{"id":1209,"date":"2021-08-13T18:02:00","date_gmt":"2021-08-13T22:02:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rusynsociety.com\/?p=1209"},"modified":"2025-10-16T22:38:47","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T03:38:47","slug":"from-terra-incognita-to-carpathian-rus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rusynsociety.com\/rsk\/2021\/08\/13\/from-terra-incognita-to-carpathian-rus\/","title":{"rendered":"From Terra Incognita to Carpathian Rus\u2019 \u2014 A Histography"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI<\/span> come from nowhere.\u201d Those mystifying words of Andy Warhol have both simultaneously illustrated and also haunted the reality of Rusyn cultural awareness in the diaspora.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em> out of the land of oblivion. Rather he was faced with the dilemma which has tormented millions of Rusyns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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\u2019 is their home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A Polonina and shepherds habitation after a thunderstorm in Ukrainian Subcarpathia. Source: Wikimedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a previous article<\/a>, we discussed how the idea of Holy Rus\u2019 \u2014 a national calling to holiness in Christ \u2014 is the most important national idea of the Rusyn people. It\u2019s their spiritual homeland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Tale of the Bygone Years<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em> of questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is essentially with these words, that the first history of Rus\u2019 peoples\u2019 begins. The Primary Chronicle of Saint Nestor of Kiev begins with the immortal words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Or in English:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is the tale of the bygone years, from whence came the lands of Rus\u2019, where in Kiev the first princes ruled, and from what source the lands of Rus\u2019 have their origin.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Rus\u2019 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\u2019, as we will find, like all things in our history, even this is a matter of great controversy…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National Names<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Rus\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This story begins with Rus\u2019 and the East Slavic tribes, a brief history would be as follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A map of East-Slavic tribes and peoples, 8th\u20139th centuries. Carpathian Rus\u2019 is roughly around and to the southwest of the (White) Croats on the map. Note how a portion of Subcarpathia is not shaded in green and is just beyond the shaded area. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Rus\u2019 history traditionally begins with the landing of Rurik in 862 A.D., Rurik, and his folk were Varangians, essentially Norse Vikings from Scandinavia. Rus\u2019 was baptized and became Christian under Rurik\u2019s great-grandson Saint Vladimir<\/em> (In Church Slavonic spelling; In Old East Slavic: Volodimer<\/em>; In Old Norse: Valdamarr<\/em>) of Kiev in 988 A.D., after receiving the faith \u201cfrom the Greeks,\u201d i.e. from the Roman Empire in Constantinople.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first Metropolitan of Rus\u2019 was St. Michael of Kiev, a Syrian. Here it should be noted that Carpathian Rus\u2019, in the opinion of most scholars,[1][2][3]<\/sup> 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\u2019 landed at Novgorod. Most Orthodox Christians generally connect both the earlier Cyrillo-Methodian mission in Carpathian Rus\u2019, and the later Baptism of Kievan Rus\u2019 together, and celebrate them as part of a single Russian<\/em> (i.e. Rusian<\/em>) Orthodox tradition.[4]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This does essentially mean, however, Carpathian Rus\u2019 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It should also be worth noting that the identity of the early Rus\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The Principalities of Kievan Rus\u2019 (after the death of Yaroslav I in 1054). Source: Wikipedia. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Though initially ruled primarily from Kiev, the Rus\u2019 would be devastated and even \u201cruined\u201d 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\u2019 to Russia and Rus\u2019 to Ruthenia respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A rough map circa 1402, showing the Rus\u2019 lands distinctively divided between Polish-Lithuanian Ruthenia and what would become Muscovite Russia. The cultural divide between these regions still affects politics and relations to this day. By that time Subcarpathian Rus\u2019 was already long under Hungary. Source: istoria.ru <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ruthenia<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Simply put, South-Western Rus\u2019 would come under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the Rzeczpospolita<\/em>). Subcarpathian Rus\u2019 was already under the Hungarian crown at this time. Due to this western influence, the Rus\u2019 lands in the Rzeczpospolita would come to be known, especially in academic terms, as Ruthenia<\/em><\/strong>, which is a Latin word for Rus\u2019 or even Russia. Ruthenia is largely synonymous with South-Western Rus\u2019, 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 narod\u00f3w<\/em>), Poles, Lithuanians, and Rusyns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The Rzeczpospolita. Source: https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Maps_of_Ukraine#\/media\/File:Polish_Lithuanian_Ruthenian_Commonwealth_1658_historical_map.jpg<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This however fell short of realization, with the death of great figures such as St. Peter Mohyla, Adam Kisiel, and King W\u0142adys\u0142aw 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

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: \u201cGlory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace to people of goodwill.\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Polish: Nienawi\u015b\u0107 wros\u0142a w serca i zatru\u0142a krew pobratymcz\u0105 \u2013 i \u017cadne usta d\u0142ugo nie m\u00f3wi\u0142y: \u201eChwa\u0142a na wysoko\u015bciach Bogu, a na ziemi pok\u00f3j ludziom dobrej woli\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Lemko: \u041d\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0441\u0442 \u0432\u0440\u043e\u0441\u043b\u0430 \u0432 \u0441\u0435\u0440\u0446\u044f \u043b\u044e\u0434\u0438 \u0456 \u043e\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043b\u0430 \u043a\u0440\u043e\u0432 \u0431\u0440\u0430\u0442\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0456\u0432 \u2014 \u0456 \u0434\u043e\u043b\u0433\u0456\u0439 \u0447\u0430\u0441 \u0436\u0430\u0434\u043d\u044b \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0435 \u043a\u0430\u0437\u0430\u043b\u0438: \u00ab\u0421\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u0432\u043e \u0432\u044b\u0448\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0411\u043e\u0433\u0443, \u0456 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0435\u043c\u043b\u0438 \u043c\u0438\u0440 \u043b\u044e\u0434\u044f\u043c \u0434\u043e\u0431\u0440\u043e\u0439 \u0432\u043e\u043b\u0456\u00bb.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Russia<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

North-Eastern Rus\u2019 would consolidate initially around Vladimir-Suzdal and later completely under the firm rule of Muscovy, which would form the Russian Centralized State <\/em>(<\/strong>\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>\u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0435<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>\u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e<\/em><\/strong>) or RCS (<\/strong>\u0420\u0426\u0413<\/strong>)<\/strong> as it’s known in Muscovite Russian histography. This process is also called in Russian histography the \u201cgathering of the Russian lands.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here a great issue arises over the names Rus\u2019 and Russia and their relationship. The issue is exacerbated in English due to language barriers. Whereas \u201cRussia\u201d is essentially Rus\u2019 with an added \u201cs\u201d and the typical suffix -ia, essentially meaning Russland, as in the German, in the Slavic languages themselves, we see a different word used for \u201cRussia\u201d, as in the contemporary country\u2014Rossia <\/em>or \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0456\u044f. [5]<\/sup><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The historical reality is this word simply comes from the Greek word for Rus\u2019\u2014 <\/strong>\u03a1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1<\/em><\/strong>. Essentially, just as Ruthenia is Latin for Rus\u2019, Rossia<\/em> is Greek for the same.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Moscovite state adapted the Greek form after Ivan the Great to emphasize the Byzantine connection and the idea of \u201cMoscow \u2014 the Third Rome\u2019\u201d, and later, this form would be fermented by Peter the Great by naming Russia the Russian (Ross<\/em><\/strong>iiskaya<\/em>) Empire (\u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0456\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0418\u043c\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0456\u044f<\/em>). Interestingly enough, he took the Greek name for Russia but imported the Latin word for empire in place of the Slavic Czardome (Czarstwo)<\/em>, and from 1721 onward to this day, Rossia<\/em> or \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0456\u044f <\/em>would become the name of the polity, while the people are remained known as Russians<\/em> or Russkie<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is very important to understand that in a literal philological sense, whether we say Rus\u2019, Russia, Rossia, or Ruthenia, we are expressing the exact same concept, the same name, simply in different languages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To say that Rossia<\/em> is a foreign name unrelated to Rus\u2019 would be like saying Saint Petersburg is not in Rossia<\/em>, it’s in Russia. It would be like saying the Colosseum isn\u2019t in Rome, it’s in Roma<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, we should understand that languages do evolve as we use them.