{"id":2705,"date":"2021-12-24T09:08:25","date_gmt":"2021-12-24T15:08:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rusynsociety.com\/?p=2705"},"modified":"2025-10-16T22:39:17","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T03:39:17","slug":"rus-rusian-or-russian-a-tragedy-of-terminology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rusynsociety.com\/rul\/2021\/12\/24\/rus-rusian-or-russian-a-tragedy-of-terminology\/","title":{"rendered":"Rus\u2019, Rusian, or Russian \u2014 A Tragedy of Terminology."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A<\/span>s I sit here on this beautiful Athenian night, on my balcony looking towards the magnificent Acropolis of our beloved city, beneath the protection of the Holy Virgin, I finally have had some time, (however little) since my extensive travel through Transcarpathia, to think. Though completely content and feeling at home in Athens, as I only do in very few places in the world, here, surrounded by the mountains which shield the city, my thoughts turned to another set of mountains close to my heart\u2014to Transcarpathia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I thought again about a topic that’s always been problematic in the world of Slavic studies. Though this thought came to me originally in the Greek language…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I thought about how in our Hellenic language, the classical word for Rus\u2019 is simply Ros\u2019. What a simple word, beautiful, only one syllable, yet it seems over this simple little word a war is fought across half the vast Slavic world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am of course referring to the conundrum of what adjective to use for something \u201cof Rus\u2019\u201d\u2014something or someone belonging to the East Slavs\u2014anything ranging from Kievan Rus\u2019 to Carpathian Rus\u2019 to Belarus or dare I say even Moscow…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue is not simply one of translation, though I do feel that language barriers are an issue here, but also of history, histography, and (to my great regret) politics, because as a very clever and pragmatic priest said to me in Transcarpathia, whether we like it or not, matters as complicated as history\u2014especially national history\u2014and religion, can never really be removed completely from politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is to say even if I strive as I do to be objective as possible, even if I constantly make it very clear that I am politically neutral, against extremism, and not taking any particular \u201cside\u201d, any form of historical writing almost inevitably has political connotations, in as much as one cannot write about the history of a people \u2014 which we established is a school of literature<\/a> \u2014 without at the very least interacting with their political history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Politics comes from the Greek word polis<\/em> meaning city, and essentially means the affairs of, or otherwise the running of the city, in as much as economy originally meant \u201cthe running of the house\u201d. However, as I gaze at the Acropolis, which means \u201cabove the city\u201d, let’s strive again to look and stand above modern politics and discuss where the root of this conflict over the names of Rus\u2019 comes from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Biggest Issue in East Slavic Studies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most complicated issues in East Slavic studies, is simply determining which word (particularly in adjective form) to use for them or things connected to them. True, we could just say East Slavic or Rus\u2019 peoples, however the former is too technical and is not a term the peoples historically used for themselves, and the latter is simply awkward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue is not so much in that it\u2019s hard to think of a word, but rather in that the moment you do\u2014the moment you call an ancient city or prince in Kievan Rus\u2019 \u201cRussian\u201d, or \u201cUkrainian\u201d, unintentionally or not, you\u2019ve already taken a side in the conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am constantly reminded of the words of the late, great medievalist Dmitry Likhachov. To paraphrase, East Slavic history is cloaked in so many contradictory myths and convoluted versions like with no other nations, because no other people in the world interpret their own history as variously as do the East Slavs.[1]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 I truly feel these words encapsulate the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And for clarity the issue again is as follows: What word (especially which adjective) should be used to describe historical people and especially things belonging to Rus\u2019 and the East Slavs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, if an artifact, for example a sword, is found in Belarus, which belonged to one of the princes of Kievan Rus’, but that likely was made in Novgorod the Great, what should I call it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Russian sword, a Rus\u2019 sword, a Ukrainian sword, a Kievan sword, Belarusian, Ruthenian, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about historical figures that connect the history of each nation. A perfect example is Prince Theodore Koriatovych, a prince of Lithuanian Rus\u2019, from lands in both modern-day Lithuania and Belarus, who was the prince of Podolia in modern Ukraine, and later Duke of Mukachevo and ruler of Transcarpathia under Hungary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What should I call him? A Russian prince (after all, the term in that time period which he would have recognized was almost certainly some form of (\u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439<\/em>); should I call him a Ukrainian prince (extremely anachronistic, though he did rule land entirely in modern Ukraine, and was not on territory friendly to Moscovia), a Ruthenian Prince, a Rusyn Prince?