to the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius, prior to the baptism of Kievan Rus’ in 988.^[91][92][93]

As a result, Rusyns do not trace the original roots of their Christianity to the Kievan Baptismal Font, as does the rest of the Church of Rus’, but rather to the Cyrillo-Methodian traditions. In a way, this makes Carpathian Rus’ the original Holy Rus’.

To be clear, Rusyns today are part of the same broad Rus’ Church traditions as Russians and Ukrainians, and the baptism of Kievan Rus’ is also significant for them, considering that proto-Rusyn saints such as Moses “the Hungarian”, were among the first fathers at the Kiev Caves Lavra, nearly one thousand years ago. Rusyns can and should celebrate both traditions which make up their own today, though it is very important to note Rusyn Christianity did not begin from the same branch as the rest of Rus’, even if these branches of the Vine of Christ and the Tree of Mother Church were later grafted together.

For around a millennium, Subcarpathian Rus’ was part of Hungary, and most Rusyn regions weren’t united to what can be called the Russian Centralized State until after 1945. Lemkovyna and the Prešov region have never been a part of Russia. One thousand years is certainly long enough for separate ethnic and national identities to form, many nearby and “younger” nations have been born in less time…

Rusyns have significant cultural differences from even the rest of Ukraine, let alone Russia. In many ways, there are more cultural similarities with nearby nations, than there are with Muscovites. In some ways, Rusyns can be considered a hybrid between East, West, and South Slavs, though in an ethnoreligious sense, one may argue that Orthodox Rusyns and Galician Ukrainians have a lot more in common with Serbs and other Balkan peoples. Many Serbs consider their ancestors to have originally emerged from the Carpathians, sometimes this is linked to White Serbia and the so-called Boiki mentioned in the De Administrando Imperio of Emperor Constantine VII, and thus they can be considered ancient kin of the Rusyns.

To name a few idiosyncrasies, we will note that Rusyns are (primarily) a coffee, grape (wine), and even tomato culture,^[94] they tend to be very warm and highly talkative similar to Balkan and other southern Europeans, and have a strong village as opposed to urban culture.

Linguistically Rusyn language is very different than modern Russian, at least in as much as east Slavic languages can be different, as they are perhaps closer to each other than Italian is to French.

One of the common arguments for the “Carpatho-Russian” position, especially among the older generation in the diaspora, is the misconception that “Rusyn (language) is so much closer to Russian than Ukrainian.”

This misunderstanding comes from the fact that often, the only “Rusyn language” they’ve come into contact with is the literary iazichie of the Russophiles, for example, the poems of Dukhnovych. And yes, this language is very close to Russian, primarily because it is essentially a blend of literary Russian itself, with Church Slavonic or Slavono-Ruthenian. To be clear, this was not an organic process, but rather, iazichie can be seen as a constructed literary language, made for expressing Rusyn identity in the largest lingua franca in Rus’ — Russian.

It’s important to understand that the iazichie has never represented the vernacular language of Carpatho-Rusyns, if you went to a Rusyn village one hundred years ago, or heard young Rusyns speaking today, it would sound far closer to Slovak, Czech, or even Serbian, than to modern Russian.

It should also be noted, that as Church Slavonic is the oldest documented Slavic language, many modern languages share features from it. Modern Russian in particular was heavily standardized based on Church Slavonic, with many words taken directly from Slavonic. As a result, many of the “Russian” words which Rusyn are similar to, are in fact common and ancient Slavonic words, and not the result of Rusyns and Muscovites speaking the same language.

It’s also noteworthy that the Ruthenian Grammar of Meletius Smotrytsky, (Slavonic Grammar with Correct Syntax), written in modern-day Ukraine, on the territory of what was then the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was for centuries the most influential grammar in Russia until the end of the 18^th century,^[95] not to mention the first academy in the lands of Rus’ was the Kiev Mohyla Academy, the works of Ivan Fyodorov in Galicia, and that for an entire epoch, essentially nearly all enlightenment and western education in Russia came via Kiev and Galicia, so it would be more accurate to say Muscovites were if anything, influenced by the Ruthenians first.

