четвртак, 20. октобар 2016.

Nicomachean Ethics


Book 1

Not just theoretical discussion, more like a practical guide on ethical living such as somebody could implement ideas presented in text and hopefully live a better life because of it,

Aristotle only expects to be able to come up with broad, general guidelines.

The goal is to seek the highest possible good
With the intent of using it as a "North star" to guide behavior.

Ultimate goal of most men in life is to achieve happiness

No one has the exactly the same definition of happiness

He generalizes it, three most common:

HAPPINESS

1 Life of Pleasure - Happiness as enjoyment

 2 Life of Politics- happiness as honor
(Possession of virtue and honor do not necessarily make one happy, or impact on someone life)

 3 Life of Contemplation- happiness as intelligence

FIRST PRINCIPLE
(Aristotle assumes readers already have some moral knowledge, gained through life experience)
-Aristotle goal is practicality, he doesn't want to spend too much time establishing basic principle
(Why happiness is in itself good)

GOOD

1 Things can be good for their own sake.

 2 Things can also be good as the means to a different good

 3 IDEAL GOOD - Therefore the Greatest Good should be the end to which all other goods are means.

 Goods that serve as the means to other goods are subordinate to them.

So something that is good for its own sake and subordinated to no other good would be the greatest good of all.

According to Aristotle this thing is Happiness.

You can't use Happiness to achieve some other goods.

 Motivation : Everything you do as either for Happiness or for the sake of something that will make you happy.

To live well is to live for the sake of happiness.
To live well is also to strive to excellence in every part of one's life.
Excellence for a human morality is to live virtuously

 Wealth and political influence, material possession and friends are very desirable.

Execution of many virtuous and noble action requires this kind of things as tools.
It is easier for someone with money, power, and influence to do good, that it is for someone to do without.

BOOK 2



Virtue (Wisdom, justice, truth, honor, goodness)

Aristotle about moral virtue, it is not something that is inherent in the nature of humans.
Nature bestows us with certain capacities that are actualized by our habits.
Morality is both nature and nurture
- Nature determines capacity, life experience

Nature bestows us with certain range of possibilities and that nurture are life experience.

Somebody become just by performing just action, brave by performing brave action.
Virtues that are linked with this action aren't acquired before or after somebody acts.
The virtue is acquired during the action itself.

He is not saying that a single act of bravery make someone a brave person.
Our habits determine our character !!!


How one should act in order to build good habits ?

Any answers we get from this are bound to be very General.
Agreement to a first principle. ( virtue : justice , bravery are GOOD and opposite are BAD)

Just looking at a man action isn't really enough to tell you about his character.
 No one calls a man brave when he faces danger with great pain and reluctants.

It is not merely actions, but the attitude (pleasure or pains)
  that go along with it that display ones character.

Virtues are inherently tied to feelings, and feelings to pleasure and pain.
Virtue is responding to each in an appropriate way.

A man who flies from danger is not necessarily a coward. (If the danger he flies from is sufficient to provoke that response)

Definition of Virtue

Necessarily states of the soul, either:
1 Emotions  - Don't  carry with them any moral Judgment !
(No one is judged for their feelings, so long as they are justified)
- An angry man isn't considered bad so long his anger is justified.

2 Capacities - Don't deal with morals !
(No one is judged for their capacity for emotion, so long as they control it)
- No man is said to be bad because he is capable of extreme anger.

3 Dispositions - Can and do carry moral weight !!!
(Someone would be judged based on how prone they are to certain feelings or actions)
- Someone with a disposition towards anger, who becomes angry at the slites provocation , could and would be considered bad.

Virtues then, are dispositions.

A good disposition is one that makes its subject good, and causes him to live well.

 This is accomplished by "aiming for the mean" 
- A state in between excess and deficiency.

