Language and National Identity : Rusyns South of Carpathians / Jazyk a národná identita : Južnokarpatskí Rusíni / Язык і народна ідентіта : Южнокарпатьскы Русины

Language and National Identity CLASSICS OF CARPATHO-RUSYN SCHOLARSHIP Published under the auspices of the Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center Patricia A. Krafcik and Paul Robert Magocsi, editors 1. Pavlo Markovyč, Rusyn Easter Eggs From Eastern Slovakia (1987) 2. Aleksei L. Petrov, Medieval Carpathian Rus’: Тhe Oldest Docu- mentation Concerning thе History of the Carpatho-Rusyn Church and Eparchy, 1391-1498 (1998) 3. Alexander Bonkáló, The Rusyns (1990) 4. Athanasius B. Pekar, The History of the Church in Carpathian Rus’ (1992) 5. Pаu1 Robert Magocsi, ed., Thе Persistence of Regional Cultures: Rusyns aпd Ukrainians in Their Carpathian Нomeland and Abroad (1993) 6. Раul Robert Magocsi, Thе Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Sur­ vey (1993) 7. Aleksander Dukhnovych, Virtue is More Important Тhan Riches (1994) 8. Pаu1 Robert Magocsi, еd. A New Slavic Language is Born: Тhe Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia (1996) 9. Maria Mayer, Тhe Rusyns of Нипgary: Political and Social Develop­m ents, 1860-1910 (1997) 10. Pёtr Bogatyrёv, Vampires in the Carpathians: Magical Acts, Rites, and Beliefs in Subcarpathian Rus’ (1998) 11. Juraj Vaňko, Тhе Language of Slovakia’s Rusyns (2000) 12. Mary Halász, From America with Love: Меmоirs of an American Immigrant in the Soviet Union (2000) 13. Yeshayahu A. Jelinek, The Carpathian Diaspora: The Jews of Subcarpathian Rus’ and Mukachevo, 1848-1948 (2007) 14. Anna Plishkova, Language and National Identity: Rusyns South of Carpathians (2009)  Anna Plishkova Language and National Identity: Rusyns South of Carpathians Translated by Patricia A. Krafcik With a bio-bibliographic introduction by Paul Robert Magocsi EAST EUROPEAN MONOGRAPHS Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York 2009 EAST EUROPEAN MONOGRAPHS, No. DCCXLVIII This publication is made possible by a grant from the Steven Chepa Fund in Carpatho-Rusyn Studies at the University of Toronto This volume is a revised and expanded translation of a book in Slovak by Anna Plishková, Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku: náčrt vývoja a súčasné problémy, published in 2007 by the Metodické-Pedagogické Centrum in Prešov, Slovakia. Layout and typesetting by Gabriele Scardellato Copyright ©2009 by the Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center, Inc. New York, New York All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-0-88033-646-8 Library of Congress Control Number 2008942488 Series Preface T hе series entitled Classics of Carpatho-Rusyn Scholarship is a publication project of the Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center that is in­tended to make available in English translation some of the best mono­graphs dealing with Carpatho-Rusyn culture. These monographs deal with several scholarly disciplines: history, language, literature, ethnogra­phy, folklore, religion, music, and archaeology. Many of the studies included in this series were first published during the twentieth century and were written in various languages by authors who may have had definite attitudes and preferences re- garding the na­tional and political orientations of the indigenous Car- patho-Rusyn popu­lation. Such preferences are often revealed in the varied terminology used to describe the group—Саrраtho-Ruthеnians, Carpatho-Russians, Carpatho-Ukrainians, Lemkos, Ruthenes, Ruthe- nians, Rusyns, etc. In keeping with the policy of the Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center, the in­habitants and culture which are the main sub- ject of this series will be referred to consistently as Carpatho-Rusуn or Rusyn, regardless what term or terms may have been used in the original work. The appearance in this series of scholarly monographs whose au- thors may favor a particular national (pro-Russian, pro-Rusyn, pro- Ukrainian), political (pro-Czechoslovak, pro-Hungarian, pro-Soviet), or ideological (pro-democratic, pro-Communist, pro-Christian) stance does not in anу way reflect the policy or orientation of the Carpatho- Rusyn Research Center. Rather it is felt that the availability in English of scholarly studies representing a variety of ideological persuasions is the best way to im­prove our understanding and appreciation of Car- v vi language and national identity patho-Rusyn culture. As in other publications of the Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center, placenames are rendered according to the official language used in the country where they are presently located; therefore, Slovak in Slo- vakia; Ukrainian in the Transcarpathian oblast of Ukraine; Polish in the Lemko Region of Poland; and Serbian in the Vojvodina (Bačka) of Serbia. The Library of Congress trans­literation system is used to render words аnd names from the Cyrillic and Hebrew alphabet. The specific forms for geographic and personal names are taken from Paul Robert Magocsi and Ivan Pop, eds., Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture, 2nd revised ed. (Toronto, 2005). We would like to extend a special thanks to Professor Robert A. Rothstein (University of Massachusetts at Amherst) for his review of the linguistic terminology employed in this translation. Patricia A. Krafcik Paul Robert Magocsi 2009 Contents Series Preface v List of Tables viii List of Maps viii Biography of Anna Plishkova ix Works by Anna Plishkova xiv Language and National Identity: Rusyns South of Carpathians Foreword 3 Introduction 6 Chapter 1. The Literary Language as an Instrument of Rusyn National Identity 12 The Church Slavonic base of the Rusyn language The vernacular base of the Rusyn language The Russian base of the Rusyn language The return of the Rusyn language to its vernacular base The Rusyn language question after World War I Language debates in interwar Subcarpathian Rus’ The Rusyn language question in interwar Slovakia The Rusyn language question, 1939 to 1948 The language question among the Carpatho-Rusyns of Slovakia, 1948-1989 The Rusyn national awakening after 1989 vii viii language and national identity 2. The Functional Domains of the Rusyn Literary Language in Slovakia 87 Family and everyday communication Official and administrative interaction The theater The media Literature Religious life Education Conclusion 146 Bibliography 149 