Conclusion: Carpatho-Russian is a term primarily associated with the Russophile and/or Moscophile past of Carpathian Rusyns. In the modern context, this name has been left behind, as the goal of Rusynophilia is to emphasize the Rusyn identity, which Carpatho-Russian, regardless of historical connections, now obscures as peoples and identities evolve and move on. Carpatho-Russian may be preserved in its ecclesiastical context however, to refer to the ACROD and Carpatho-Russian plainchant, emphasizing the fact that Rusyns are indeed part of the Russian (Rus’) Church, which began in Kiev, and has its prehistory in the Carpathian Cyrillo-Methodian traditions.

Rossissky

It should be noted that Rossia also possesses its own adjective form — Rossiisskii. As noted earlier, Rossia is simply a Hellenized word for Rus’ and therefore in purely etymological terms, it is the same as saying Rus’ or Russland, however semantically and contextually, it’s a different story.

We discussed how languages and the context of words change and evolve over time, and words can take on new meanings with potentially very potent political connotations.

As a result, it should be understood that Rossia and its adjective form Rossiisskii are almost universally understood as referring to the land which consolidated around Moscovy and formed the RCS, and that which currently forms the Russian Federation.

Note that in Russian it is called the Rossisskaya Federatsia and the Rossisskoe Gosudarstvo (the Russian state). and not the Russkaya Federatsia. Even though the Russian word for “a Russian person” remains Russkii, it is completely incorrect and grammatically inappropriate to say Russkaya Federatsia, as Rossiisskoe is the word used both legally and histographically to refer to this part of the Rus’ land. Similarly, an ethnic Russian, no matter where he lives is called Russkii, but a citizen or subject of the Russian state, regardless of his ethnicity (he may be Russian, Tatar, Chechen, German, etc.) is called a Rossianin.

Therefore, it should be understood that whereas it is appropriate and even perhaps most historically accurate to use some form of Ruskii, to refer to Rusyn things (as an adjective, i.e. Rusyn language, Rusyn nation), Rossiisskii should never be applied to Rusyns as this is completely unnatural both linguistically and contextually speaking, and would carry a strong political connotation. Rossiisskii should only be used with reference to modern Russia-proper, or the Muscovite RCG, and not to other Rus’ lands.

This understanding exists not only in literary Russian, Ukrainian, and Rusyn, but also in other Slavic languages. For example, when Poles speak of pierogi ruskie, they do not mean Ruskie as in from the Russian Federation, but rather, Rusin/Ruthenian, i.e. in the style of Rus’ people, which obviously from their point of reference, the first Rus’ peoples they would be in contact with would be Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

We can also see this ethnographically in this very interesting fact which is worthy of an article of its own.

In the Polish Census of 1921, we see Rusins (Rusińska), and Russians (i.e. Great Russians, Moscovites, modern Russians) are listed separately (as Rosyjski), so this demonstrates that Rusyns are understood as distinct from Rossiiskie. There are almost four million Rusyns listed.

We see an amazing phenomenon, however, in the census of 1931—someone managed to make over three million Ukrainians appear out of thin air! Interestingly enough, the number of Rusyns radically decreased from the 1921 census on which there are no Ukrainians to be mentioned…how bizarre…

This demonstrates how during the unprecedented violence and chaos of the 20^th century, the Rusyn identity was suppressed, and millions of Galician Rusyns willingly or unwillingly became Ukrainians.

It also shows that while apparently, it’s okay to write off millions of Rusyns as Ukrainians (in case the sarcasm wasn’t abundantly clear, it’s really not ok), even Poles, a people who most definitely cannot be accused of being pro-Rusyn agents, clearly understand that Rusyni is not Rossiisskie or Rossy.

This author would argue that the term Carpato-Rossy (Карпато-Россы) has a far more malevolent connotation, and is not as acceptable as it’s English equivalent Carpatho-Russian, due to the Rus’ vs Rossia contextual dichotomy.