Vices

- When there is a danger...  1 excesive fear or deficient breavery - coward (Vice)
                    2 ignoring danger  entirely , too much breavery -  rush (Vice)
3 Courage a propriate amount of fear and breavery !!!
Average place lies somewhere between Rushnes and Cowardnes
It depends of situation
Morality exists on a sliding scale, changing based on the situation.

 Some things are, by definition good or bad
(Malice, shameless, jealousy, benevalence, adoltery, theft, murder ) - By definition evil.

 Excess or deficiency - Shamelessness
Breaking laws, contract , promises -  Murder, theft, adoltery

 Whether it be because the thing itself is by definition an excess or deficiency, or it is something that is simply wrong, with no mean to observe.
Moral virtue as a mean

Practical advice on finding the middle ground
1 Steer away from the extreme that most opposes the mean 
2 Recognize your weaknesses, and steer away from errors you are prone to making
3 Be wary when pleasure is on the line, it makes us to stupid things

Overindulgence         Temperates         Underendolgence



Објавио у Нема коментара:

уторак, 18. октобар 2016.

Spirituality of Unity

The spirituality expressed by Chiara Lubich soon became defined as a ‘collective’ or better still, a ‘communitarian’ spirituality, always in view of ‘ut omnes unum sint’ (jn 17,21). This spirituality unfolds into 12 cardinal points, leading from one to another:
  1. God is Love
  2. The Will of God
  3. The Word
  4. The Neighbour
  5. Mutual Love
  6. Jesus in the Eucharist
  7. Unity
  8. Jesus Forsaken
  9. Mary
  10. The Church
  11. The Holy Spirit
  12. Jesus in the Midst
In Chiara Lubich the points of the spirituality of unity were not developed through thought out plans, reflections or some theological points. Rather, this is a spirituality demanding an immediate adhesion, decisive and practical, something that brings life. In the splendid history of the Church, from its individual members, its saints and communities there has always been a clear line and result: it’s the individual that goes to God. This remains the case within the spirituality of unity, in the sense that the individual’s experience of God is unique and will never be repeated. However, the spirituality is drawn from the charism of unity, entrusted by the Holy Spirit to Chiara, and as well as this indispensible personal spiritual experience there is also a deep emphasis on the communitarian dimension of Christian life. It is not a complete novelty, the Gospel is eminently communitarian. There have been experiences in the past which have underlined the collective aspect of the journey towards God, above all in the spiritualities rising from those who had love at the base of their spiritual life. This can be seen in the example of St Basil and his community.

Chiara Lubich brings her own spirituality, which is an original communitarian way of going to God: being one in Christ, according to the Gospel of John: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, so may they be in us.” (Jn 17,21). In Chiara this became a style of life.
A “communitarian spirituality” was foretold for our epoch by contemporary theologians and is also mentioned by the Second Vatican Council. Karl Rahner, for example, speaking of the spirituality of the Church of the future, saw it as a “fraternal communion in which it is possible to make the same basic experience of the Spirit”. Vatican II, directed attention to the Church as the body of Christ and people assembled in the bond of love of the Trinity.
If St Teresa of Avila, doctor of the Church, spoke of “an interior castle”, the spirituality of unity helps to build an “exterior castle”, where Christ will be present and illuminate every part of it.
Објавио у Нема коментара:

Pope Paul VI: Prophet, Apostle, Mediator

Maria Voce’s talk, given on September 23 in the crowded cathedral in Brescia during the conference on "Paul VI, a Spiritual Portrait." Giovanni Battista Montini, a Man of Dialogue
PaoloVI_ChiaraLubichCatholic Church leaders, representatives of the Islamic world, civil authorities, representatives of associations and the people of Brescia and neighbouring cities filled the cathedral of the Italian city on the 23rd of September, for the conference on “Paul VI, a Spiritual Portrait“. The event included the testimony of Maria Voce, President of the Focolare Movement, in a speech read on her behalf by  Rosi Bertolassi.
Her speech touched on three aspects of Giovanni Battista Montini’s life and work as: prophet, apostle and mediator. The President of the Focolare first of all expressed the deep gratitude that bound the Movement she represents to Blessed Paul VI, who was “…one of the gifts God wanted to make to humankind in our time.” She recalled the time when the Church was studying the emerging Movement, saying, “When he became Pope he played a key role  in discerning the charism of Chiara Lubich and in making possible what, at the beginning of the sixties, still seemed” impossible,” expertly identifying juridically appropriate ways to express the specific character of this new movement in the Church.”
“Therefore”, she stressed, “Because he was “imbued with the Word, we saw the figure of Giovanni Battista Montini – Paul VI – in this triple dimension of prophet, apostle and mediator.”
In the prophetic dimension, Maria Voce highlighted “his ability to open new paths with courage and wisdom, to break down walls and express the renewal of the Church which his soul craved for,” Examples were Pope Paul VI’s historic embrace of peace with Patriarch Athenagoras in January 1964 in the Holy Land; or when, in 1970, through an historic decision he raised two women, St Teresa of Avila and St Catherine of Siena, to the status of  Doctor of the Church – a title previously only given to men; or when, in the 1975 Holy Year, he knelt to kiss the feet of the Orthodox Metropolitan Meliton.
“Paul VI was truly the Pope of dialogue. This is how Pope John Paul II described him in Concesio during his pastoral visit in 1982, emphasizing his predecessor’s ability to dialogue with the whole of humanity.”
Maria Voce also emphasized his apostolic dimension saying, “In Ecclesiam Suam (…) we perceive the thought and mind of the apostle whose name he had chosen, the name of the missionary apostle and the first theologian of Christ, the one who made himself all things to all people. Pope Paul VI did not spare himself so that the announcement of the Gospel could reach all nations.” In this respect, Maria Voce recalled his apostolic journeys “that brought him closer to the peoples of the world, making the Church more one and more ‘catholic’, as Paul VI  liked to emphasize, in the etymological sense of the word. Particularly significant and universal in outlook was his historic and profoundly human speech delivered at the United Nations. I am pleased to recall once more his innovative inclusion of the laity in key areas of work of the Church; his confidence in the contribution of lay people’s ideas; and his recognition, in Octogesima adveniens, of the legitimacy of  a variety of political opinions while remaining faithful to Gospel principles.”
Finally, his ability to be a “mediator of the One Mediator“. After recalling his surprising letter to the Red Brigade which “flowed from his soul at the painful time when his friend Honourable Aldo Moro was kidnapped” Maria Voce affirmed his role as mediator and added, “Paul VI – in the footsteps of his Master – took upon himself the anguish and torment of the world, feeling it deeply as if it were his own. He bore the sin of the world, perceiving truly the weight of it and suffering profoundly, as could sometimes be seen in his face. In that way he manifested clearly the fatherhood of God, bridging the distance between heaven and earth, healing wounds, wiping away tears, bringing peace and unity.”
Објавио у Нема коментара:

Ruthenian language

Not to be confused with Rusyn language.
"Old Belarusian" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Classical Belarusian.
Ruthenian
Old Ruthenian
руский языкъ ruskij jazykŭ
Native toPolish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (language of administration of Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1699)
Extinctdeveloped into Belarusian,Ukrainian and Rusyn.
Indo-European
Language codes
ISO 639-3–
Linguist list
orv-olr
GlottologNone
Ruthenian (or Old Belarusian, Old Ukrainian, see other names) was the group of varieties of Eastern Slavonic spoken in theGrand Duchy of Lithuania and later in the East Slavic territories of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The written form is also called Chancery Slavonic by Lithuanian linguists.[1]
Scholars do not agree whether Ruthenian was a separate language, or a Western dialect or set of dialects of Old East Slavic, but it is agreed that Ruthenian has a close genetic relationship with it. Old East Slavic was the colloquial language used in Kievan Rus'(10th–13th centuries).[2] Ruthenian can be seen as a predecessor of modern Belarusian, Rusyn and Ukrainian. Indeed, all these languages, from Old East Slavic to Rusyn, have been labelled as Ruthenian (Ukrainian: рутенська мова, русинська мова).