Illustrations 163 List of Tables 1. Interest of Parents in having their children study Rusyn, 1996 135 2. Schools where Rusyn could potentially be taught, 1996 137 3. Schools with classes in Rusyn, 2004-2005 138 4. Elementary schools with classes in Rusyn, 2006-2007 139 List of Maps 1. Carpathian Rus’ xviii 2. Dialects in Carpathian Rus’ xix Biography of Anna Plishkova O ne of the main characteristics of national movements among peo- ples who do not have their own state is the prominent, even defin- ing, role played by cultural activists. These activists, who have come to be known as the intelligentsia, have remained a common feature of national movements among stateless peoples regardless whether these movements have unfolded in the nineteenth or the twentieth century. The Carpatho-Rusyns are—alongside Frisians, Catalans, Kashubes, and Lusatian Sorbs, among others—one of the many stateless peoples of Europe. Not surprisingly, it is the work of the nationalist intel- ligentsia, not the state, which since the Revolution of 1989 and the fall of Communist rule has made possible the virtual reincarnation of Carpatho-Rusyns as a distinct people. Also of interest is a comparison that might be made with nation- al movements among other stateless peoples. Carpatho-Rusyns are somewhat unique in that their post-1989 revival has been character- ized by an uncommonly strong presence of women. In fact, in most of the countries where Carpatho-Rusyns live (Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, even among diaspora populations in Serbia, Croatia, and the United States) women have come to hold leading positions and have helped to determine the direction that the national movement has taken. One of those prominent female members among the cur- rent Carpatho-Rusyn nationalist intelligentsia is Anna Plishkova from Slovakia. To be sure, Anna Plishkova only gradually grew into the role of a leader among Carpatho-Rusyns, although in hindsight it would seem that her evolution was part of a natural process. She was born on 27 ix x language and national identity June 1964 in the small town of Snina into a family which for gen- erations had resided in the nearby village of Pichne (Rusyn: Pŷchni). It was in Pichne, the majority of whose inhabitants were Carpatho- Rusyn, that the young Anna attended the first five years of elemen- tary school. She continued her education by commuting daily to a middle-level school (grades six through thirteen) in Snina, her formal birthplace which was only six kilometers away from Pichne. The point is that Plishkova, during her formative years, was raised and accultur- ated by her parents and extended family in a Carpatho-Rusyn linguis- tic and cultural environment. This does not mean, however, that she was formed in a uni-cultural nor uni-lingual environment. Quite the contrary. The formal country in which she was born was (until 1993) Czechoslovakia; and while the official language of Snina where she went to school for eight years was Slovak, the actual lingua franca of that town’s inhabitants was a transitional West Slavic-East Slavic dialect called Sotak. Finally, her formal schooling was linguistically complex: the language of instruc- tion in most of her elementary and middle school classes was literary Ukrainian, alongside which were some classes taught in Slovak as well as required classes in Russian and one other foreign language (in her case German). This multifarious linguistic experience was typical for most Carpatho-Rusyn children growing up in post-World War II northeastern Czechoslovakia. Added to the region’s linguistic complexity was the question of national identity. Nationality was a classification the state required to be indicated in each citizen’s documents. At the time, Communist Czechoslovakia, following the Soviet model, classified all Rusyns as Ukrainians. Thus, Anna Plishkova formally became a member of the Ukrainian national minority in Czechoslovakia. Considering her strong interest in languages, it is not surprising that during her un- dergraduate education at Šafárik University in Prešov (1982-1987) she had a joint specialization in Slovak and Ukrainian Language and Literature, and that her first job after graduating from university was as a journalist (1987-1990) for Czechoslovakia’s Ukrainian-language newspaper, Nove zhyttia. It should be remembered that the vast majority of people in former Communist Czechoslovakia were not preoccupied with the seeming complexity of many languages and national identities that were part of their daily lives. Their generally passive attitude toward such ques- biography of anna plishkova xi tions was best summed up by Plishkova herself: For the majority of individuals belonging to this ethnic group [Carpatho- Rusyns]— including my parents whose lives were connected integrally with the village of Pichne—the question of their concrete national iden- tity was for various reasons not at all a topic of daily concern. While my grandfather, grandmother, father, and mother passed on to their off- spring that aspect of our national heritage which was most characteristic of our ethnicity—language—they never really mentioned or specified by name what that language was. On certain occasions at home, especially from my grandfather and grandmother, we heard mention of the ‘Rusyn [rus’kyi]’ language, the ‘Rusyn’ alphabet, ‘Rusyn’ schools, the ‘Rusyn’ people, and the ‘Rusyn’ faith. … It was only when I begin sixth grade in the school in nearby Snina … that other students there referred to us as ‘Rusnaks’. This name, I might add, … seemed to us something inferior. Plishkova goes on to relate that even though she attended what were formally called Ukrainian schools and Ukrainian classes, and while “no one had ever educated us about any concrete national iden- tity,” it was in the last years of middle school that she was prompted to ask herself certain questions: Why, for instance, did our teacher of Ukrainian language and literature reject textbooks from Ukraine, which she described as ‘much too dif- ficult for us’; and why, instead, did she instruct us in a more understand- able language through the writings of ‘local’ authors and intellectuals about whom there was not a single word in the Ukrainian textbooks? As a result of all this we began to ask ourselves certain questions regard- ing the national identity of our local people, although we never got any answers. Yet, in the end, the fact