<\/strong> And in modern contexts, when we say Russia or Rossia<\/em>, most people will rightly associate these words with the lands of the modern Russian Federation, i.e. the north-eastern part of Rus\u2019 which consolidated and formed the Russian Centralized State<\/em> around Moscovy. The Rossia<\/em> form in Slavic is almost always associated only with this North-Eastern Moscovite part of Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This does not mean, however, that Russia (with a double \u201cs\u201d) 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 \u201cRussia\u201d, and the successor of Kievan Rus\u2019, and the north-eastern Russian state was often known, (externally and in Ruthenia), as Moscovia. This is illustrated by the famous map of Sebastian M\u00fcnster, published in 1552 A.D., \u201cPolonia et Ungaria XX Nova Tabula<\/em>\u201d (a new map of Poland and Hungary).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Polonia et Ungaria XX Nova Tabula. Basle, 1552. Found in the Barry Lawrence Ruderman Map Collection. Source: Standford Libraries. <\/a>https:\/\/exhibits.stanford.edu\/ruderman\/catalog\/jt593bn6200<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On the map, we see that the Galician land around Lw\u00f3w (Leopolis), is known as RVSSIA (Russia), whereas in the northeast, we see Moscovia and Rvssia Alba<\/em> (White Russia). Note that White Rus\u2019\/Russia is a translation of the Slavic \u201cBelarus\u2019\u201d or \u201cBelorussia\u201d[6]<\/sup> and can also refer to this land, which was historically part of Lithuanian Rus\u2019 and Ruthenia, and whose people are also \u201cRuthenians\u201d.  The map above has been reprinted in other contemporary sources, for example, this rare colored version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cRussia\u201d, this simply reflects the common understanding of the time, that this land, formerly the Kingdom of Rus\u2019, belongs to\u2014well, Rus\u2019. And a common Latin form for the land of Rus\u2019 is Russia<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the very significant map \u201cUkrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum cum vicinis Walachiae, Moldoviae<\/em>\u2026\u201d (Ukraine the land of the Cossacks, Wallachia, Moldova\u2026), published in Nuremberg in 1720, we find the geographical terms Ukraine (Ukraina<\/em>), close together with \u201cRed Russia\u201d (Russia Rubra<\/em>)[7]<\/sup>, and Moscovia off to the side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Ukrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum cum vicinis Walachiae, Moldoviae, Minoris q. Tartariae, Provincus exhibita\u2026 Nuremberg, 1720. Found in the Barry Lawrence Ruderman Map Collection. Source: Standford Libraries. https:\/\/exhibits.stanford.edu\/ruderman\/catalog\/wg152bz9244<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

See also the 1507 Map \u201cPolonia Minor\u200b; Russia<\/em>\u201d by Martin Waldseem\u00fcller. This helps to demonstrate that although it is not the exclusive form, the word \u201cRussia<\/em>\u201d though not necessarily Rossia,<\/em> can indeed be applied with historical accuracy to South-Western Rus\u2019, and can appear in sources this way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerning Rossia<\/em>, 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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, a facsimile copy of the Kievan Trebnik<\/em> of Saint Peter Mohyla surprisingly renders his title as \u201cMetropolitan of Kiev, Galicia, all Russia<\/strong>\u201d[8]<\/sup>, \u201cvseja Rossii<\/em><\/strong>\u2014with the \u201co\u201d form and the double \u201cs\u201d (\u0432\u0441\u0435\u0467\u0300 \u0420\ua64d\u0301\u0441\u0441\u0457\u0438<\/span>), as opposed to the more common and expected \u201cof all Rus\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The Trebnik of Peter Mohyla. Kiev 1646. The Information and Education Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Kiev 1996 (Facsimile Reprint). Vol. 1. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It is both peculiar and very interesting that this example uses the Rossia<\/em> \u201co\u201d form, which is rather anomalous to South-Western Rus\u2019. This however is just that, an exception to a general rule, though if we observe closely, it is not really the omicron \u201co\u201d form; rather the omega form \u201c\u03ce\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019\u2014which is \u1fec\u1ff6\u03c2<\/em> or <\/a>\u03a1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1<\/em>. It is very interesting to note that in modern Greek, \u03a1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\/Russia is spelled \u03a1\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 (Rosia)<\/em>, with one sigma \u201cs\u201d. This means that when say Rossia<\/em> in this (old Greek) context<\/strong>, we are talking about the same word as Rus\u2019, simply translated into a different language, i.e. whether we say Rus\u2019, Russia, \u1fec\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03a1\u03c9\u03c3<\/em>\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, or Ruthenia, we are in fact expressing the same concept, just in different languages!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This does not<\/em><\/strong> mean, therefore, that because he is called Metropolitan of all Rossia<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The territory of the Kievan Metropolia in the 1680s superimposed over modern borders. Note how it does not even contain all (or even most of) the territory of Ukraine, but it does contain a significant port of Belarus and an eparchy in Poland.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019 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 \u201call Russia\u201d. That is to say, the fullness of the Russian soul, i.e. of Rus\u2019 itself, may be found in one member, and even one member can truly be in and of itself\u2014all Rus\u2019. This is possible through the understanding of Rus\u2019 Soborna<\/em>, which is a term we must return to, however, suffice to say, we have demonstrated how even Rossia can\u2014in the right contexts\u2014be applied to Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Little Russia<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Little Russia<\/em><\/strong> 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 \u041c\u0430\u043b\u0430\u044f \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0456\u044f <\/em>(Malaya Rossia<\/em>), \u041c\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0456\u044f<\/em> (Malorossia<\/em>), <\/strong>or \u041c\u0430\u043b\u0430\u044f \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c<\/em> (Malaya Rus\u2019<\/em>),<\/strong> and while historically they were more or less synonymous, each of those names have their own context, especially due to the \u201co\u201d vs \u201cu\u201d dichotomy in the word Rossia\/Russia. Inhabitants of Little Russia may be called Little Russians<\/em> or \u041c\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0456\u044f\u043d\u0435 <\/em>or \u041c\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u044b<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cLittle Russian nation\u201d, in some historical times, Little Russia proper should refer primarily to the former nucleus of Kievan Rus\u2019 and the Cossack Hetmanate, essentially Dnieper Ukraine or North-Central Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

  1. Little Russia<\/strong><\/li>
  2. New Russia<\/strong><\/li>
  3. Galicia-Volhynia<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    New Russia refers to the South-Eastern lands, the former \u201cWild Fields\u201d, once dominated by Asiatic steppe nomads like Tatars, which were never truly integrated into Kievan Rus\u2019 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\u2019, 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<\/em>, Great Russia (modern Russia), Little Russia (Ukraine), and White Russia (Belarus), and thus we hear the term \u201cCzar of all the Russias<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In particular, the term Little Russia and especially \u201cLittle Russians\u201d, 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 \u201clittle brothers\u201d to Russians, this is not historical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Little here is primarily a geographical indicator, meaning southern, or smaller in size, compare this with Asia Minor or (Little Asia).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Krakow, the capital of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth located in the region called Little Poland, which is located to the south of greater Poland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Little or lesser does not imply inferior, it means either southern or smaller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We should also note that \u201clittle\u201d 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\u2019, not belittlingly but elevating Little Russia, as if anything, Ukrainians are not the little siblings of Russians, they’re the older siblings!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cRussian (language) author\u201d, but \u201ca Ukrainian genius.\u201d There is also the famous History of Little Russia, written after 1792, likely up until the 1840s, which extensively uses the term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/em>,<\/strong> written in 1710 A.D.<\/strong>, which can be read here on the website of the Ukrainian parliament.[9]<\/sup> 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 \u201cLittle Russia\u201d, and was strictly opposed to the Muscovite state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In his constitution, by my account, Orlyk uses the term \u201cUkraine\u201d eight times, and only in a geographical<\/em> sense,[10]<\/sup><\/strong><\/sup> whereas Little Russia[11]<\/sup><\/strong><\/sup> appears ten or eleven times[12]<\/sup><\/strong><\/sup> in both geographical and national<\/em> terms<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He speaks of the \u201cLittle Russian Fatherland\u201d (\u041e\u0442\u0447\u0438\u0437\u043d\u044b \u041c\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439<\/em>),[13]<\/sup> and uses Little Russian as an ethnonym for the people or at least as an adjective.