Nomenclature[edit]

Ruthenian language grammar byStepan Smal-Stotsky
In modern texts, the language in question is sometimes called "Old Belarusian" or starabiełaruskaja mova (Belarusian: “Старабеларуская мова”) and "Old Ukrainian" or staroukrajinska mova (Ukrainian: “Староукраїнська мова”). As Ruthenian was always in a kind of diglossicopposition to Church Slavonic, this vernacular language was and still is often called prosta(ja) mova (Cyrillic проста(я) мова), literally "simple language".
On the other hand, there exists a school of thought that Old Belarusian and Old Ukrainian must be considered as separate historical languages.
Names in contemporary use
  • Ruthenian (Old Belarusian: руски езыкъ) — by the contemporaries, but, generally, not in contemporary Russia.
    • (variant) Simple Ruthenian or simple talk (Old Belarusian: простый руский (язык) or простая молва, про́ста мова) — publisher Grigoriy Khodkevich (16th century).
  • Lithuanian (Russian: Литовский язык) — possibly, exclusive reference to it in the contemporary Russia. Also by Zizaniy (end of the 16th century), Pamva Berynda (1653).
Names in modern use
  • (Old) Ruthenian — modern collective name, covering both Old Belarusian and Old Ukrainian languages, predominantly used by the 20th-century Lithuanian, also many Polish and English researchers.
  • (Old) West Russian, language or dialect (Russian: (Древний) западнорусский язык, Russian: (Древнее) западнорусское наречие) — chiefly by the supporters of the concept of the Proto-Russian phase, esp. since the end of the 19th century, e.g., by Karskiy,Shakhmatov. Russian Wikipedia uses the term West Russian written language (Западнорусский письменный язык).
  • (Old) Belarusian (language) — rarely in contemporary Russia. Also Kryzhanich. The denotation Belarusian (language) (Russian: белорусский (язык)) when referring both to the 19th-century language and to the Medieval language had been used in works of the 19th-century Russian researchers Fyodor Buslayev, Ogonovskiy, Zhitetskiy, Sobolevskiy, Nedeshev, Vladimirov and Belarusian nationalists, such as Karskiy.
  • Lithuanian-Russian (Russian: литовско-русский) — by 19th-century Russian researchers Keppen, archbishop Filaret, Sakharov, Karatayev.
  • Lithuanian-Slavonic (Russian: литово-славянский) — by 19th-century Russian researcher Baranovskiy.[3]
  • Old Ukrainian or staroukrajinska mova (Ukrainian: “Староукраїнська мова”).
  • Chancery Slavonic (see above).
  • ruski — used by Norman Davies in Vanished Kingdoms: The History of Half-Forgotten Europe.
Note that ISO/DIS 639-3 and SIL currently assigns the code rue for the language which is documented with native name "русин (rusyn)", that they simply named "Ruthenian" in English (and "ruthène" in French) instead "modern Ruthenian" (and "ruthène moderne" in French) : this code is now designated as the Rusyn language.

Divergence between literary Ruthenian and literary Russian[edit]

As Eastern Europe gradually freed itself from the "Tatar yoke" in the 14th century, two separate mainly East Slavic states emerged: the Grand Duchy of Moscow (Muscovy), which eventually evolved into the Tsardom of Russia and subsequently the Russian Empire; and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which covered roughly the territories of modern Belarus,Ukraine, Lithuania, and western Russia, and later united with Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Linguistically, both states continued to use the regional varieties of the literary language of Kievan Rus', but due to the immense Polish influence in the west and to the Church Slavonic influence in the east, they gradually developed into two distinct literary languages: Ruthenian in Lithuania and the Commonwealth, and (Old) Russian in Muscovy. Both were usually called Ruskij (of Rus’) or Slovenskij(Slavonic); only when a differentiation between the literary language of Muscovy and the one of Lithuania was needed was the former called Moskovskij 'Muscovite' (and, rarely, the latter Lytvynskij 'Lithuanian').
This linguistic difference is confirmed by the need for translators during the mid-17th-century negotiations for the Treaty of Pereyaslav, between Bohdan Khmelnytsky, ruler of theZaporozhian Host, and the Tsardom of Russia.