We understand that Ros’ is an old primitive form for Rus’, especially Greek documents. We also understand that Ros’ and Rusyn/Rusin may have indeed been used to refer to people from Carpathian Rus’ all the way to Novgorodian Rus’.

However, the fact remains that context has evolved over the last millennia, and these words have taken on new meaning. It is of paramount importance for the healthy growth of Rusyn culture, that we use terms that assert and clarify the peoplehood of the Carpatho-Rusyns, and not terms that either intentionally or unintentionally muddy the waters.

At best those terms are used as archaisms that have lost their actuality in a modern context, at worse they are another pernicious attempt to deny Rusyn nationhood and claim them as simply a sub-ethnos of another nation-state.

Ruskii vs Rusynskii

While this author loves and is an advocate for traditionalism and conservatism in especially Cyrillic orthography and Slavic speech, it is best understood that Ruskii should remain in its historical context and be used naturally in Rusyn speech, however Rusynskii should be the preferred adjective in standardization and formal writing. This means that one should better describe the language as Rusynskii Yazyk (or Rusińska Bisida) and not Ruskii Yazik, even if we fully accept the latter as historically accurate and native to the Rusyn people. God forbid it ever be forgotten, however once again, the priority here is to help promote and defend this minority language so it may flourish, and that means choosing speech that emphasizes its uniqueness, and not which blurs lines.

In Conclusion, while Rusynskii is a relative neologism, it has become the preferred adjective for Rusyn things. Ruskii in any of its forms, is a word any Russophile may get behind, however Rossiisskii (i.e. applying it to Rusyns or Galicians) would be a word that would strictly put one in the Moscowphile camp.

And it’s very important to understand one can be a Russophile and not a Moscowphile. This is may be understood through the Slavic concept of Sobornost’, which implies a universal synaxis or gathering together of members who are fully united, yet also remain distinct. In other words, the idea of Rus’ Sobornaya would ultimately mean each member of Rus’, is the entirety of Rus’, carrying within themselves the essence and fullness of Rus’, without requiring any subordination to the other members—they need only be themselves.

Conclusion ~ Glory Forever

It has been 170 years since Alexander Dukhnovych wrote his congratulations to the Rusyns, and much has changed. So much that we may say we are living in a different world. Thirty years ago, we’ve seen the collapse of the godless authorities, and with it, the restoration of Orthodoxy and Rusyn culture, as well as the folk culture of all the other peoples imprisoned beneath internationalist bolshevism. This enabled the restoration of contacts between the diaspora and the homelands which had been severed for entire generations.

In the past thirty years, we’ve seen tremendous work done to revive and promote the Rusyn culture, we shouldn’t be pessimistic here, regardless of what must still be done, let’s be grateful we have resurrected eparchies, state recognition in both Europe and North America, and university classes in Rusyn.

Now we look to the future.

It is our hope that in the next thirty years, by the bicentennial jubilee of the Dukhnovych’s congratulations, in 2051, we may equally look back and see many more good works have been done. To paraphrase Dukhnovych, we pray that God will support the Rusyn cause, and grant them to see a better age.

I leave with a thought to all those who consider themselves children of Carpathian Rus’, and all those who love her.

If ever you feel nostalgic for Carpathian Rus’, but feel she is either too far away, or something from a bygone age, remember the meaning of the name Transcarpathia—“Beyond the Carpathians”. The beauty and meaning are, as always, in the name.

No matter how close or how far you are in the world, we will always find ourselves somewhere beyond the lonely Carpathian Mountains. Wherever we are in the world, Transcarpathia can be our home.

No matter how far away you are from her, or how much time has changed, her spirit will always live in the hearts of people who believe in her. Rus’ has always been something you couldn’t understand with your mind, or constrain to physical measurements—Rus’ was always something in which you can only believe. If you believe in the faith and culture of Carpathian Rus’, her strength of spirit and loving nature will give you wings like the golden eagles who call her home.

I sincerely congratulate all Rusyns wherever you are in the world. It is my hope that you will always remember what it truly means to be a Rusyn, what you were, what you are, and what you must always be. Never forget that you’re Rusyn!