[14]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cLittle Russia\u201d in his Constitution, equally or even more times than \u201cUkraine\u201d, even though he was a hero of and an advocate for the idea of what we would now call a \u201cfree and independent Ukraine.\u201d This does not mean we should now call Ukraine \u201cLittle Russia\u201d, 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\u2019, as Rus\u2019 began in what is now Ukraine.[15]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion:<\/strong> 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<\/em> to the south-east. Little Russia was used by its own inhabitants to refer to the southern heart of the historical Rus\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Context is Key<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    As a result, we should be aware of context both historic and modern when using these words and their adjective forms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Often it is the case that it’s easier to say, Russian, when we mean “of Rus\u2019” as opposed to “of modern Russia”. Simply put, saying this is a Rus\u2019 city, or it’s a Rus\u2019 word, or these are Rus\u2019 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\u2019” and when we mean the modern understanding of Russian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    When we say the Russian Orthodox Faith, for example, we are referring to the whole faith of Rus\u2019, not just the Muscovite lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Another alternative form worth using and discussing may be Rusian<\/em>, with one \u201cS\u201d, as this may be a way to form a more natural adjective form for the noun Rus\u2019 while remaining neutral and avoiding politically charged connotations of words such as Russian when applied to Rus\u2019 things outside the territory of modern Russia.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The great professor and Russian medievalist Dmitry Likhachov,[16]<\/sup> doctor of philological science, once famously described perhaps the greatest issue in Russian history, which is namely the interpretation<\/em> of that history:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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]<\/sup><\/strong><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    This may perfectly be applied to all East Slavs, including Carpatho-Rusyns. All East Slavs, essentially all Rusian<\/em> peoples, have this same scandal <\/em>or stumbling block<\/em> in their historiographies\u2014that is few other peoples have so many varying ways to interpret their own history and identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    They may consider each other to be the same nation, brothers, or mortal enemies, they may speak each other\u2019s 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\u2014in native Russian<\/em><\/strong>\u2014that they are not Russian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    They all variably claim Rus\u2019 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\u2019 and Rusyn, to a word with no etymological relation, but many Ukrainian nationalists still insist they are \u201cmore Rusian <\/em>than the Russians\u201d, so to speak, and that Carpatho-Rusyns, even those whose ancestral homeland has always been in Slovakia, are Ukrainians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The very fact that within the East Slavic family, there may be heated debates that Ruskii<\/em> spelled with one \u201cs\u201d is very different semantically than Russkii<\/em>, and that Russkie<\/em> has no relation to Rus\u2019, (note:<\/em> these words are pronounced identically<\/em> in all languages [!]<\/strong>) the fact that even Rus\u2019kii <\/em>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 \u201cWho are these Rusyns?\u201d(see this video<\/a>)\u2014is all illustrative of this grand issue in Rus\u2019 history which professor Likhachov aforetime noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019kii<\/em> vs Russkii<\/em>), or translated as different as Russian, Ruthenian, Rusyn, Rusin, or even occasionally Ukrainian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Carpathian Rus\u2019 and the Rusyn Homeland<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Carpathian Rus\u2019<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The homeland of the Carpatho-Rusyns is Carpathian Rus\u2019 (Rusyn: \u041a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 Karpatska Rus\u2019<\/em><\/strong>), which broadly speaking, are the regions of the Carpathian Mountains which are traditionally inhabited by the East Slavs who identify as Rusyns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    According to the Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture <\/em>[emphasis mine]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    [Carpathian Rus\u2019] 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<\/strong>. According to present-day boundaries, this territory is divided among Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, and a small part of Romania. Carpathian Rus\u2019 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)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019 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)<\/strong>.[18]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 Pre\u0161ov region or Pryashevskaya Rus\u2019<\/em>), but also includes parts of Serbia (Ruski Krstur<\/em> in Vojvodina, where Pannonian Rusyns live), and Romania (Maramure\u0219), and Hungary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Carpathian Rus\u2019 is as noted, often divided into sub-regions such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Transcarpathia \u2014 Zakarpatia — \u0417\u0430\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u044f<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    In modern contexts, Transcarpathia <\/strong>(Rusyn: \u0417\u0430\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u044f<\/em> – Zakarpatia<\/em><\/strong>) corresponds to the Transcarpathian Oblast of Ukraine, the capital of which is Uzhhorod. The name in Latin and Slavic means \u201cBeyond the Carpathian Mountains\u201d, as we will begin to see with similar terms, this depends vastly on one\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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]<\/sup> keeping with the tradition of the local village being the heart of culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

    Saint Alexis Kabaliuk, \u201cthe Carpatho-Russian\/Rusyn\u201d, 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\u2019 peoples, they consider themselves to be Rusyns and did not wish to be identified as Ukrainians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/em><\/strong> to be included in the Soviet Ukrainian Republic, as to not be Ukrainianized:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cWe, the undersigned representatives of the Orthodox communities of Carpathian Rus\u2019, expressing he will of our entire Russian Orthodox People, ask that [Carpathian Rus\u2019] be included into the USSR in the form of: \u201cThe Carpatho-Russian Soviet Republic\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The letter was signed by St. Alexis himself, Igumen Theophan Sabov, the administrator of the eparchy of Mukachevo and Pre\u0161ov, and Rusyn Professor Petro Vasylevych Lyntur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Furthermore, they emphasize that the people are Rusyns, and \u201csons of Rus\u2019\u201d and do not identify as Ukrainians, saying, \u201cThe name \u2018Ukraine\u2019 and \u2018Ukrainian\u201d became known to them \u201conly after WW2.\u201d[21] The letter emphasized that while Galicians adopted that name, with foreign backing, Subcarpathian Rusyns did not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cYasinia to the Poprad, from Uzok to Dobrochyn<\/em> (Debrecen)[22]<\/sup>\u201d, so that Rusyns may be together with their brother Slavs and Rus\u2019 \u201ckinsmen\u201d, but still remain Rusyns.[23]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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]<\/sup> the Soviet tyrant did not respect the rights of the Rusyn people much less a delegation led by the Orthodox Church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    Mount Hoverla, the highest mountain in the Ukrainian Carpathians, between the Transcarpathian and Ivano-Frankivsk Oblasts. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Subcarpathia \u2014 Podkarpatska Rus\u2019 \u2014 \u041f\u043e\u0434\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Subcarpathian Rus\u2019 <\/strong>(\u041f\u043e\u0434\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c<\/em>, in the Pre\u0161ov standardization<\/strong> – \u041f\u0456\u0434\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u044c\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c<\/em>, variably in vernacular Subcarpathian dialects \u2013 \u041f\u0443\u0434\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u044f<\/em>. Pronounced Podkarpatska<\/em> and Pidkarpatska<\/em> Rus\u2019 respectively and Pudkarpatia<\/em><\/strong>) can have several meanings. First and foremost, it can refer broadly to all the Rusyn regions \u201cbelow\u201d (pod\/pid<\/em> 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<\/strong> (Wojew\u00f3dztwo podkarpackie<\/em><\/strong>), 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\u2019 is not ideal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Subcarpathia is in today\u2019s 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<\/strong>, though it should be noted historically the word was used to refer to people in the Pre\u0161ov 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\u2019<\/em> (\u0423\u0433\u043e\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c<\/em>) or some form thereof, meaning Hungarian Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Subcarpathian Rus\u2019 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 \u017datkovich.