Continuing Polish influence[edit]

After the Union of Lublin in 1569, the southern territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania came under direct administration by the Polish Crown, whereas the north retained some autonomy. It is possible that this resulted in differences concerning the status of Ruthenian as an official language and the intensity of Polish influence on Ruthenian.[citation needed]However, in both parts of the Commonwealth inhabited by Eastern Slavs, Ruthenian remained a lingua franca, and in both parts it was gradually replaced by Polish as a language of literature, religious polemic, and official documents.

New national languages[edit]

With the beginning of romanticism at the beginning of the 19th century, literary Belarusian and literary Ukrainian appeared, descendant from the popular spoken dialects and little-influenced by literary Ruthenian. Meanwhile, Russian retained a layer of Church Slavonic "high vocabulary", so that nowadays the most striking lexical differences between Russian on the one hand and Belarusian and Ukrainian on the other are the much greater share of Slavonicisms in the former and of Polonisms in the latter. In his 1827 Little Russian Folksongs Mykhaylo Maksymovych used a new orthography for the Ukrainian language which was based on etymology. Maksymovychivka looked quite similar to Russian, but it was a first step towards an independent orthography. In 1834, Maksimovich was appointed professor and the first rector of Russian literature at the newly createdSaint Vladimir University in Kiev, established by the Russian government to reduce Polish influence in Ukraine.[4][better source needed]
The split between literary Ruthenian and the successor literary languages can be seen at once in the newly designed Belarusian and Ukrainian orthographies.
The interruption of the literary tradition was especially drastic in Belarusian: In the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish had largely replaced Ruthenian as the language of administration and literature. After that Belarusian only survived as a rural spoken language with almost no written tradition until the mid-19th century.
In contrast to the Belarusians and Ukrainians, the Western Ruthenians who came to live in Carpathian Mountains in Austria-Hungary retained not only the name Ruthenian but also much more of the Church Slavonic and Polish elements of Ruthenian. For disambiguation, in English these people are usually called by the native form of their name,Rusyns.
Thus, in the 19th century, the literary Ruthenian language had evolved into three modern literary languages. For their further development, see Belarusian language, Rusyn language, and Ukrainian language.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ e.g., Elana Goldberg Shohamy and Monica Barni, Linguistic Landscape in the City (Multilingual Matters, 2010: ISBN 1847692974), p. 139: "[The Grand Duchy of Lithuania] adopted as its official language the literary version of Ruthenian, written in Cyrillic and also known as Chancery Slavonic"; Virgil Krapauskas, Nationalism and Historiography: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Lithuanian Historicism (East European Monographs, 2000: ISBN 0880334576), p. 26: "By the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Chancery Slavonic dominated the written state language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania"; Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction Of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2004: ISBN 030010586X), p. 18: "Local recensions of Church Slavonic, introduced by Orthodox churchmen from more southerly lands, provided the basis for Chancery Slavonic, the court language of the Grand Duchy."
  2. Jump up^ Ukrainian language, Encyclopædia Britannica
  3. Jump up^ Cited in Улащик Н. Введение в белорусско-литовское летописание. — М., 1980.
  4. Jump up^ Mykhaylo Maksymovych

Literature[edit]