The world we live in today calls us to forget our faith, our history, our culture, to forget about eternity itself, as modern culture seems so focused on vane, short-sighted, temporary things.

A terrible fate awaits those who don’t know themselves, who will remember their name in a nameless and forgotten land of oblivion?

But those who stay true to themselves, to what they were created to be, their memory will be Eternal.

Glory to Jesus Christ, Glory Forever!

---

References

[1] “Most experts, including Joannicio Basilovits, Michaelem Lutskay, Archimandrite Vasily (Pronin), and others) link the spread of Greek-Rite Christianity to the region with the Equal-to-the-Apostles Saints Cyril and Methodius, or at the very least, with their students.” From “The Orthodox Church in Transcarpathia—A Brief Historical Overview”, Danilets, Yurij V. https://orthochristian.com/132049.html

[2] Paul Robert Magocsi. With Their Backs To The Mountains; A History Of Carpathian Rus’ And Carpatho-Rusyns. Central European University Press. 2015. Pgs. 36-41.

[3] Пекар А. Нарис історії Церкви Закарпаття. т. 1: Єрархічне оформлення. Видавництво ОО Василіян

Серія ІІ “Записки ЧСВВ”, Рим, 1967. Pgs. 17-21. (In Ukrainian) Available here in electronic form: https://diasporiana.org.ua/religiya/2092-pekar-a-naris-istoriyi-tserkvi-zakarpattya-t-1-yerarhichne-oformlennya/

[4] See for example the writings of St. Alexis Toth, “Where to Seek Truth”, and Magocsi, Our People Carpatho-Rusyns and Their Descendants in North America, Fourth Revised Edition. Multicultural History Society of Ontario. 2004. Pg. 10.

[5] In the correct Russian orthography, i.e. pre-Bolshevik reform, Russia (Rossia) is spelled Россія. In post-revolutionary Russian, it is Россия.

[6] Though “White Russia” on the map does not correspond to modern or even historic Belarus’.

[7] Note that Red Ruthenia, also known as Ruthenia Rubra, Russia Rubra, Ruś Czerwona, Chervona Rus’, etc. is roughly the part of Galicia that borders Poland and today spills over the Polish border into the Polish Subcarpathian Voivodeship, the lands of Przemyśl. It roughly corresponds to the historic Cherven Cities of Galicia. It may be considered as part of the Rusyn homeland, especially the area around Lisko, though it was not strictly Lemko but West Galician.

[8] The entire text reads: PETER MOHYLA, By Grace of God, Archbishop and Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia, and all Russia, Exarch of the Holy Apostolic Throne of Constantinople, [and] Archimandrite of the [Kiev] Caves.

[9] http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/site/const/istoriya/1710.html

[10] «Свята Русь vs «просвічена» Європа» Спілка Православних Журналістів. (“Holy Rus’ vs “Enlightened” Europe”, Union of Orthodox Journalists. In Ukrainian) https://spzh.news/ua/zashhita-very/45567-svyata-rus-vs-prosvichena-vropa

[11] In forms such as Malorossia or Malaya Rossia.

[12] Ten times on the version on the Ukrainian Parliament website, eleven in an analysis of a transcription of the original included in the article of Ukrainian archivist Olha Vovk (Вовк, Ольга Борисівна) “Конституція Пилипа Орлика: оригінал та його історія”, which includes an eleventh usage in the additional conclusion, missing from the version on the site.

[13] See the preamble.

[14] See Article 1, (In Ukrainian: народом малоросійським , in the original, народомъ малороссийскимъ; синів малоросійських / синовъ малороссийских), and Article 15 (малоросійськими військовими / малороссійских войсковыхъ)

[15] «Свята Русь vs «просвічена» Європа»

[16] Professor Dmitry Likhachov was famous not only for his academic work, but also for having been a dissident and imprisoned by the soviet regime, and was rehabilitated with the highest awards after the fall of the godless authorities.

[17] D. S. Likhachev (1993) Russian Culture in the Modern World, in Russian Social Science Review, 34:1, 70-81.

[18] Magocsi, Paul Robert, and Ivan Pop. 2005. Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture. Revised and Expanded Edition. University of Toronto Press. Pg. 57.