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Precarpathia \u2014 \u041f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u044f \u2014 Prycarpatia<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Precarpathia (Rusyn: \u041f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043f\u0430\u0442\u044f – Prycarpatia<\/em><\/strong>) is the region immediately before the Carpathian Mountains, again by the point of observation of the rest of Rus\u2019 (east to west). Therefore, Precarpathia refers primarily to Pokuttya<\/em> 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 \u201cSubcarpathian Rus\u2019 under the rule of Austria\u201d. From the Russian\/Ukrainian point of view, Precarpathia may be called in English Ciscarpathia<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ciscarpathia<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Ciscarpathia, meaning \u201cOn this side of the Carpathians\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Lemko Region or Lemkovyna \u2014 \u041b\u0435\u043c\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0430<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Lemkovyna (Rusyn: \u041b\u0435\u043c\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0430<\/em><\/strong>) 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    According to the Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    [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]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Lemkovyna was generally considered to be relatively unpopulated prior to the 15th<\/sup> and 16th<\/sup> 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 \u201cWallach-Rusyns\u201d, 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]<\/sup> The Polish Goral <\/em>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 Va\u0161\u00ed\u010dek 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 Ostur\u0148a is the most \u201cGoralised\u201d Rusyn locality, which is interesting because Ostur\u0148a 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<\/em>. More information on this obscure Rusyn dialect can be found in this video<\/a> with English subtitles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Saint Maxim Sandovich, the Lemko Protomartyr, was a native of Lemkovyna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Pre\u0161ov Region or Presiovian Rus\u2019 \u2014 \u041f\u0440\u044f\u0448\u0456\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    The Pre\u0161ov Region<\/strong> or Priashiv<\/em> Region (Rusyn: \u041f\u0440\u044f\u0448\u0456\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u043a\u0440\u0430\u0439<\/em> \u2013 Priashivskii Krai<\/em>; Slovak: Pre\u0161ovsk\u00fd Kraj<\/em><\/strong>) is the Rusyn region of Slovakia, also called traditionally Priashivska Rus\u2019<\/em> (Rusyn: \u041f\u0440\u044f\u0448\u0456\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c \u2013 Priashivska Rus\u2019<\/em><\/strong>) or Pre\u0161ovian Rus\u2019<\/em>. This is the land of the great Saint Alexis Toth the \u201cFather of American Rus\u2019\u201d, the national awakener Alexander Dukhnovych, and many other important figures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    According to the Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    [The Pre\u0161ov 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]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The concept of a defined Pre\u0161ov Region is of relatively recent origin, prior to WW1,[28]<\/sup> Pre\u0161ov was understood in Rusyn histography as being together with Transcarpathia, under Subcarpathian Rus\u2019, as they both sat at the on the southern side of the mountains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Pre\u0161ov 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 Pre\u0161ov which has its own Rusyn language department and theological faculty, and also hosts the Studium Carpatho-Ruthenorum<\/em>. The Pre\u0161ov dialect has been fully standardized which was a major milestone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Pre\u0161ov 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 Pre\u0161ov. The Orthodox Church there is filled with pious clergy, and in eastern Slovakia is largely dominated by Rusyns. The beautiful Cyrillo-Methodian traditions<\/em> are alive and well in Czechia and Slovakia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the interwar period, the Pre\u0161ov 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\u2019 in the village of Ladomirov\u00e1,[29]<\/sup> Slovakia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    The Monastery of St. Job in Ladomirov\u00e1 in Slovakia by Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov), Jordanville, New York. Source: ROCOR Studies.org <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Among the brothers was the young future First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Laurus \u0160kurla. 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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Pre\u0161ov region is one of the most dynamic and perspective parts of the Rusyn homeland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Other “Rusyn” Lands<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Galicia<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Galicia (\u0413\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0456\u044f<\/em><\/strong>; \u0413\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0447\u0438\u043d\u0430\u0301<\/strong><\/em> \u2013 Halitsia<\/em><\/strong> or Halyczyna<\/em><\/strong>) is the jewel or crownland of Western Rus\u2019, it is the westernmost part of which constituted a powerful Principality and later the Kingdom of Rus\u2019 (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\u2019, even those which more properly belong to Volhynia, Podolia, or Carpathian Rus\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Galicia takes its name from the city of Halych (\u0413\u0430\u0301\u043b\u0438\u0447<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 Halycz<\/em><\/strong>. The so-called G \u201c\u0413<\/em>\u201d 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<\/em>, modern-day Lviv (In Polish: Lw\u00f3w<\/em>; in German: Lemberg<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Daniel represented the Romanovichi<\/em>, the elder branch of Rurikids, the ruling Grand Princes of Kiev, who after the fall of Kievan Rus\u2019, went westward into Galicia. In Ruthenian histography, the tradition of Kievan Rus\u2019 did not fall forever in 1240, rather it shifted to the west, to Galicia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cMetropolitan of Kiev, Galicia, and all Rus\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Galicia is therefore considered the successor of Kievan Rus\u2019, whereas the younger siblings of Daniel’s father, who went to Vladimir-Suzdal, and later Moscow, also laid claim to Rus\u2019. This began the old conflict and division between South-Western Rus\u2019, and North-Eastern Rus\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    King Daniel, named Lviv in honor of his son Lev, meaning Lion, hence the name of the city means Leopolis\u2014the 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\u2019ka Rada<\/em>) in 1848, we read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u00ab\u0437\u043d\u0430\u043c\u044f \u0437\u0435\u043c\u043b\u0438 \u0440\u0443\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0438<\/em> <\/strong>\u0442\u0443\u0442\u0435\u0439\u0448\u043e\u0438 \u0454\u0441\u0442\u044c \u043b\u0435\u0432\u044a<\/strong>, \u0430 \u0446\u0432\u0463\u0442\u044b \u0440\u0443\u0441\u043a\u0438<\/strong> \u0436\u043e\u0432\u0442\u044b\u0439 \u0438 \u0441\u0438\u043d\u044b\u0439<\/strong>\u00bb (Trans: The banner of this land of Rus\u2019 (ruskoi<\/em>) is the lion, and the Rus\u2019 colors are yellow and gold (i.e. the colors of the Ukrainian flag<\/strong>).[30]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cGalician claim\u201d, may even argue that Galicia is the senior among the<\/em> Russias<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cnew Galicia\u201d, and represents an expansion of the region outside its historical borders which end at Red Ruthenia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Galicia today is comprised mostly of the Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil Oblasts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

    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 \u201cUkraine\u201d and especially \u201cUkrainian\u201d 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]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Prior to this, Galicia was associated primarily with Rus\u2019 or rather we may say contextually Ruthenia, the part of Rus\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/em> emerging among the Ukrainophiles.[34] <\/sup>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] <\/sup>their perceived secularism or ambivalence towards organized religion, [36][37]<\/sup> and were even outright considered atheists by some.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201clow culture\u201d over religious identities and values.[38][39]<\/sup> 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]<\/sup> 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201c\u2026in 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.<\/strong> In time it became the dominant ideology among the clergy who remained at home and remained Uniate.\u201d <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    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]<\/sup> vs the Ukrainian national anthem, influenced by the Ukrainian school of polish literature, which declares \u201cWe will give our souls and bodies\u201d, 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]<\/sup> however this is a microcosm of the religious difference between the movements. Broadly speaking, we may say the Ukrainian movement was more \u201cliberal\u201d, and the Russophile more conservative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/a> from central (Dnieper) Ukraine, from the Russian Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/a>.[44]<\/sup> Even though the Rusyn Basilian hierarchy preserved their religious focus and loyalty to Rome, whereas the Ukrainian Patriarchal movement seemingly placed a \u201cSoborna Ukraine<\/em>\u201d and a \u201cPomisna Tserkva<\/em>\u201d for her above all, the Vatican in the end seemingly favored the Ukrainophiles as the last Ruthenians began to die out.[45]<\/sup> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cIt 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.