remains that despite attending a middle school in which Ukrainian was the language of instruction, a Ukrainian national identity was never instilled in us students. Nor, I might add, did we develop any aversion to the Ukrainian nationality: passively, that identity just happened to appear in our official identity papers; actively, our enrollment in elementary and middle schools in which Ukrainian was the language of instruction marked our distinctiveness within the Slovak (more properly Sotak) environment of the town of Snina. The passive—yet by fault positive—function of the Ukrainian identity among the Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia was called into ques- tion following the Velvet Revolution of 1989 and the collapse of the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia. Certain numbers of the local intelligentsia were no longer satisfied with what until then was the xii language and national identity reality of multiple identities, so common in the early stage of national movements among stateless peoples. In other words, the view that one could be Rusyn and Ukrainian was replaced by the concept of mutually exclusive national identities: one must be either Rusyn or Ukrainian, but not both. Plishkova was confronted by the challenge of differentiation dur- ing her work as a journalist for the newspaper Nove zhyttia, which was published by the Union of Ukrainian Workers of Czechoslovakia, a Communist-era civic and cultural organization that after 1989 was rechristened the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of Czechoslovakia. For a few months in early 1990 she participated actively in the process of national differentiation as the editor responsible for a two-page Rusyn-language supplement “Holos Ruysniv,” which appeared in the Ukrainian-language Nove zhyttia. When that newspaper’s publisher, the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians, rejected the efforts to distinguish Car- patho-Rusyns from Ukrainians, Plishkova and her editorial colleagues resigned. Within a year she joined the staff of a new weekly newspa- per, Narodnŷ novynkŷ, and a new bi-monthly journal, Rusyn, both of which were published exclusively in the Rusyn language. Plishkova was to serve as the associate editor and journalist of both Narodnŷ novynkŷ and Rusyn from their establishment in 1991 until 1998. Also during that time she served as the language editor for books published by the Rusyn Renaissance Society (Rusyn’ska obroda), which at the time was the main civic and cultural organization representing the Carpatho-Rusyns of Slovakia. Such practical editorial work in journalism and publishing inevi- tably forced Plishkova to confront the challenges associated with the creation of a literary standard for the Rusyn language of Slovakia. While still a journalist and editor, she contributed to the first Ortho- graphic Dictionary of the Rusyn language (1994). Language codifica- tion became an even more central concern when in 1998 she began work as a pedagogue at the newly created Department of Rusyn Lan- guage and Culture at Prešov University’s Institute of Nationality Stud- ies and Foreign languages. Since then her career has been primarily in the academic sphere; she continuous to teach Rusyn language and literature at the university, and together with her university colleague and mentor, Vasyl’ Jabur, has co-authored a series of language text- books for middle-level school in which Rusyn is taught as a subject (see below, Works by Anna Plishkova, items 006, 008, 013, 017, 024). biography of anna plishkova xiii The culmination of her recent codification work came with a revi- sion of Slovakia’s Rusyn literary standard following the publication in 2007 of a revised rule-book and orthographic dictionary for which she functioned as co-author (Works, items 018 and 023). Being so closely linked as an observer of the Rusyn national revival in Slovakia and an active participant in language planning and stan- dardization, it is not surprising that those subjects have become the focus of Plishkova’s scholarly work. Her Ph.D. dissertation, defended in 2006 under the direction of Professor Ján Dorul’a at the Slavic In- stitute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava, surveys the social function and analyzes the linguistic characteristics of the vari- ous literary languages used by Carpatho-Rusyns both past and pres- ent. The work is unique, however, in that it is the first (and still only) doctoral dissertation anywhere that is not only about but written in the Rusyn language. Plishkova’s scholarly publication record has to date focused on linguistic issues, especially word formation, as well as on how the newly codified Rusyn language functions in the pub- lic sphere, most especially schools (Works, items 015, 019, 020, 021, 022, 026, 027, 030, 031). She has also compiled two anthologies of poetry with emphasis on Carpatho-Rusyn writers in Slovakia (Works, items 001 and 005). Despite her relatively young age, Dr. Anna Plishkova already has nearly two decades of experience in the codification of Slovakia’s variant of the Rusyn literary language. The possibility for her work to be implemented through the educational system was given even greater impetus in 2008, when she was appointed the first director of the newly established Institute of Rusyn Language and Culture at Prešov University. Under her direction the Rusyn Institute has already created a pedagogical and scholarly profile which, in cooperation with scholars and institutions in other countries, is well on the way to pro- moting the discipline of Carpatho-Rusyn studies not only in a Slovak but also international context. Paul Robert Magocsi University of Toronto Works by Anna Plishkova on Carpatho-Rusyns 001 Muza spid Karpat: zbornyk poeziї Rusyniv na Sloven’sku od 16. do 20 st., compiler. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 1996, 168 p. 002 “Poetichna tvorchost Rusyniv Priashivskoho regionu.” In Na- taliia Dudash, compiler. Rusinski/ruski pisnї. Novi Sad: Ruske slovo/Organizatsiia Rusyniv u Madiarsku, 1997, pp. 59-68. 003 “Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v istoriї i perspektivi.” In Rusyn’skŷi narodnŷi kalendar’ na rik 2001, compiled by Mykhailo Hyriak and Alek- sander Zozuliak. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2000, p.181-183. Slightly abridged version in Ian Kalyniak, compiler. Pamiatnŷi den’ Aleksandra Pavlovycha. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2002, pp.48-53. 004 “Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk na Sloven’sku po 10 rokakh aktivnoho fungo- vania.” In Rusyn’skŷi narodnŷi kalendar’ na rik 2002, compiled by Aleksander Zozuliak. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2001, pp. 35-46. 005 Ternëva ruzha: zbornyk rusyns’koi narodnoi poeziї, compiler. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2002, 80 p. 006 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk pro 1. klasu serednikh shkol iz navcha- nëm rusyn’skoho iazŷka, co-author with Vasyl’ Iabur. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2002, 104 p. xiv works by anna plishkova xv 007 “Konets’ 20. storicha—istorychnŷi zachatok pro rusyn’skŷ shkolŷ.” In Rusyn’skŷi literaturnŷi almanakh: iubileinŷi rik Alek- sandra Dukhnovicha 2003. Prešov: Spolok rusyn’skŷkh pysate- liv Sloven’ska, 2003, pp. 126-131. 008 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk pro 2. klasu serednikh shkol iz navcha- nëm rusyn’skoho iazŷka, co-author with Vasyl’ Iabur. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2003, 120 p. 009 “Literaturnŷi iazŷk: Priashivska Rus’,” co-author with Vasyl’ Ia- bur. In Paul Robert Magocsi, ed. Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk. Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich, Vol. XIV. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, Instytut Filologii Polskiej, 2004, pp. 147-209. Revised edition: 2007, pp. 147-209. 010 “Sotsiolingvistichnŷi aspekt: Priashivska Rus’. In ibid., pp. 331- 345. Revised edition: 2007, pp. 331-348. 011 “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku po roku 1989.” In M. Kal’avský and M. Priečko, eds. Ethnologia Actualis Slovaca: Revue pre výskum kultúr etnických společenstiev, No. 5. Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda, 2004, pp. 111-118. 012 “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku po roku 1989.” In Štefan Šutaj, ed. Národy a národnosti: stav výskumu po roku 1989 a jeho per- spektívy. Prešov: Universum, 2004, pp. 198-203. 013 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk pro 3. klasu serednikh shkol iz navchanëm ru- syn’skoho iazŷka, co-author with Vasyl’ Iabur. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2004, 64 p. 014 “Materyn’skŷi iazŷk Rusyniv v osvitnim sistemi v mynulo- sty i dnes’.” In Havryїl Beskyd and Aleksander Zozuliak, eds. Vŷznachnŷ pro Rusyniv: zbornyk referativ. Prešov: Svitovŷi kon- gres Rusyniv, 2005, pp. 37-44. 015 “Aktuálna situácia v rozvoji školstva Rusínov na Slovensku.” In Helena Pataiová, ed. Perspektívy rozvoja vzdelávnia a kultúry narodnostných menšin. Nitra: Univerzita Konstantina Filosofa, xvi language and national identity Pedagogická fakulta, 2005, pp. 276-284. 016 “Rusíni na Slovensku po roku 1989.” In Štefan Šutaj, ed. Národ- nostná politika na Slovensku po roku 1989. Prešov: Universum, 2005, pp. 127-133. 017 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk pro 4. klasu serednikh shkol iz navchanëm ru- syn’skoho iazŷka, co-author with Vasyl’ Iabur. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2005, 96 p. 018 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v zerkalї novŷkh pravyl pro osnovnŷ i serednї shkolŷ z navchanëm rusyn’skoho iazŷka, co-author with Vasyl’ Iabur. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2005, 128 p. 019 “Jazyk a školstvo Rusínov v transformujúcej sa společnosti.” In Štefan Šutaj, ed. Národ a národnosti na Slovensku v transfor- mujúcej sa společnosti—vzt’ahy a konflikty. Prešov:Universum, 2005, pp. 219-226. 020 “The Language of Slovakia’s Rusyns in Religion and Educa- tion.” In Bogdan Horbal, Patricia Krafcik, and Elaine Rusinko, eds. Carpatho-Rusyns and Their Neighbors: Essays in Honor of Paul Robert Magocsi. Fairfax, Va.: Eastern Christian Publica- tions, 2006, pp. 349-365. 021 “K niektorým aspektom použivania rusínskeho spisovného ja- zyka vo vzdelávacom systéme Slovenskej republiky.” In Gábor Lelkes and Károly Tóth, eds. Národnostné a etnické menšiny na Slovensku 2006. Šamorín: Fórum inštitút pre výskum menšín, 2007, pp. 99-111. 022 Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku: náčrt vývoja a súčasné problémy. Prešov: Metodicko-pedagogické centrum, 2007, 116 p. 023 Rusyn’ska leksika na osnovi zmin u pravylakh rusyn’skoho iazŷka: pravopysnŷi i gramatichnŷi slovnŷk, co-author with Vasyl’ Iabur and Kvetoslava Koporova. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2007, 128 p. works by anna plishkova xvii 024 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk pro 1-4. klasu serednikh shkol iz navchalnŷm rusyn’skŷm iazŷkom i z navchanëm rusyn’skoho iazŷka, co-author with Vasyl’ Iabur. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2007, 288 p. 025 Jazyková kultúra a jazyková norma v rusínskom jazyku/ Iazŷkova kultura i iazŷkova norma v rusyn’skim iazŷku, editor. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita, Ústav regionálnych a národnostných štúdii, 2007, 176 p. 026 “Náčrt histórie, súčasnosti a možnej perspektívy Oddelenia ru- sínskeho jazyka a kultúry Ústavu regionálnych a národnostných štúdií Prešovskej univerzity.” In ibid., pp. 5-22. 027 “Practical Spheres of the Rusyn Language in Slovakia.” Studia Slavica Hungarica, LIII, 1 (Budapest, 2008), pp. 95-115. 028 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk medzhi dvoma kongresamy: zbornyk referativ z III. Medzhinarodnoho kongresu rusyn’skoho iazŷka, Krakiv, 13- 16.9. 2007, editor. Prešov: Svitovŷi kongres Rusyniv/Inshtitut rusyn’skoho iazŷka i kulturŷ Priashivskoi univerzitŷ, 2008, 240 p. 029 “Hliadania konsenzu pry formuvaniu koine na prykladi perekla- du knyzhkŷ ‘Narod nyvŷdkŷ’.” In ibid., pp. 219-232. 030 Rusínská kultúra a školstvo po roku 1989, editor. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita, Ústav rusínskeho jazyka a kultúry, 2008, p. 031 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk na Sloven’sku: korotkŷi narys istoriї i suchasno- sty. Prešov: Svitovŷi kongres Rusyniv, 2008, 204 p. 032 Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v konverzatsiї, co-author with Kvetoslava Ko- porova and Eva Eddy. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2009, 150 p. xviii language and national identiy mAPS xix Language and National Identity Foreword T he national emancipation process of the Rusyns in the Carpath- ian region after 1989 brought to the fore several issues which the previous totalitarian regime insisted it had definitively resolved. The truth is that there had never been any definitive resolutions, but only political measures aimed at simply eliminating the questions. The major issue was the self-determination of the Carpatho-Rusyns as a nationality, and inextricably linked with this was the question of the Rusyn literary language. The history of national revival movements demonstrates that questions of nationality and language are closely connected and constitute a relationship which is explicitly manifested in the revival process. A national awakening or revival cannot develop fully without the resolution of the concomitant language question. Casual observers of the post-1989 Carpatho-Rusyn revival move- ment might have gotten the impression that the Rusyns appeared out of nowhere and began contemplating a direction in which they should be heading. Or they may have the impression that the Carpatho-Rusyns are demanding a new resolution of something that “someone” had resolved for them long ago and without their agreement. Participants in the re- vival, however, know that the Rusyns as a nationality in the Carpathian region in the second half of the twentieth century (with the exception of the former Yugoslavia) did not officially “exist” regardless of the fact that statistics from past centuries recorded hundreds of thousands of them. These participants also know that their mother tongue, which was one of the official languages of Subcarpathian Rus’ during the First Czechoslovak Republic between the world wars, was simply forced out to the periphery by administrative fiat and slated for extinction. 3 4 language and national identity Is it possible, then, that an ethnic group which history gradually deprived of its dignity could suddenly gather sufficient strength in a struggle to regain that dignity? Is it possible that a new literary lan- guage located at the linguistic peripheries of neighboring countries could be born and become functional? These were the questions which I pursued two years after finishing my undergraduate studies at the end of 1989. Before and during my university years I had, understandably and like the majority of other casual observers, not and never could have been confronted by the so-called “Rusyn question.” I remained cut off from the spontaneous Rusyn national revival movement which demanded national and linguistic rights for Carpatho-Rusyns and their institutional resolution. Only later, as an editor of the Rusyn insert, Holos rusyniv (Voice of the Rusyns, 1990) in the Ukrainian-language weekly newspaper Nove zhyttia (New Life) and then of the indepen- dent Rusyn weekly newspaper Narodnŷ novynkŷ (The People’s News, 1991) and the bimonthly (every two months) journal Rusyn (1991), did I become a part of this movement and could grasp the justification for this process. I finally became an active participant in the Carpatho- Rusyn movement, and this altered what had been my professional am- bitions up to that time. Undertaking scholarly and pedagogical studies in the Department of Rusyn Language and Culture (Oddelenie rusín- skeho jazyka a kultúry) of the newly established Institute of National- ity Studies and Foreign Languages at Prešov University (Ústav národ- nostných štúdii a cudzích jazykov Prešovskej university) in Prešov, I sought to apply my skills in the new scholarly discipline of Rusyn Studies (Rusynistika). I am grateful to a host of people who helped and who continue to help me along this path. First of all are the outstanding leaders of the national revival who through their intelligence and determination ig- nited within Carpatho-Rusyns the spark of battle for their dignity and motivated them to embrace this struggle in the various spheres of their national life. I am grateful to the late Vasyl’ Turok-Hetesh, for many years the president of the Rusyn Renaissance Society (Rusyn’ska ob- roda) and the World Congress of Rusyns (Svitovŷi kongres Rusyniv); to Aleksander Zozuliak, chief editor of the first Rusyn periodical pub- lications Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ; and to the Reverend Frantishek Krainiak, Greek Catholic priest and initiator of the translations of the Scriptures into Rusyn, as well as the introduction of Rusyn into pas- toral practice. foreword 5 My gratitude also goes out to individuals in the scholarly world, namely associate professor of linguistics Vasyl’ Iabur, my teacher and colleague, thanks to whom the first stage of the codification work on the Rusyn literary language was completed. Because of his contribu- tion, that language has been introduced into various spheres of life and at present can continue to be perfected. I am likewise grateful to Professor Ján Doruľa, former director of the Ján Stanislav Slavis- tics Institute in Bratislava, under whose guidance I worked in 2006 at the Philosophical Faculty of Comenius University in Bratislava and successfully completed my dissertation in Rusyn Studies. A special thanks also to Professor and Academician Paul Robert Magocsi of the University of Toronto and president of the Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center in the United States for his energetic participation in the estab- lishment of the new scholarly discipline of Rusyn Studies. He made it possible for me to continue my research during a two-month study trip to Toronto in 2002 in his library which contains the most extensive collection of Carpatho-Rusyn materials in the world. It is essential, as well, for me to thank the founder and sponsor of the research scholar- ship in Rusyn Studies at the University of Toronto, Steven Chepa of Toronto. My thanks finally go to the pre-publication reviewers, Dr. Vasyl’ Iabur and Dr. Stanislav Konečný, for reading the manuscript and for their valuable advice and suggestions. The book that you hold in your hands is a result of both my study of the revitalization process of the Carpatho-Rusyns, as well as my active participation in it. I wrote the first part–an outline of the resolution of the Rusyn literary language question–during my stay in Toronto. The second part—about the primary functional domains of the Rusyn lan- guage—is a result of my several years’ of uninterrupted participation in most of the spheres of Rusyn-language use in Slovakia after 1989. Introduction T he history of Europe’s nationalities demonstrates that language is often a decisive factor in the rise, formation, and