[19] “Чисельність наявного населення України” (PDF in Ukrainian). State Statistics Service of Ukraine. http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/PXWEB2007/ukr/publ_new1/2021/zb_chuselnist%202021.pdf

[20] № 58. Письмо православного духовенства Закарпатской Руси И. В. Сталину с просьбой принять Карпатскую Русь в состав Советского Союза // Русская Православная Церковь в годы Великой Отечественной войны 1941–1945 гг. (Сборник документов). Составители: Васильева О. Ю., Кудрявцев И. И., Лыкова Л. А. Издательство Крутицкого подворья. Общество любителей церковной истории. Москва, 2009.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Now in Hungary, classically called Доброчин (Dobrochyn) in Slavic.

[23] Ibid.

[24] See Рачук. Г.В. Преподобный Алексий Карпаторусский. Путь к святости. Pg. 335-342.

[25] Magocsi, Paul Robert, and Ivan Pop. 2005. Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture. Revised and Expanded Edition. University of Toronto Press. Pgs. 288-289.

[26] Paul Robert Magocsi. With Their Backs To The Mountains; A History Of Carpathian Rus’ And Carpatho-Rusyns. Central European University Press. 2015. Pg. 69.

[27] Magocsi, Paul Robert, and Ivan Pop. 2005. Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture. Revised and Expanded Edition. University of Toronto Press. Pg. 398.

[28] Ibid.

[29] The name Ladomirová is thought to be related to Lodomeria, the Latin name for Vladimir-of-Volhynia.

[30] Andriy Hrechylo. Український прапор. https://100krokiv.info/2016/01/andrij-hrechylo-ukrajinskyj-prapor/

[31] Paul Robert Magocsi. A History of Ukraine; The Land and Its Peoples. Second, Revised and Expanded Edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Buffalo London. 2010. Pgs. 480-481.

[32] Simon, Constantin, PhD. In Europe and America: the Ruthenians Between Catholicism and Orthodoxy

On the Eve of Emigration. In Orientalia Christiana Periodica Volume 59 Fasciculus I 1993. Pgs. 185-188

[33] John Paul Himka. Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine; The Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867-1900. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal & Kingston London Ithaca. 1999. 149-152

[34] Ibid. 149-162.

[35] Ibid. See especially 150-152.

[36] Ibid.. 149-162.

[37] Simon, Constantin, PhD. In Europe and America: the Ruthenians Between Catholicism and Orthodoxy

On the Eve of Emigration. In Orientalia Christiana Periodica Volume 59 Fasciculus I 1993. Pgs. 185-188

[38] Ibid.

[39] Simon, Constantin. “Before the Birth of Ecumenism: the Background Relating to the Mass “Conversion” of Oriental Rite Catholics to Russian Orthodoxy in the United States.” In Diakonia Vol. XX, Number 3. 1986. Pgs. 135-136.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid. 135.

[42] For example, “Podkarpatskie Rusini…”.

[43] To be fair, in some Church Slavonic contexts, “dusha” (soul) can be used to mean life, see the parable of the good shepherd who in the Slavonic text lays down his “dusha” for the sheep, however predominantly this is not how it is understood in Ukrainian, where it is literally understood as “soul”, juxtaposed with “tilo” (body) meaning life, thus “we give our souls and life” is the meaning.

[44] An interview with Fr. Constantin Simon. Part 2 https://orthochristian.com/133022.html

[45] Ibid.

[46] Himka. Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine. 53.

[47] Simon. Ruthenians Between… 185-186.

[48] Paul Robert Magocsi. The Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism: Galicia as Ukraine’s Piedmont. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2002. Pg. 112

[49] Himka. Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine. 55.

[50] Simon. Ruthenians Between… 198.

[51] Simon. Before the Birth of Ecumenism… 136.

[52] Simon. Ruthenians Between… 187.