\u201d[46]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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]<\/sup> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ukrainophiles tended to look to the democratic and free Cossack state (the Zaporizhian Sich <\/em>or Hetmanschina<\/em> i.e. \u201cThe Hetman\u2019s Land\u201d) 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 Lw\u00f3w<\/em> were far more likely to have been Polish winged hussars than Zaporizhian Cossacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This identity is perhaps not completely organic, but a result of that relatively recent synthesis of Dnipro Ukraine and Galicia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Drahomanov, criticizing the perceived famous short-sightedness of the Ruthenians, would quip that the Ruthenian movements imagined creating a Uniate Paraguay,[48]<\/sup> that is to say, a small \u201cnation of three million\u201d,[49]<\/sup> whereas his goal and that of the Ukrainophiles was to create a Soborna Ukraine<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Subcarpathian Rus\u2019 however was far less enthusiastic about this project than Galicia. Drahomanov, having visited \u201cHungarian Rus\u2019\u201d in 1875 and 1876 was horrified by the lack of interest for Ukrainianism among Subcarpathian Rusyns, writing that this land was \u201cfarther separated, even from Galicia than Australia is from Europe.\u201d[50]<\/sup> 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]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the end, however, recent histography and destiny would show that Galicia truly became the jewel of Ukraine\u2019s crown, becoming not a Ruthenian Paraguay but instead a Ukrainian Piedmont.[52]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While Ukrainian nationalism did truly come originally from Dnipro Ukraine, due to Galicia\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Red Ruthenia<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Red Ruthenia is broadly speaking the western part region of Rus\u2019, 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<\/em> or castles, mentioned in the Primary Chronicle, as being incorporated into Kievan Rus\u2019 by Saint Volodimer (Vladimir) the Great, who was quite possibly born in nearby and related Volhynia.[53] According to Chronicle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u0412 \u043b\u0463\u0442\u0311\u043e [6489] \u0438\u0434\u0435 [\u0412\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0434\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u044a] \u043a \u041b\u0467\u0445\u043e\u043c\u044a \u0438 \u0437\u0430\ua657 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434\ua651 \u0438\u0445\u0311 . \u041f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044a\u0131\u0448\u043b\u044c \u0427\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u043d\u044a . \u0438 \u0438\u043d\ua651 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434\ua651. \u0454\u0436\u0435 \u0441\u0443\u0442\u044c \u0438 \u0434\u043e \u0441\u0435\u0433\u043e \u0434\u043d\u0483\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u044a \u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c\u044e .[54]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    The Primary Chronicle; http:\/\/litopys.org.ua\/lavrlet\/lavr04.htm#l6489 ; http:\/\/expositions.nlr.ru\/LaurentianCodex\/_Project\/page_Show.php?list=57&n=73<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Which means:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the year 6489 (981), [Volodimer] marched to the Ljachs <\/em>(the Poles) and claimed their cities. Przemy\u015bl, Czerwie\u0144, and other cities, which are and to this day under Rus\u2019.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Among the Cherven Cities are principly Przemy\u015bl, Czerwie\u0144 <\/a>(Cherven), Belz, Sanok, Rzesz\u00f3w, Che\u0142m, Wo\u0142y\u0144<\/em>, and several others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    The Cherven cities (their names in magenta, their rough territory in red) in 1025 AD, under the rule of Boles\u0142aw I the Brave of Poland, superimposed over contemporary bounders. Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cherven_Cities#\/media\/File:Grody_czerwienskie.png<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019 and Poland, which were especially contested between the Kingdoms of Rus\u2019 and Poland. When Poland later incorporated the Kingdom of Ruthenia, these lands were divided between the Przemy\u015bl, Belz, and Rus’ Palatinates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Red Ruthenia is therefore not a defined historical polity, but a broad cultural region equally tied to both Galician Rus\u2019 and Poland, and its definition has changed with changing historical borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 Przemy\u015bl and this broader Beskid region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019 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\u2019, or the region bridging Lemkovyna with Galician, Volhynian, and White Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pannonian Rusyns in Serbia<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Pannonian Rusyns are Rusyns from West Ba\u010dka<\/em> in Vojvodina<\/em>, a northern autonomous province of Serbia. They likely immigrated to the Serbian lands in the 18th century. On the 7th<\/sup> of January 1751, the regional administrator of Ba\u010dka, Franz Joseph von Redl, signed an agreement with Mihajlo Munka\u010di from the village of \u010cervenovo to bring Rusyn families to the modern area of Ruski Krstur, when this entire territory was under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cHungarian Rus\u2019\u201d because historically these territories were under the Hungarian Crown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pannonian Rusyns are mostly native to the Kula municipality of the West Ba\u010dka District of Voivodina, Serbia, where the center of Pannonian Rusyn culture is the village of Ruski Krstur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There is also a minority of Pannonian Rusyns in the region of Slavonia, Croatia, which borders Vojvodina to the west.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Vojvodina currently consists of three regions, Ba\u010dka<\/em>, the plains of Srem<\/em>, and Banat<\/em>, bordering Romania on the Danube.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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, Timi\u0219oara or Bra\u0219ov \u00een Romania, Pre\u0161ov or Ko\u0161ice 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Serbia, he ordained his spiritual son, John, a \u201cLittle Russian\u201d, born in Ukraine near the \u201cHoly Mountains\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Carpathian Orthodox eparchies and territories in Subcarpathia and Pre\u0161ov 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\u2019 is well known, as their fates were in many ways tied together in the great mystery of the 20th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The collision of two or even more worlds produces a culture that is hard to replicate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This diversity is one of the features which makes the mysterious and ancient lands of Carpathia, Pannonia, and the Danube Basin so majestically beautiful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The ideal name for the Rusyn homeland as a whole is \u201cCarpathian Rus\u2019\u201d<\/strong> as it is all-encompassing, simple\u2014without any of the baggage of other terms\u2014and includes all Carpathian regions where Rusyns live.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ethnonyms and Xenonyms<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

    Rusyns<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    First, it should be said, as explained by the title of one of the great Professor Magocsi\u2019s works, \u201cAll Carpatho-Rusyns are Rusyns, but not all Rusyns are Carpatho-Rusyns<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We often add the geographic prefix “Carpatho-<\/em>” to assist people in identifying where Rusyns come from \u2014 if it hasn’t been made abundantly clear \u2014 it’s not <\/em>from nowhere<\/strong>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Many prefer not to add this Carpatho<\/em>– 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]<\/sup> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019 itself, as one of the oldest words for a Russian or Rusian person, and inhabitant of Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The ethnonym Rusyn appears in written sources as early as the tenth century<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Docent Sergey G. Sulyak, doctoral candidate of historical sciences, and founder of the international academic journal Rusin<\/em>,[56]<\/sup> wrote in 2007, an article on the historical roots of Rusyns and their names.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In his article, Sulyak sites that the name Rusyn appears seven times<\/em> in the Rus\u2019\u2013Byzantine Treaty of 911 (912),[57]<\/sup><\/strong><\/strong> conducted between Constantinople and Oleg of Rus\u2019, (which is considered one of the oldest Rusian texts), and six times<\/em> in the treaty conducted by Igor son of Rurik in 944\/945<\/strong>.[58]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The name Rusyn later appears in<\/strong> the first Rusian codex of Laws, the Rus\u2019ka Pravda<\/em><\/strong>, which was compiled by Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev, in the early eleventh century<\/strong> and later expounded upon throughout the centuries; Rusyn appears (in bold<\/strong> below) at the beginning of the codex:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u0423\u0431\u044c\u0435\u0442\u044c \u043c\u0443\u0436 \u043c\u0443\u0436\u0430, \u0442\u043e \u043c\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0442\u044c \u0431\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443 \u0431\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0430, \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u0441\u044b\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438 \u043e\u0442\u0446\u0430, \u043b\u044e\u0431\u043e \u043e\u0442\u0446\u044e \u0441\u044b\u043d\u0430, \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u0431\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0447\u0430\u0434\u0443, \u043b\u044e\u0431\u043e \u0441\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0438\u043d\u0443 \u0441\u044b\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438; \u0430\u0449\u0435 \u043d\u0435 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0442\u044c \u043a\u0442\u043e \u043c\u044c\u0441\u0442\u044f, \u0442\u043e 40 \u0433\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0435\u043d\u044a \u0437\u0430 \u0433\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0443; \u0430\u0449\u0435 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0442\u044c \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d\u044a<\/strong>, \u043b\u044e\u0431\u043e \u0433\u0440\u0438\u0434\u0438\u043d\u044a, \u043b\u044e\u0431\u043e \u043a\u0443\u043f\u0447\u0438\u043d\u0430, \u043b\u044e\u0431\u043e \u044f\u0431\u0435\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a\u044a, \u043b\u044e\u0431\u043e \u043c\u0435\u0447\u043d\u0438\u043a\u044a, \u0430\u0449\u0435 \u0438\u0437\u044a\u0433\u043e\u0438 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0442\u044c, \u043b\u044e\u0431\u043e \u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0438\u043d\u044a, \u0442\u043e 40 \u0433\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0435\u043d\u044a \u043f\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0442\u0438 \u0437\u0430 \u043d\u044c.