  • Brogi Bercoff, Giovanna: “Plurilingualism in Eastern Slavic culture of the 17th century: The case of Simeon Polockij.” In: Slavia: Časopis pro slovanskou filologii, vol. 64. p. 3-14.
  • Danylenko, Andrii: "'Prostaja mova', 'Kitab', and Polissian Standard". In: Die Welt der Slaven LI (2006), no. 1, p. 80-115.
  • Danylenko, Andrii: "On the Name(s) of the prostaja mova in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", In: Studia Slavica Hung., 51/1-2 (2006),p. 97-121
  • Dingley, Jim [James]. “The two versions of the Gramatyka Slovenskaja of Ivan Uževič.’ In: The Journal of Byelorussian Studies, 2.4 (year VIII), p. 369-384.
  • Frick, David A. "'Foolish Rus': On Polish civilization, Ruthenian self-hatred, and Kasijan Sakovyč." In: Harvard Ukrainian studies 18.3/4 (1994), p. 210-248.
  • Martel, Antoine. La langue polonaise dans les pays ruthènes: Ukraine et Russie Blanche 1569/1667. Lille 1938.
  • Moser, Michael: "Mittelruthenisch (Mittelweißrussisch und Mittelukrainisch): Ein Überblick." In: Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50 (2005), no. 1-2, p. 125-142.
  • Mozer [= Moser], Michaėl’. "Čto takoe 'prostaja mova'?". In: Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47.3/4 (2002), p. 221-260.
  • Pivtorak, Hryhorij. “Do pytannja pro ukrajins’ko-bilorus’ku vzajemodiju donacional’noho periodu (dosjahnennja, zavdannja i perspektyvy doslidžen’)”. In: Movoznavstvo 1978.3 (69), p. 31-40.
  • Pugh, Stefan M.: Testament to Ruthenian. A Linguistic Analysis of the Smotryc’kyj Variant. Cambridge 1996 (= Harvard Series of Ukrainian Studies).
  • Shevelov, George Y. “Belorussian versus Ukrainian: Delimitation of texts before A.D. 1569”. In: The Journal of Byelorussian Studies 3.2 (year 10), p. 145-156.
  • Stang, Christian: Die westrussische Kanzleisprache des Grossfürstentums Litauen. Oslo 1935 (= Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Historisk-filosofisk Klasse 1935,2).
  • Strumins’kyj, Bohdan. “The language question in the Ukrainian lands before the nineteenth century”. In: Aspects of the Slavic language question. Ed. Riccardo Picchio, Harvey Goldblatt. New Haven 1984, vol. 2, p. 9-47.

External links[edit]

Објавио у Нема коментара:

Ruthenia

Ruthenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historical Ruthenia /ruːˈθiːniə/ is a proper geographical exonym for Kievan Rus' and other, more local, historical states. It was applied to the area where Ruthenians lived.
The word Ruthenia originated as a Latin rendering of the region and people known originally as Rus'. Although Rus' is used as the same root word for Russia in the Russianlanguage, the allusion holds a direct link to the ancestors of the Rus' Varangians or Varyags sometimes called "Vikings" in English publications. A group of Varangians known as the Rus settled in Novgorod in 862 under the leadership of Rurik. In European manuscripts dating from the 13th century, "Ruthenia" was used to describe Rus': the wider area occupied by the Ancient Rus' (commonly referred to as Kievan Rus'), most of it known alternatively as the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia. After the devastating Mongolianoccupation of the main part of Ruthenia, then the incorporation of Ruthenian principalities into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then into the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the territory was converted into the Ruthenian Voivodeship, which existed until the 18th century. A small part of Rus', probably starting from the 8th-9th centuries, historically belonged mainly to the Kingdom of Hungary, with strong cultural ties both to Ruthenia and Hungary, now in Ukraine as a part of Zakarpattia Oblastc (annexed by USSR in 1946), with a small part in Slovakia. A territory long disputed[1] as an early part of Hungary, and from the 10th century Ruthenia and Poland, formed the Chervian Towns (hun.: Vörösföldnek, pol.: Grody Czerwieńskie, ukr.:Червенські городи), now mostly in Poland, partly in Ukraine.
With the appearance of ethnonym "Ukrainians" in the 19th century, the use of "Ruthenia" became less common. Polish until 1939 and residents of Transcarpathia until today continue to use the Slavic variation of the term as the Subcarpathian Rus' and thus regard themselves or their neighbours as Rusyns, Rusini (Ruthenians).