[53] See Shaheen, Matfey. “Synaxis of the Saints of Volhynia. Part 1” https://orthochristian.com/125486.html#sdfootnote7sym (OrthoChristian – Pravoslavie.ru)

[54] The Primary Chronicle; http://litopys.org.ua/lavrlet/lavr04.htm#l6489 ; http://expositions.nlr.ru/LaurentianCodex/_Project/page_Show.php?list=57&n=73

[55] For example, Historia Carpatho-Ruthenorum (1843).

[56] The journal Rusin was blessed by the Ever-Memorable First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus, who was a native son of Prešovian Rus’, born in the village of Ladomirova.

[57] Суляк, Сергей Георгиевич. Русины в истории: прошлое и настоящее // Русин. 2007. №4. C. 29.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Русская Правда (Краткая редакция) / Подготовка текста, перевод и комментарии М. Б. Свердлова // Библиотека литературы Древней Руси. [Электронное издание] / Институт русской литературы (Пушкинский Дом) РАН. Т. 4: XII век. http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4946

[60] The project “Laurentian Codex. 1377. Digital reproduction of the landmark manuscripts” was organized by the National Library of Russia, among others. http://expositions.nlr.ru/LaurentianCodex/_Project/page_Description.php?page=1

[61] See also: ПОЛНОЕ СОБРАНИЕ РУССКИХ ЛЕТОПИСЕЙ.Издаваемое Постоянною Историко-Археографической Комиссиею Академии Наук СССР. Томъ первый ЛАВРЕНТЬЕВСКАЯ ЛЕТОПИСЬ. Издание второе Стб. Издательство Академии Наук СССР. 1926-1928. Pg. 155

[62] The Слово о законѣ и благодѣти may be read here in english: http://sites.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/Ilarion.pdf

[63] Note in Slavic the same single word Русин(ъ) is used, the Rusyn/Rusin spellings only exist in foreign, especially English language contexts, and do not concern the original Cyrillic texts or Rusyns in the homeland.

[64] The word I translated as “nation” here is род (rod) which can also be translated as gens, clan, race. This word has a very deep meaning and ancient history in the Slavic languages. For more on this, see the work of Fedontov who writes: “…the eternal kinship-community. The Russian word for it is rod. The nearest analogon to it is the classical gens. The Latin gens, the Celtic clan, are now the dead colorless shadows of once-vital social realities. In Russian language and life, the rod is full of vitality and vigor […] The whole Russian nation from an idealistic viewpoint could once be thought of as an immense gens or rod, of whom the Tsar was the father.” Fedontov, G.P. The Russian Religious Mind Vol. I: Kievan Christianity; The Tenth to the Thirteenth Centuries (Second Printing, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1966) Pgs. 15-16.

[65] ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSYN HISTORY AND CULTURE. Paul Robert Magocsi and Ivan Pop. University of Toronto. Pgs. 433-434.

[66] Соловьев А. В. Русичи и русовичи // Слово о полку Игореве — памятник XII века / Отв. ред. Д. С. Лихачев; АН СССР. Ин-т рус. лит. (Пушкин. Дом). — М.; Л.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1962. — С. 276—299.

[67] Or at least the “received pronunciation” of “New” Church Slavonic, i.e. the most common variant used today in the Moscow Patriarchate.

[68] Michaelem Lutskay (also Michael Lutskay, Mihály Lucskay, and Mikhail Luchkaĭ; 1789-1843+) is the Latin name of the Rusyn linguist, philologist, folklorist, and historian Mikhail (Pop) Luchkai (In Rusyn: Михаил Лучкай), a priest, born in the village of Velyky Luchky.

[69] Cassoviae—Košice in modern-day Slovakia.

[70] Available here: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ilc1AQAAMAAJ

[71] Joannicio Basilovits (1742-1821+) is the Latin name of the Rusyn Uniate Hegumen Ioanniky Bazylovych (In Rusyn: Иоанникий Базилович).

[72] See Pop and Magocsi, “Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture”, especially pgs. 247-248.

[73] Передговор к народним пѣсням // Русалка Днѣстровая. C. IX. https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%94%D0%BD%D1%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D0%BF%D1%A3%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BC Note the irregular “i” form of Narod.