[59]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The name further appears in the first Rusian history<\/strong>, the Primary Chronicle<\/em> of Saint Nestor of Kiev<\/strong> which was originally compiled around 1113 A.D<\/strong>., the example below, given from the Laurentian Codex, dates from 1377<\/strong>.[60]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    The ethnonym Rusyn, as appears in the Primary Chronicle according to the Laurentian Codex, is indexed above in red in the original text and highlighted in yellow in the transcription into modern orthography. Source: Russian National Library. http:\/\/expositions.nlr.ru\/LaurentianCodex\/_Project\/page_Show.php<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    A passage from the Tale <\/em>above says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u041f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438 \ua656\u0440\u043e\u0441\u043b\u0430\u0432\u044a \u041b\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0461\u043d\u0430 \u043c\u0438\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0442\u043e\u043c\u044c . \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d\u0430 . \u0432\u044a \u0441\u0442\u0483\u0463\u0438 \u0421\u043e\u0473\u044c\u0438 . \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0432\u044a \u0454\u043f\u0441\u0311\u043f\ua651[61]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In English this is (by my translation):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cAnd Yaroslav installed the Rusyn (Hi)larion as Metropolitan in (the Kiev Church of) Holy Sophia, having gathered the bishops (for this).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019, still relevant to this day, known as the Sermon on the Law and Grace<\/em>.[62]<\/sup> Based on these words, St. Hilarion of Kiev is known in Russian histography as Hilarion the Rusyn (Rusin)[63]<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Despite this, it is noteworthy that the given translation into modern Russian reads: \u041f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b \u042f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u043b\u0430\u0432 \u0418\u043b\u0430\u0440\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430 \u0432 \u043c\u0438\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0442\u044b, \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c<\/strong>, \u0432 \u0446\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0432\u0438 \u0441\u0432\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0439 \u0421\u043e\u0444\u0438\u0438<\/em> or in English (my translation): and Yaroslav installed Hilarion of the Russian nation[64]<\/sup><\/strong><\/em> as metropolitan [\u2026].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We note the original phrase \u201cHilarion [the] Rusin\u201d, was rendered in translation as \u201c\u0418\u043b\u0430\u0440\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u2026\u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c<\/em>\u201d or Hilarion of the Russian <\/em>(Russkii<\/em> with the double \u201cs\u201d) nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This is because Rusin\/Rusyn is understood in its historical context here as meaning a person of the Rus\u2019 nation, not as a particular name for the people we call Carpatho-Rusyns.<\/strong> 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\u2019, and each consider themselves successors of the old Rus\u2019 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 \u201ca person of Rus\u2019\u201d, and thus Hilarion \u201cthe Rusin\u201d, is understood as saying Hilarion the (Ancient) Russian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Professor Paul Robert Magocsi also notes that the Rusyns themselves have begun using this term as an endonym already by at least the 11th<\/sup> century.[65]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/strong>,[66]<\/sup> in documentation from the Belz Voivodeship<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is interesting that depending on the translator and their orientation, this same word \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d\u044a<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For example, the word may honestly be translated as Russian<\/em><\/strong>, however, this could create the impression that the person is a modern Russian, and not from ancient Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ruthenian<\/em><\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Even Rusin\/Rusyn<\/em><\/strong>, while being direct transliterations, and the most accurate choice may cause one to think the individual was a Carpatho-Rusyn<\/em><\/strong>, as opposed to simply meaning \u201ca person from Rus\u2019\u201d. There is also the matter of orthography, while in Cyrillic there is only one form \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d(\u044a)<\/em>, in transliteration, an issue can emerge as to whether to use the \u201cy\u201d or \u201ci\u201d spelling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rusyn or Rusin<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The issue of whether to spell the Slavic word \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d<\/em> with a \u201cy\u201d or \u201ci\u201d, 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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201c\u0438\u201d is transliterated. It is generally agreed upon with regards to the (Carpatho) Rusyn Language, that the \u0438 sound is best represented with a Latin “y”, and thus, Rusyn is the preferred and standardized spelling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I have heard arguments, that \u201cRusyn\u201d was an attempt of western or catholic nations to divide Rusyns from their Rus\u2019 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<\/em> (Rusi\u0144ski<\/em>, etc). The standard German spelling seems to also be Russinen<\/em>, not only with an \u201ci\u201d but even with a double \u201cs\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, if anything, the Magyars, West Slavs, and Germanics seem to support the \u201ci\u201d spelling, and it cannot be said in any way that they imposed a \u201cy\u201d spelling on the Rusyns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Concerning the context of the primary chronicle however, an argument may be made that generally speaking, the traditional transliteration of \u201c\u0438\u201d from Church Slavonic[67]<\/sup>, is \u201ci\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

    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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This is an example of when Rusian<\/em><\/strong> may be the best word choice, as it directly suggests \u201cof Rus\u2019\u201d 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\u2019ve come to mean today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is however of paramount importance for the Rusyn cause to recognize how the context of the word has<\/em><\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    Mount Shpytsi in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Photo: \u041c\u0438\u0445\u0430\u0439\u043b\u043e \u041f\u0435\u0446\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0447 <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    The Beginning of Carpatho-Rusyn History<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    History is not simply the study of anything that happened in the past, this is a major misconception;<\/strong> the key is how<\/em> 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<\/em><\/strong>, 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There is another misconception that prehistory<\/em> or a prehistoric <\/em>period refers to a single time in human history\u2014a stone age of cavemen\u2014however prehistory is simply pre-literary history<\/em>, the time before these historical records and sources existed or are extant, without which we can not in a proper sense study history.<\/strong> We may study archeology for example, but not history proper, which is based on recorded sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As a result, every people have a different pre-historical and historical period, before and after written sources exist.<\/strong> 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 6th<\/sup> century, not because Slavs didn\u2019t exist, or were invented, but simply because we have no historical sources from these people at that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    The Abandoned Observatory \u201cWhite Elephant\u201d high up in the mountains. Photo: Taras Dut. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    History\u2014strictly speaking as an academic discipline, as opposed to archaeology\u2014can 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019 state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