Late Middle Ages[edit]

By the 15th century the Moscow principality (or Muscovy) established its sovereignty over a large portion of ancient Rus' territory,[citation needed] including Novgorod, Pskov, and parts of Chernigov and Pereyaslavl principalities,[citation needed] often displacing, exchanging with eastern parts of Russia, or murdering a large part of the Ruthenian population of towns (for example, the former Novgorod Republic).[2][3][4][5] From 1547 the Moscow principality adopted the title of The Great Pricipat of Moscow and Tsardom of the Whole Rus, and claimed sovereignty over "all the Rus'" - acts not recognized by its neighbour Poland.[6] This laid the foundation of the modern Russian state.[citation needed] The Muscovy population was Eastern Orthodox and used the Greek transcription of Rus', being "Rossia",[citation needed] rather than the Latin "Ruthenia".
In the 14th century the southern territories of ancient Rus', including the principalities of Galicia–Volhynia, Kiev and others, became a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which, in 1384, united with Catholic Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Due to their usage of the Latin script rather than the Cyrillic script, they were usually denoted by the Latin Ruthenia. Other spellings were also used in Latin, English and other languages during this period.
These southern territories have corresponding names in Polish:
The Russian Tsardom, until 1764, has been called Moskwa, which means "the Moscow", and in official language Wielkie Księstwo Moskiewskie, The Great Principat of Moscow.[7]

Modern age[edit]

Ukraine[edit]

See also: Rus' (name) § From Rus' to Ukraine
The use of the term Ruthenia in the lands of ancient Rus' survived longer as a name used by Ukrainians for Ukraine. When the Austrian monarchy made Galicia a province in 1772, Habsburg officials realized that the local East Slavic people were distinct from both Poles and Russians, and still called themselves Ruthenians, until the empire fell apart in 1918.
By 1840 the superior term, Малая Русь (or Малороссия), Little Rus', or Rus' Minora, for Ruthenians became derogative in the Russian Empire, and they began calling themselves Ukrainians, for Ukrayina.[citation needed] In the 1880s and 1900s, the popularity of the ethnonym Ukrainian spread and the term Ukraine became a substitute forRuthenia among the Ruthenian/Ukrainian population of the Empire. In time the term Ruthenian became restricted to western Ukraine, an area then part of the Austro-Hungarian state.
By the early 20th century, the term Ukraine had replaced Ruthenia in Galicia/Halychyna and by the mid-1920s also in the Ukrainian diaspora in North America.
'Rusin' (the Ruthenian) has been one of official self-identifications of the Rus' population in Poland. Until 1939, for many traditional Ruthenians and Polish, the word "Ukrainiec" meant a person involved in or friendly to a nationalist movement.[8]

Russia[edit]

See also: Rus' (name) § From Rus' to Russia
The most numerous population of the ancient Rus' cultural descendants, the Muscovites,[citation needed] according to Russian authors, still keep the same name for their ethnicity(russkie), while the name of their state, Rus', was gradually replaced by its Greek transcription, Rossia. However, some other Slavish languages definitely separate the "Ruthenian" meaning from its "Russian" neighbour (i.e. Polish). Russian population dominates the former territory of Muscovy, Vladimir Rus', the Grand Principality of Smolensk,Novgorod Republic, and Pskov Republic, and they are also a significant minority in Ukraine and Belarus.