preservation of peoples and national groups. It is not only an instrument for thought and communication, but also the vehicle by which spiritual values and creative works are preserved and handed down through generations. Language permits discussion, decision making, and the resolution of questions in national, cultural, and political life. Thus, the interest of every nationality in the security of a many-sided and widely func- tional mother tongue is understandable. From a linguistic point of view, all languages are equally valuable.1 Languages are logical, cognitive complexes, providing human beings with the tools to express all manner of thoughts and concepts. It is true, however, that sufficient attention must be paid in order to cre- ate new vocabulary and to cultivate the use of a given language in all spheres of human activity. This is true also of the native language of Carpatho-Rusyns. Largely after 1989 and the changing sociopolitical conditions in Europe, the Rusyn language has been experiencing a marked development; and after its codification in Slovakia in 1995, it has been increasingly applied in various functional domains of Car- patho-Rusyn cultural and social life. Besides its use for communica- tion within the family, it is employed in literature and the media, as well as religious, theatrical, educational fields, and for official admin- istrative purposes. The wider use of Rusyn has had a positive effect 1 Ivor Ripka, “Jazykové práva národnostných menšín na Slovensku,” Človek a spoločnosť, III, 1, www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000. 6 introduction 7 on Carpatho-Rusyn national consciousness and has already resulted in the increasing number of citizens in Slovakia who have now claimed the Rusyn nationality, for instance, in the 2001 census.2 The question of the Rusyn literary language in central Europe, most specifically in the Carpathian region, has a more than 300-year histo- ry.3 Attempts to resolve the language question which characterized the cultural and political life of Carpatho-Rusyns took the form of a his- torical problem beginning already in the seventeenth century, and this situation has existed until today. According to the well-known Rus- sian Slavist, Nikita Il’ich Tolstoi, several factors have significantly influenced the choice of a literary language for the indigenous Rusyn culture in the Carpathian region. These range from the Russian and Ukrainian redactions of Church Slavonic and the Russian and Ukrai- nian literary languages to plans for creating a literary language based on local dialects; also among the factors are “dialectal complexity, the influence of neighboring cultural and linguistic traditions, religion, and socio-political matters.”4 The language question continues to be linked today with the issue of Carpatho-Rusyn national identity. Already from the second half of the nineteenth century, Rusyn intellectual and political life focused attention on the following dilemma in an attempt to resolve it: Do Rusyns belong to the Russian or Ukrainian nationalities, or do they constitute a distinct Slavic nationality known as Rusyns or Carpatho- Rusyns?5 Accordingly, representatives of these three orientations ar- gued that the literary language of Carpatho-Rusyns should be either Russian or Ukrainian, or a distinct Rusyn language. This constitutes the so-called “Rusyn language question” which became an issue once again at the end of the twentieth century. 2 In the 2001 population census, 24,201 citizens of the Slovak Republic clai- med Rusyn nationality and 54,907 claimed Rusyn as their mother tongue. In comparison, in the 1991 census 16,937 citizens claimed Rusyn nationality and 49,099 claimed Rusyn as their mother tongue. 3 Nikita I. Tolstoi, “Introduction,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia/Zrodil sa nový slo- vanský jazyk: Rusínsky spisovný jazyk na Slovensku (New York, 1996), p. xiii. 4 Ibid., p. xiii. 5 Paul Robert Magocsi, “The Rusyn Language Question Revisited,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., A New Slavic Language is Born/Zrodil sa nový slovanský jazyk, p. 22. 8 language and national identity History demonstrates—and the Carpatho-Rusyn national develop- ment after 1989 confirms—that the resolution of the Rusyn literary language question has always been inextricably linked with the reso- lution of the question of ethnic identity or national orientation. Owing to political changes in Europe, representatives of Rusyn national and socio-cultural life in the post-Communist countries, including Slo- vakia, successfully resolved this question in part by the end of the twentieth century. Already now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, a growing number of people in northeastern Slovakia have, in fact, identified themselves as Rusyns in terms of nationality and language. This has occurred thanks to significant support on the part of the intelligentsia, led in particular by a handful of representatives of the Rusyn Greek Catholic clergy. The Carpatho-Rusyn population is now demanding its national and linguistic rights which were ignored during the Communist period. By the end of the twentieth century, literary Rusyn was standard- ized, and along with Rusyn culture, it was recognized in the several countries in which Carpatho-Rusyns live—Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, and Romania. One exception was the Bačka-Srem Rusyns of Serbia and Croatia, where the language and nationality question had been resolved much earlier, already by the beginning of the twentieth century. This, along with attempts of other Slavic peoples to create their own literary languages in the twentieth century (Macedonians, Kashubes, Bosnians, Montenegrins), supports the fact that the “liter- ary, linguistic, and cultural regionalism that had blossomed already before World War II” reflects an objective need. In the words of the linguist Nikita Tolstoi, we see in this the need on the part of smaller peoples within larger countries “to have, aside from a larger common ethnic literary, linguistic, and cultural tradition, also a local one … [which] makes it possible to link the individual with his/her ‘smaller homeland’ and to a certain degree to sooth the nostalgic longing for one’s ancestors.”6 Other contemporary observers of the national revival naturally per- ceived a potential basis for a resolution of the Rusyn language ques- tion in