    When do these God-loving people awake from their furtive slumber, and take their first steps out of the terra incognita<\/em> 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    Autumn morning in the outskirts of Rakhiv. Photo: \u041c\u0438\u0445\u0430\u0439\u043b\u043e \u041f\u0435\u0446\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0447 <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Historia Carpatho-Ruthenorum<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    In 1843, Rusyn priest Michaelem Lutskay[68]<\/sup><\/strong> published in Ko\u0161ice[69]<\/sup><\/strong> his monumental work Historia Carpato-Ruthenorum<\/em> for which he may be considered the first Carpatho<\/em>-Rusyn historian.<\/strong> 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 \u201cCarpatho-Rusyns,\u201d with a Carpathian focus and perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is noteworthy that Lutskay also published another keystone work, the first Carpatho-Rusyn grammar in Hungarian Rus\u2019, in Budapest in 1830, entitled:<\/strong> \u201cGrammatica slavo-ruthena<\/em><\/strong> : seu vetero-slavicae, et actu in montibus Carpathicis parvo-Russicae<\/strong>, ceu dialecti vigentis lingvae<\/em>.\u201d[70]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Once again, older Ruthenian grammars exist, such as the famous 16th<\/sup> century Bukvar<\/em> 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 \u201cbeneath<\/em>,\u201d and \u201cbeyond the Carpathians<\/em>\u201d, from not just a Rusyn but a Carpatho-Rusyn<\/em> perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Concerning Carpatho-Rusyn history, we must here give an honorable mention to the hegumen Joannicio Basilovits (1742-1821+),[71]<\/sup><\/strong> who is also often considered the \u201cfirst Rusyn historian\u201d.<\/strong> In 1799<\/a> and 1804<\/a>, Basilovits published a two-volume work on Ruthenian prince Teodoras (Fyodor\/Fedir) Koriatovych, entitled \u201cBrevis notitia fundationis Theodori Koriathovits, olim ducis de Munkacs<\/em>.\u201d 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\u2019, 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\u2019, he is not himself a Carpatho-Rusyn, and this period is not very well documented, and there are many legends surrounding it.[72]<\/sup> This is once again, also a period before the (19th<\/sup> 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\u2019 and the other Ruthenian lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    One can mention the work of the Austrian historian Hermann J. Bidermann, \u201cDie ungarischen Ruthenen, ihr Wohngebiet, ihr Erwerb, und ihre Geschichte<\/em>\u201d which is closer to an academic study, than Historia <\/em>or Brevis <\/em>which resemble more a 19th century ecclesiastical chronicle of the old Rus\u2019 tradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, Bidermann is an Austrian, and his work concerns \u201cungarischen Ruthenen<\/em>\u201d (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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Lutskay\u2019s history is the first to use \u201cCarpatho-Ruthenian\u201d 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<\/em> is written in Latin, not Rusyn or Slavono-Ruthenian. So, what may be considered the start of Slavic language Rusyn history?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Mermaid of the Dniester<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"
    \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0430\u043b\u043a\u0438 (Rusalki). Konstantin Makovsky, 1879. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    As if risen from the pure springs of the Beskids to the free waters of pontos<\/em>, the Mermaid of the Dniester carries with her the songs of Precarpathia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    When seeking the beginning of Rusyn Literature, we must give an honorable mention to the Rusalka Dnistrovaya<\/em><\/strong> (\u0420\u0443\u0441\u0430\u043b\u043a\u0430 \u0434\u043d\u0463\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u044f<\/em><\/strong>) or \u201cThe Mermaid of the Dniester<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Rusalka Dnistrovaya<\/em> is a great monument of Rusyn literary history, considered the first work published in the vernacular language of Galicia and Precarpathia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Mermaid<\/em><\/strong> 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: \u041d\u0430\u0440\u0456\u0434 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439<\/em><\/strong> – Narid Ruski<\/em><\/strong>).[73]<\/sup> 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 <\/em>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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    The Cover page<\/em> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    It should be noted however that the Rusalka reflects more the Galician Rusyn language or a dialect depending on one\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It should also be noted here that Rusalka<\/em> may be called the first vernacular Galician<\/strong><\/em> Ukrainian book, it is not the first \u201cvernacular\u201d Ukrainian book of the early modern period<\/strong>, a title which essentially belongs to the Eneyida<\/em> of Ivan Kotlyarevsky in 1798<\/strong>, a work of Dnieper Ukraine published in the Russian Empire. While the beginning of vernacular Ukrainian or \u201cLittle Russian\u201d, Literature is beyond the scope of this article, we may say that works such as Shevchenko\u2019s Kobzar (1840) roughly date to the same era as these Carpathian and Galician works in the first half of the 19th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We have already noted that Ruthenian literature as a whole developed organically from the ancient Rus\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Though Rusa\u0142ka<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While the Mermaid <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Pozdravlenie to the Rusyns of 1851 \u2014 The Rusyns Awaken from their Mountains<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In 1851 he wrote his Pozravlenia<\/em> to the Rusyns<\/em>, and in this almanac, he wrote the poem \u201c\u0412\u0440\u0443\u0447\u0430\u043d<\/em>i<\/em>\u0435<\/em>\u201d(Vruchanie<\/em> \u2013 Dedication)\u2014the hymn of the entire Rusyn awakening, the legendary anthem \u201cI was, am, and will be a Rusyn.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u042f \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d \u0431\u044b\u043b, \u0435\u0441\u043c\u044c, \u0438 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0443,
    \u042f \u0440\u043e\u0434\u0438\u043b\u0441\u044f \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d\u043e\u043c,
    \u0427\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043c\u043e\u0439 \u0440\u043e\u0434 \u043d\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u0431\u0443\u0434\u0443,
    \u041e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0443\u0441\u044c \u0435\u0433\u043e \u0441\u044b\u043d\u043e\u043c;<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u042f \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d, \u0431\u044b\u0432, \u0454\u043c \u0442\u0430\u0439 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0443,
    \u042f \u0441\u044f \u0440\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0432 \u0420\u0443\u0441\u0438\u043d\u043e\u043c,
    \u0421\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0432\u00f4\u0439 \u0440\u043e\u0434 \u043d\u0438 \u0437\u0430\u0431\u0443\u0434\u0443,
    \u0423\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0443 \u0441\u044f \u0439\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u044b\u043d\u043e\u043c;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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]<\/sup> This language, as an attempt to create a literary high language, was called (often perjuriously) the iazychie<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While we fully support and believe that living Rusyn, should be the first language of the Rusyns, and that in today\u2019s time, a standardized Rusyn, like what was done in Pre\u0161ov 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\u2014Russophiles\u2014who 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Defense of the Iazichie<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    Slavono-Russian<\/em><\/strong> sometimes called perjuriously iazichie <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Often when attempting to debunk one common misconception, we may unintentionally go to the opposite extreme and create another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For example, in attempting to demonstrate that iazichie<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Though iazichie<\/em> is not a good language to demonstrate the living spoken language of Rusyns today, there is one area in which it is very valuable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Slavono-Rusian<\/em> shows its true value and utility as an ecclesiastical language, a language for church sermons, spiritual literature, and cultural philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We should bear in mind that the majority of the intelligentsia in Carpathia and Galicia were clergy or from the families of clergy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This does not mean the language should be elitist and incomprehensible to the people, but at the same time, using a \u201ckitchen language\u201d, to discuss theology is often ineffective if not at times irreverent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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: \u0415\u0434\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u043d\u044b\u0439<\/em><\/strong> (English: Only-Begotten; Greek: \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2<\/em>), \u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0449\u043d\u044b\u0439<\/em><\/strong>, (Greek: \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; consubstantial) \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435<\/em><\/strong> (Greek: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2;<\/em> Latin: transsubstantiatio<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2014Church Slavonic, in which to approach these mysteries with the reverence they are due.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Again, this does not mean they are to be spoken about in a way incomprehensible to people\u2014while 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<\/strong><\/em> and Christos Voskres<\/strong><\/em>. The latter is simply a vulgar and profane renovationism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We should remember that Orthodox Christians confess One, Holy, Catholic<\/strong>, and Apostolic Church<\/em>, not One Holy Russian Church, Rusyn Church, or One Holy Ukrainian Church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The word Catholic\u2014Sobornaya<\/em>\u2014meaning gathered together, completely full, lacking in nothing, in some cases universal is a key mark of the Church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Often when speaking to the people in spiritual contexts, it befits the clergy to speak in an ecclesiastical language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regardless of its language, the symbolic value of Dukhnovych\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ya Rusyn Byl\u2019<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 19th<\/sup> century, along with many others, around the spring of nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To be clear, when we say Rusyn history begins with these 19th-century works, this does not<\/em> mean that Carpatho-Rusyns only existed from, or were invented in the 1800s<\/strong>! 