[74] See Г. О. Винокур. История русского литературного языка.

[75] Simon. Ruthenians between… Pg. 185.

[76] Соловьев, Ibid.

[77] https://orthochristian.com/132071.html

[78] Terrorism in Bohemia.; Medill McCormick Gets Details of Austrian Cruelty There” (PDF). New York Times (December 16). 1917. Retrieved 2008-09-28.

[79] Fedontov, G.P. The Russian Religious Mind Vol. I: Kievan Christianity; The Tenth to the Thirteenth Centuries (Second Printing, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1966) Pgs. 15-16.

[80] Ibid.

[81] Himka, John-Paul. Last Judgment Iconography in the Carpathians. University of Toronto Press, 2009. Pg. 10

[82] Ibid. Pg. 3

[83] See Fedontov.

[84] Himka. John-Paul. “Last Judgment Iconography in the Carpathians.” University of Toronto Press. Pg. 10.

[85] For example, see the poems of Dukhnovych, especially Ya Rusyn Był. Dukhnovych often uses the language and imagery of motherhood and childhood in the native region (Русин был мой отец, мати […] Я свїт узрїл под Бескидом…), and the familiar relations of the rod to define Rusyn identity, (Честный мой род…Великій мой род, etc.). For more on the Slavic rod, see Fedontov “The Russian Religious Mind” Vol. 1.

[86] Procko, “The Rise…” p. 52 Magosci also describes the problems involved in obtaining statistics on the Ruthenian emigration: “One of the greatest problems of immigration studies concerns the number of people who actually came to this country. From the existing published sources there is no way to obtain exact figures on the actual number of members from any specific group who came to the United States…Until 1899, the Bureau of Immigration recorded the country of origin; thus we have no way of knowing whether an immigrant from Austri-Hungary was an Austrian, Hungarian, Italian, Rumanian , Jews, or any of the eight Slavic peoples living within the boundaries of the Hapsburg Empire. After 1899, the Commissioner on Immigration Reports did provide statistics based on the mother tongue of each immigrant, and there is an entry for Ruthenian/Russniak. The census reports beginning in the 1910 employ the same principle. (Magocsi, “Problems in the History…,” p. 6).

[87] Simon, Constantin, PhD. In Europe and America: the Ruthenians Between Catholicism and Orthodoxy

On the Eve of Emigration. In Orientalia Christiana Periodica Volume 59 Fasciculus I 1993. Pgs. 209-210.

[88] 8-9.

[89] „My ne Ruteny z 1848 roku, my nastoiashchii russkii”. 25.

[90] John Paul Himka. Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine; The Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867-1900. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal & Kingston London Ithaca. 1999. Pg. 55

[91] See Yurij V. Danilets. “The Orthodox Church in Transcarpathia—A Brief Historical Overview” (Trans. Matfey Shaheen) https://orthochristian.com/132049.html

[92] Василий (Пронин), архимандрит. История Православной Церкви на Закарпатье. Киев, 2005. С. 55. (In Russian. Vasily Pronin, Archimandrite. The History of the Orthodox Church in Transcarpathia. Kiev, 2005. Pg. 55). See also: https://myk-mon.church.ua/2019/10/02/eksklyuziv-istoriya-mukachevskogo-monastirya-v-trudax-arximandrita-vasiliya-pronina-v-trex-chastyax/

[93] Пекар А. Нарис історії Церкви Закарпаття. т. 1: Єрархічне оформлення. Видавництво ОО Василіян

Серія ІІ “Записки ЧСВВ”, Рим, 1967. (In Ukrainian) Available here in electronic form: https://diasporiana.org.ua/religiya/2092-pekar-a-naris-istoriyi-tserkvi-zakarpattya-t-1-yerarhichne-oformlennya/

[94] See Carpathian Rus’: Interethnic Coexistence without Violence by Paul Robert Magocsi, In

Omer Bartov and Eric D. Weitz, eds., Shatterzone of Empires. University of Indiana Press. Bloomington and Indianapolis, 2013. Pg. 452.

[95] Г. О. Винокур. История русского литературного языка, C. 70.