the Carpathian region after the fall of the totalitarian regimes by looking to past “revolutionary changes which began with the fall of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires in the early twentieth Tolstoi, “Introduction,” p. xiv. 6 introduction 9 century.”7 In the context of the present Carpatho-Rusyn revival, some are of the opinion that the approach to the language and nationality question taken under other conditions is still clearly valid and uni- versally applicable to the resolution of the Rusyn language question even now at the end of the twentieth century. This approach refers to the designation of a particular language and identity by administrative fiat, as in the case of forced ukrainianization imposed on the Rusyns of Slovakia beginning in the 1950s. However, such “intentional efforts at directly accelerating the imposition of culture on a people are an insult to the human spirit, regardless of the degree of good that may have been intended for those people.”8 Consequently, after 1989, “the ‘insulted’ spirit of the Rusyns has risen up at the loss of nationality, schools, religious denomination, and language.”9 The Rusyn situation, including the policy of forced ukrainianization in recent history and the fact that the majority of Rusyns live in poor areas, is further ex- acerbated by “insults” of an economic character. In such a situation, “when people intend to preserve their value as cultural beings, it is in- dispensable for them to seek compensation in non-economic spheres, that is, in the social, religious, scholarly, esthetic sphere.”10 And, in the case of Carpatho-Rusyns, we must add here the linguistic sphere as well. Much scholarly literature has been devoted to the Rusyn language question, specifically the literary language. This literature analyzes major stages in the development of the literary language before 1945, focusing on various time periods in its relationships with other lan- guages. Just as before 1945, and after that year to the present time, in the process of resolving the Rusyn language question, one con- troversial problem continues to dominate—most accurately identified as a problem of the “dignity” or “prestige” (dignitas) of the mother tongue.11 7 Serhei Tkachev, “Status literaturnogo iazyka Rusinov na Ukraine,” Slavica Tarnopolensia, No. 2 (Ternopil‘, 1995), p. 21. 8 Edvard Sepyr, “Kul’tura podlinnaia i mnimaia,” Izbrannye trudy po iazykoz- naniiu i kul’turologii (Moscow, 1993), p. 489. 9 Vasil’ Jabur, “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku (stav po kodifikácii a perspektívy rozvoja),” in Ján Doruľa, ed., Slovensko-rusínsko-ukrajinské vzťahy od obrode- nia po súčasnosť (Bratislava, 2000), p. 192. 10 Sepyr, “Kul’tura,” p. 478. 11 Magocsi, “Rusyn Language Question Revisited,” p. 23. 10 language and national identity All linguists agree that the Rusyns who live on both sides of the Carpathians speak a series of dialects, which according to their pho- netic, morphological, and lexical items belong to the East Slavic lan- guage family. They also agree that the Carpatho-Rusyn dialects dif- fer from other East Slavic languages by virtue of the high number of words borrowed from neighboring Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, and to a lesser extent Romanian languages. They disagree, however, as to the specific kind of connection that exists between Rusyn dialects and other Slavic languages. Most linguists consider Rusyn dialects as be- longing to Ukrainian, while some consider them a part of a “common Russian” (obshcherusskii) group. Regardless of the accepted classifi- cation scheme, the issue here raises a psycholinguistic question: Do the Rusyn dialects possess a sufficient level of dignity that can serve as the basis for a distinct literary language, or do they lack that pres- tige? The latter could lead to a situation in which the literary language for Carpatho-Rusyns must be adopted from a preexisting norm—that is, from Russian, Ukrainian, or some other language.12 In contrast to previous efforts, the renewed attempts to resolve the Rusyn language question after 1989 were initiated from another, more favorable starting point. This time Rusyns were fully aware that their standard language medium must proceed from their own living language and that they themselves could determine the resolution to the issue of their national identity. In this spirit they resolved to take concrete steps toward the realization of their own literary language, specifically through the codification of their literary language and through widening the spheres of its usage. The codification of the Rusyn literary language in Slovakia, which was announced at a celebratory event in Bratislava on 27 January 1995, was another step in the long historical process aimed at resolv- ing the question of the literary language for Rusyns in the Carpathian region, that is, in the former Subcarpathian Rus’, and in neighboring regions lying on the periphery of East Slavic territory and historically contiguous with the West Slavic (Slovak and Polish) and non-Slavic (Hungarian and Romanian) ethno-linguistic world.13 12 Ibid., p. 23. 13 Tolstoi, “Introduction,” p. xiii. introduction 11 This book, which is based on a wide range of secondary literature and our own research, attempts to outline the genesis of the Rusyn language question, the present status of the Rusyn literary language, and the possible perspectives on its further development. The work is based on concrete data about the development of the question of the Rusyn literary language in the past and after 1989, never losing sight of the basic right of every ethnic group to have and use its mother tongue in various spheres of life.  