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.<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As an Orthodox Christian could say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It must be emphasized again, that if we accept the 1851 Pozravlenia<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/strong> the Pozravlenia<\/em> may merely represent the start of a distinct Carpatho-Rusyn literary tradition, but the legacy of Old Rus\u2019 shall always belong to Rusyns by birthright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Who may claim Rus\u2019?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Legacy of Rus\u2019, is highly contested; not only who may claim it, but what it means and entails to be a part of Rus\u2019, is highly debated among East Slavs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The issue does not so much pertain to Rusyns, as it does to the larger East Slavic nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rusynophilia is not hostile to other East Slavs \u2014 Rusyns just want to be Rusyn<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/em><\/strong>, 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 \u2014 the right to exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, the fact is, Rusyns are not the ones denying anyone’s nationality or claims to Rus\u2019, and for that matter, nobody\u2014at least among Russians and Ukrainians\u2014are particularly denying Rusyn claims to Rus\u2019, if anything they emphasize their Rus\u2019 heritage and ignore the significant Vlach or White Croat aspect, which makes them distinct from all other Rus\u2019 peoples. In any case, Rusyns are not causing internecine strife over the legacy of Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We know that by the 14th century, there were effectively two poles, two worlds which Rus\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019 most heated\u2014by in large between Russian and Ukrainian histographies and nationalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The primary argument is simple: who is the successor of Rus\u2019, and what does it mean to be part of Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The primary stumbling block here is the false issue of subordination<\/em><\/strong> and the role of the nation-state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That is to say, people assume that if they belong to Rus\u2019, they must be subordinated to the ruling polity and state of Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Therefore, many Ukrainians do not wish to be part of a \u201cRussian World\u201d in as much as this could be understood by both sides to mean subordination to Russia, to Moscow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ukrainians may emphasize their claim to be the successor of Kievan Rus\u2019 as meaning that Ukraine is the mother of the world of Rus\u2019. Likewise, they may apply this to Rusyns, saying: \u201cYou are Rusyns, Rusyn is an old word for Rus\u2019, this land is now Ukraine, so you are Ukrainians.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For this reason, many young Rusyn activists want to distance themselves from association with Kievan Rus\u2019 and the broader Rus\u2019 world\u2014with other East Slavs\u2014to avoid this pitfall of subordination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The issue here however is a false understanding that subordination is necessary. The fact is\u2014one can be a member of Rus\u2019 and at the same time a separate east Slavic people, requiring no subordination to another Rus\u2019 nation-state or polity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In other words, Ukrainians may be part of a Rus\u2019 world<\/em> 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\u2019 simply because they are Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019, without requiring any subordination to either Russia or Ukraine. They are Rus\u2019 by virtue of their own blood-right and require no subordination to another state to substantiate that right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rus\u2019 Soborna<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    There is a guiding principle, an idea in Orthodox and Rusian<\/em> philosophical thought, that all individual members of Rus\u2019, are in and of themselves, the fullness of Rus\u2019 requiring no subordination to another to be Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The idea is that each member of Rus\u2019, whether Carpathian, Galician, Moscovian, Lithuanian, or Siberian, carries within themselves the essential aspects of Rusness (\u0440\u0443\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c \/ ruskost\u2019<\/em>) in its universal fullness, lacking in absolutely nothing and that they are at the same time both one member of Rus\u2019 (meaning there may be more members), and the fullness of Rus\u2019 in and of themselves.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Therefore, any member of Rus\u2019 is ipso facto<\/em> Rus\u2019, simply by being themselves, requiring no political union or subordination to a larger gathering of Rus\u2019. Rus\u2019 would be understood\u2014by Orthodox Christians who ascribe to this idea\u2014as 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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This concept is called Rus\u2019 Soborna<\/em><\/strong>, and is an incredibly important concept to study and understand, perhaps second only to the idea of Holy Rus\u2019, in order to understand the spiritual concepts of Rusian identity. The word Soborna(ya)<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

    Rather, it is presented both as a potential model for reconciliation, and to emphasize why neighboring nations should not \u201cclaim\u201d Rusyns against their will\u2014even if they would \u201cclaim\u201d them as a member of Rus\u2019, being a member of Rus\u2019 does not have to mean any subordination to another East Slavic nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This is a very important perspective to bear in mind, with regards to the relations between Rusyns and other East Slavs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The necessity of a distinct Rusyn identity<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cpart of Rus\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This doesn’t mean that what we discussed above, a general claim to Rus\u2019 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u201cRusyn\u201d, and people around the world will not think, \u201cOh is that like a Russian or Ukrainian\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For this reason, it is not so much the Rusyn claim to Rus\u2019 which is contested, but rather the idea that being a member of Rus\u2019, entails subordination or simply being mixed up as just one peculiar word for \u201cRus\u2019 people\u201d, and not as Rusyns\u2014a distinct people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rus\u2019 as a common Ecumene \u2014 Not a Nation-State<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    It is best if we understand that this Rus\u2019 is the ancestor of the modern East Slavs, who are both equally descended from, related to, and removed from that old Rus\u2019 state, therefore no one can claim to be Rus\u2019 itself, and subordinate the others to itself as sub-ethnoi<\/em>. If anything, all the East Slavs\u2014Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Carpatho-Rusyns\u2014could be considered sub-ethnoi<\/em> of a general Rus\u2019 family, however that Rus\u2019 would not be embodied by the Russian Federation or any other state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What we should understand about old Rus\u2019, and these early uses of the name Rusyn, is at that time, there were no nationalistic differences between Rus\u2019 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cIt is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way around.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, we can see, while Rusyn was indeed used at one point for all inhabitants of Rus\u2019, based on our maxim that language and its context evolves, today, the word Rusyn is primarily used to describe Carpatho-Rusyns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rusyn is not simply or rather exclusively an archaic word for Ukrainian<\/em><\/strong> \u2014 rather (and I say this as a Ukrainophilic person) \u2014 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\u2019 and most importantly Rusyn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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 19th<\/sup> century, ironically, due in no small part to ethnographic research and revival conducted in the Russian Empire from the late 18th<\/sup> century.[75]<\/sup> If Ukrainians wish to reject Rus\u2019 as the primary name for their country, they cannot also claim to be in the same breath \u201cmore Rusian than the Russians<\/em><\/strong>\u201d, so to speak, and that a people called \u201cRussian\u201d have no relation whatsoever to Rus\u2019, when ancient Rus\u2019 cities far from being Ukrainian, such as Novgorod the Great, are also located in Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rus\u2019 is best understood as a shared identity between all East Slavs, though the term Ukraine-Rus\u2019<\/em><\/strong> of Mykhailo Hrushevsky may help us to emphasize Ukraine\u2019s ties with Rus\u2019, it is best if the Rus\u2019 peoples don’t fight over who is more Rusian<\/em>, and simply be themselves<\/u><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In other words, if you want to be Rus\u2019, be Rus\u2019, if you wish to be separate, be separate, but if you are a part of Rus\u2019, you shouldn\u2019t have to do anything more than be yourself to be Rus\u2019, and any implication that to be a \u201ctrue Rusian\u201d, you must be subordinated to a particular polity is just that\u2014a political ploy, and nothing more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/strong> Glory to Jesus Christ, may they always preserve their right to their name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    A summary of the history and context of the ethnonym Rusyn is as follows<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n