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We discussed before extensively the meaning, origins, and context of these words<\/a>, and I don’t wish to repeat that here, rather I’d like to discuss the issue itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This issue overshadows almost all historical discussions of these lands and peoples. Almost any time I write or speak about this I am challenged with terminology \u2014 what to call these things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much of this issue I believe can come down to translation, as it’s a shame in English it is not easy to make this distinction between Rus\u2019 and Russia, that is to say between Ruskii<\/em> and Rossisskii<\/em>. While the historical meanings and contexts of these words is long and complex, simply put, the modern connotation is that Rossia<\/em> and Rossisskii <\/em>refers to the modern nation-state of Russia today, or Russia in the early modern period, whereas Ruskii <\/em>can also be used for the ancient state of Rus\u2019 even distinct from Moscow. It\u2019s worth noting that in the other Ruthenian<\/em> languages (note the word I choose to use here), Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Carpatho-Rusyn, Rus\u2019 and Ruskii<\/em> (with one S), is generally used at least in the in literary language to refer exclusively to Old Rus\u2019, be it Kievan or Lithuanian or in whichever period, and Moscovia and the state and people which evolved directly from it are called Rossia<\/em> and Rossisski(e) <\/em>respectively, however, these people call themselves Russkii<\/em> (with a double s) and their state Rossisskii<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If these adjectives sound convoluted\u2014that\u2019s because the whole situation is convoluted. Magocsi touches on this subject briefly here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides the Greco-Byzantine term Rosia to describe Rus\u2019, Latin documents used several related terms \u2013 Ruscia, Russia, Ruzzia \u2013 for Kievan Rus\u2019 as a whole. Subsequently, the terms Ruteni and Rutheni were used to describe Ukrainian and Belarusan Eastern Christians (especially members of the Uniate, later Greek Catholic, Church) residing in the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The German, French, and English versions of those terms \u2013 Ruthenen, ruth\u00e8ne, Ruthenian \u2013 generally were applied only to the inhabitants of Austrian Galicia and Bukovina and of Hungarian Transcarpathia. For the longest time, English-language writings did not distinguish the name Rus\u2019 from Russia, with the result that in descriptions of the pre-fourteenth-century Kievan realm the conceptually distorted formulation Kievan Russia was used. In recent years, however, the correct terms Rus\u2019 and Kievan Rus\u2019 have appeared more frequently in English-language scholarly publications, although the corresponding adjective Rus\u2019\/Rusyn has been avoided in favor of either the incorrect term Russian or the correct but visually confusing term Rus\u2019ian\/Rusian.[2]<\/sup><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Though it may appear visually confusing at first, perhaps the best word is Rusian<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we could simply adopt and agree upon this word \u2014 Rusian<\/strong> \u2014 as a neutral word for general Rus\u2019 history, this would solve so many of our problems. I wish we could just begin to use this word more, and I truly believe that if we did, some<\/em> of this issue could finally be resolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the issue is not<\/em> only one of translation, but as we noted, histography and inevitable politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A perfect illustration of this, and a good model for the issue at hand is the very name of the Rusyn village of Ruski Krstur<\/em> (\u0420\u0443\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u041a\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0443\u0440<\/em>) in Serbia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Ruski Krstur <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The cultural center of the Pannonia Rusyns. The name literally can be translated from Serbian as \u201cRussian Cross\u201d. Due to the complicated context, people will often rush to translate it as Rusyn Cross or Ruthenian Cross and at this point, political correctness is yet again an obstacle to objective reality. It is not called Rusynskii Krestr, it\u2019s called Ruski<\/em>, and this is the same word Ruski<\/em> that Rusyns themselves used to refer to themselves. And of course, this does not mean it’s a village of Muscovites from Russia! Of course, in this context it refers to Rusyns or \u201cRuthenians\u201d, but this doesn’t change the fact that the word used is Ruski. And the context in Slavic tells us all we need to know, but in English we have yet to completely develop terminology that accurately explains all the nuances of the situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Slavic languages of course, the ending –ski<\/em> is a suffix which is added to nouns, to form an adjective meaning from<\/em> or of<\/em> the given place or thing. So Mukachevski monastyr means the monastery of Mukachevo or simply Mukachevo Monastery, St. Vladimir of Kiev is called Vladimir Kievski, the Verecki Pass in Transcarpathia is called also Ruski Vorota (\u0420\u0443\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456 \u0412\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0430) meaning the gates of Rus\u2019, and thus Ruski Krstur could be translated as The Rus\u2019 Cross, or perhaps the Cross of the Rus’ people…it could…but that does not mean it should.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can tell this is a very awkward sounding word here, precisely because the noun Rus\u2019 is not intended to be used like that as an adjective. The English equivalent to Ruski is classically\u2014Russian. However, we also can recognize that in today’s context, this word has additional baggage, in that most people will associate it with the modern country of Russia, and we do not wish to imply by the word Russian, that all Rus\u2019 peoples are simply subcategories of the nation ruled from Moscow, we mean Russian in the context \u201cof Rus\u2019\u201d, in Slavic, Ruski<\/em>. In the Serbian language, this is simply a reality, that Rossia<\/em> (Russia) is called Rusija<\/em>, and they naturally associate it with Rus\u2019, and as a result, they associate other Rus\u2019 peoples with Rus\u2019. We should not immediately jump to change long-established historical terminology simply because we don’t like the connotation. In some cases, it’s possible and necessary, but it shouldn’t be our first action. First, we can look to see if we can ideally explain or contextualize the situation. The difference between historical revisionism and contextualization is that revisionism essentially rewrites history and attempts to pass off a certain understanding or opinion as objective