Modern Ruthenia[edit]

For more details on this topic, see Rusyns.
Ruthenia in 1927
After 1918, the name Ruthenia became narrowed to the area south of the Carpathian mountains in the Kingdom of Hungary, namedCarpathian Ruthenia (including the cities of Mukachevo, Uzhhorod, and Prešov) and populated by Carpatho-Ruthenians, a group of East Slavic highlanders. While Galician Ruthenians considered themselves to be Ukrainians, the Carpatho-Ruthenians were the last East Slavic people that kept the ancient historic name (Ruthen is a Latin deformation of the Slavic rusyn). Nowadays, the term Rusyn is used to describe the ethnicity and language of Ruthenians who are not forced to the Ukrainian national identity. Carpatho-Ruthenia formed part of the Hungarian Kingdom from the late 11th century, where it was known as Kárpátalja. In May 1919, it was incorporated with nominal autonomy into Czechoslovakia. After this date, Ruthenian people have been divided among three orientations. First, there were theRussophiles, who saw Ruthenians as part of the Russian nation; second, there were the Ukrainophiles who, like their Galician counterparts across the Carpathian mountains, considered Ruthenians part of the Ukrainian nation; and, lastly, there were Ruthenophiles, who said that Carpatho-Ruthenians were a separate nation, and who wanted to develop a native Rusyn language and culture. On 15 March 1939 the Ukrainophile president of Carpatho-Ruthenia, Avhustyn Voloshyn, declared its independence as Caroatho-Ukraine. On the same day Hungarian Army fascist regular troops, allies of Adolf Hitler, brutally invaded the region. The Hungarian invasion was anti-Ruthenophile.[citation needed] In 1944 the Soviet Army occupied Carpatho-Ruthenia, and in 1946, annexed it to the Ukrainian SSR. Officially, there were no Rusyns in the USSR. In fact, Soviet and some modern Ukrainian politicians, as well as Ukrainian government claim that Rusyns are part of the Ukrainian nation. Nowadays some of the population in the Zakarpattya oblast of Ukraine consider themselves Rusyns (Ruthenians) yet they are still a part of the whole Ukrainian national identity. A Rusyn minority remained after World War II in northeastern Czechoslovakia (now Slovakia). According to critics, the Ruthenians rapidly became Slovakized.[9] In 1995 the Ruthenian written language became standardized.[10]

Cognate word[edit]

The element ruthenium was isolated in 1844 from platinum ore found in the Ural mountains. Ruthenia is the Latin word for Rus'.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up^ The dispute noted in written sources, as an old one, even before the year 981: Połnoje sobranije russkich letopisiej, t. I., Leningrad 1926-1928.
  2. Jump up^ Рогинский М. Г., Иоганн Таубе И Элерт Крузе. Послание Иоганна Таубе и Элерта Крузе, как исторический источник
  3. Jump up^ Коваленко Г.М., Великий Новгород в иностранных сочинениях XV – нач. ХХ века
  4. Jump up^ Генрих Штаден. О походе Ивана IV на Новгород (1570 г.)
  5. Jump up^ Павел Высокий-Пчела, Повесть о разгроме Новгорода Иваном Грозным
  6. Jump up^ Dariusz Kupisz, Psków 1581–1582, Warszawa 2006, s. 55-201.
  7. Jump up^ Norman Davies: Boże igrzysko : historia Polski. Kraków: „Znak”, 2006, p.363. ISBN 83-240-0654-0
  8. Jump up^ Robert Potocki, Polityka państwa polskiego wobec zagadnienia ukraińskiego w latach 1930–1939, Lublin 2003, wyd. Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, ISBN 83-917615-4-1, s. 45.
  9. Jump up^ carpatho-rusyn.org
  10. Jump up^ Paul Robert Magocsi: A new Slavic language is born, in: Revue des études slaves, Tome 67, fascicule 1, 1995, pp. 238-240.

References[edit]

External links[edit]

Објавио у Нема коментара:
Пријавите се на: Постови (Atom)