facts, whereas our goal is simply to say what happened factually, and how to explain it so that people can see the same reality, and from there, let the people themselves form their own opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So how can we explain what Ruski Krestr means? We could just call it \u201cRussian Cross\u201d and hope people understand that this actually means Russian as in an adjective of Rus\u2019, and not modern Russia, but would most people really understand that? We could simply start calling it Rusyn or Ruthenian Cross, even though this is simply incorrect and not what the Pannonia Rusyns who live there themselves call it, and thus, as usual with modern political correctness, try to be more politically correct than the people on the ground actually themselves would be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Or…we could explain that it means Rusian<\/em><\/strong> Cross, because a Rus\u2019 people\u2014the Pannonian Rusyns\u2014live there. This is merely on example of where a neutral and agreed upon adjective can be very helpful. So, we can accurately explain when something means \u201cof Rus\u2019\u201d, in a general context, without revising the word itself, and without confusing people with a term like Russian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the issue remains here that not everyone will even agree that there is a general Rus\u2019, and if there is, not everyone will agree on all its members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some Rus\u2019 peoples consider others to be not nations but simply their own subethnos, others would say they don’t exist at all. And notice how that can apply to various peoples. Modern Russian nationalists and chauvinists have this view of Ukraine, that they are simply a subethnos of their own, and likewise, Ukrainian nationalists often feel the same way about Rusyns if they recognize them at all. Some would argue that there are absolutely no differences at all between these peoples, which is dubious in that the very fact that there is such a heated conflict proves it\u2019s not some minor issue. Others with irreligious and materialistic views would say that these nations are as different as Czechs and Slovaks, that is to say related, but separate, and that no notion of a spiritual Rus\u2019 united by common faith and culture in Orthodoxy\u2014which is the traditional basis of unity in Rus\u2019\u2014should be accepted in the modern world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This author views both of these extremes to be inaccurate and harmful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perspectives on Rusian Statehood, Succession, and Inheritance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ideal understanding, in our humble vision, is to view these peoples as equal children or even grandchildren of Old Rus\u2019, in such a way that no single modern nation has any exclusive<\/em> claim or more legitimacy to claim to be the successor of Rus\u2019 than the other, but where they are all in and of themselves fully Rus\u2019 in the entire sobornost\u2019<\/em><\/strong> of that word. After all they are all post-Soviet nations today, none have an unbroken line of succession to a continuing ancient Rusian polity. Regardless how we feel about monarchy, today, there is no longer any Most Pious Czar<\/em>, whose age has now long since into the annuals of bygone years passed away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, it\u2019s worth considering that these peoples may look at what grants legitimate succession in different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Muscovite Perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traditional Muscovite histography puts a great deal of emphasis on the transfer of powers and lineages. For example, the transfer of the Kievan Metropolitan and some of the descendants of the Grand Princes of Kiev to Vladimir and then to Moscow. The history of the Russian state, e.g. as classically recorded by Karamzin, is thus in practice reduced to the history of a single family. So, whereas the line of the Kings of Galicia was broken, and the great Ruthenian estates of Ostrogski, Slutski, and Wi\u015bniowiecki[1]<\/sup> (the latter producing even King Michael of Poland, the great-nephew of Moldovan-Vlach Orthodox St. Peter Mohyla of Kiev and Galicia) where inherited by polish szlachta and Austro-Hungarian rulers, the idea was that the successor and the only free Rus\u2019 was the Muscovite state, who in their idea had the right to claim the other Rusian lands as essentially \u201cnext of kin\u201d inheritors, and demand the loyalty of the people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rusin or Ukrainian Perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rusin or Ukrainian perspective however, it may be seen as being slightly more democratic or even populist and is more based on the unity of the native people with their land. While it\u2019s true that Western Rus\u2019 eventually fell under foreign rule, this never made the people any less Rusian. Even if in foreign languages they were called Ruthenians, the people kept calling themselves Rusins\/Rusyns. Even if the princes of bygone ages are gone, the people never moved. Saint Sophia Cathedral never moved to Moscow along with the Cathedra, she remained in Kiev where the great Caves Lavra never fell into the Dnieper. The Lviv Dormition Brotherhood never moved to Warsaw, St. Nicholas Mukachevo Monastery never forsook Monk\u2019s Hill for the royal Buda Hills, and the Carpathian Mountains did not stand up and move to Vienna. So, if the Muscovite claim to sovereignty over the Russian state is based on the transfer of power, and they established themselves in such a way that they essentially claimed the word Russian itself, the Rusin<\/em> claim can be in the fact that the people did not<\/em><\/strong> transfer or move, but remained Rusians\u2014people of Rus\u2019\u2014having withstood all the storms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The Horyanska Rotunda, one of the oldest \u201cRusian\u201d churches, originally dating to roughly the tenth century. Uzhhorod district, Zakarpattia Oblast, Ukraine. Photo: \u041e\u043a\u0441\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u0412\u0430\u0449\u0443\u043a, Wikimedia. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion \u2014 Rusian as an objective adjective<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so, we see that people have a reasonable claim to Rus\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n