CHAPTER 1 The Literary Language as an Instrument of Rusyn National Identity T he lengthy historical process of national and cultural revival which is closely connected with the problem of the creation of a literary language for the Rusyns of eastern Slovakia and also of Transcarpath- ia—the former Subcarpathian Rus’—has been very complicated. This is demonstrated by the fact that the process has continued to resonate among Carpatho-Rusyns even now at the end of the twentieth and be- ginning of the twenty-first century. The shaping of a Carpatho-Rusyn national identity lagged behind similar processes experienced by other Slavic peoples, among whom the question of a literary language also needed to be resolved. The majority of these other peoples, however, resolved almost all the questions of their national existence, foremost among them the choice of a literary language, during the period of national revival in the first half of the nineteenth century. In contrast, Carpatho-Rusyns did not resolve even one basic question concern- ing their national existence during this period: neither the question of national identity, nor cultural orientation, nor a literary language, nor even their own ethnonym.1 In fact, after the revolutions of 1848, they continued to polemicize among themselves about which of three lan- guages they should use as their literary language—Church Slavonic, 1 For more detail about the Rusyn national revival, see Ľudovít Haraksim, “Obrodenie Rusínov” in Fedor Barna, ed., Rusíni: otázky dejín a kultúry/Rusy- ny: voprosy istorii i kultury (Prešov, 1994), pp. 74-93; Paul Robert Magocsi, The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey (New York, 1993), pp. 37-46, or the Rusyn-Slovak version of this monograph, Rusíni na Slovensku/Rusynŷ na Slovens’ku (Prešov, 1994), pp. 35-42 and 156-162. 12 literary language and national identity 13 Russian, or local Rusyn. The evolution of the language question for Carpatho-Rusyns has a lengthy history,2 resulting largely from the absence of their own na- tional state. In spite of this situation, Carpatho-Rusyns have never ceased to strive diligently to acquire their own national and linguistic rights. The words of the linguist Nikita Tolstoi in connection with the 1995 codification of Rusyn in Slovakia, appropriately characterize this striving: “If a complete history of the literature and the literary 2 For more detail about the origin and development of the Rusyn language question, see Aleksander Bonkalo, Rus’kii literaturnyi iazyk, Literaturno-nauko- va biblioteka, No. 4 (Uzhhorod, 1941); Juraj Vaňko, The Language of Slovakia‘s Rusyns/Jazyk slovenských Rusínov (New York, 2000); Paul Robert Magocsi and Aleksandr D. Dulichenko, “Language Question,” in Paul Robert Magocsi and Ivan Pop, eds., Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture, revised and expand- ed ed. (Toronto, 2005), pp. 276-281; Ivan Verkhrats’kyi, Znadoby dlia piznannia uhorsko-ruskykh hovoriv, in Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva imeni Shevchenka, XXVII, 1 (L’viv, 1899), pp. 1-276, and XL, 2 (1901), pp. 1-280; Avhustyn Vo- loshyn, O pys’mennom iazŷtsî podkarpatskykh rusynov (Uzhhorod, 1921); An- tonín Hartl, “K jazykovým sporům na Podkarpatské Rusi,” in Slovo a slovesnost: list pražského linguistického kroužku, IV (Prague, 1938), pp. 160-173; Georgij Gerovskij, “Jazyk Podkarpatské Rusi,” in Československá vlastivěda, III: Jazyk (Prague, 1934), pp. 460-517; Ihor Hus’nai, Iazykovyi vopros v Podkarpatskoi Rusi (Prešov, 1921); Stanislav Konečný, “Rusíni na Slovensku a vývoj otázky ich spisovného jazyka,” in Človek a spoločnosť: štúdie a články, www.saske.sk/ cas/1-2000/konecny2.html; Paul Robert Magocsi, The Language Question among the Subcarpathian Rusyns (Fairview, N.J., 1979; revised 1987); Paul Robert Ma- gocsi, “The Rusyn Language Question Revisited,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia (New York, 1996), pp. 19-48; Pavel Robert Magochii, “Iazŷkovŷi vopros,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Русиньскый язык (Opole, 2004; 2007), pp. 85-112; Ivan Paňkevič, “Jazyková otázka v Podkarpatské Rusi,” in Josef Chmelař, Stanislav Klíma, and Jaromír Nečas, eds., Podkarpatská Rus (Prague, 1923), pp. 130-150; Evmenij Sabov, “Literární jazyk Podkarpatské Rusi,” in ibid., pp. 125-129; Iador Strypskii, Starsha rus’ka pys’mennost’ na Uhorshchynî (Uzhhorod, 1907); Iador N. Strypskii, Hdî dokumentŷ starshei ystoriy Podkarpatskoi Rusi? (Uzhhorod, 1924); František Tichý, Vývoj současného spisovného jazyka na Podkarpatské Rusi (Prague, 1938); Ishtvan Udvari, Obrazchykŷ z istoriï pudkarpats’kŷkh Rusy- nuv XVIII. stolïtiie: yzhliadovania z istoriï kul’turŷ y iazŷka (Uzhhorod, 2000); Vladimir A. Frantsev, Iz istorii bor’by za russkii literaturnyi iazyk v Podkarpats- koi Rusi v polovinie XIX st. (Prague, 1931); Mykola Shtets’, Literaturna mova ukraïntsiv Zakarpattia i Skhidnoi Slovachchyny (Bratislava, 1969). 14 language and national identity language of Subcarpathian Rus’ and neighboring Rusyn lands were to be written, we would see that this region of the Slavic world has been a unique testing ground for creating a wide range of possible literary languages. The region’s historical memory reflects the close relation- ship of Subcarpathian Rus’ to the vast Ukrainian ethnolinguistic terri- tory on the one hand and to the Russian cultural and linguistic tradi- tion, on the other; nevertheless, historical memory could not forget the local cultural-linguistic tradition known as ‘Rusynism’.”3 The scholarly literature covering the history of the Rusyn language question attests to the fact that all the attempts to create a literary lan- guage from the seventeenth through twentieth centuries rested on four fundamental linguistic bases: Church Slavonic, Russian, Ukrainian, and Carpatho-Russian, or in contemporary terminology, Carpatho- Rusyn or Rusyn. The Church Slavonic base of the Rusyn language The first rather widely distributed Rusyn texts are from the seventeenth century, a period when the cultural reform current favoring national languages strongly affected the peoples of the Hungarian Kingdom and neighboring Transylvania. Customarily, the national languages of these peoples, which achieved broader use during this period, served as the foundation for structuring the new literary languages. In the case of Carpatho-Rusyns, Church Slavonic even in this new situation continued to function as the literary language, in spite of the fact that it never possessed a single norm. The linguistic abilities of individual writers determined the form of Church Slavonic used, and when con- fronted with the need for new lexical items these writers chose them from the linguistic and cultural environment in which they lived. The resulting variants of Church Slavonic which were widespread among the Rusyns gradually evolved into a literary language referred to as Slaveno-Rusyn (slaveno-ruskyi).4 In 1596 Lavrentii Zyzanii, by origin a Rusyn from Galicia,5 pub- Tolstoi, “Introduction,” p. xiii. 3 Michael Lutskay [Mykhail Luchkai], Grammatika Slavo-Ruthena (Buda, 4 1830). 5 Piotr S. Kuznetsov, U istokov russkoi grammaticheskoi mysli (Moscow, 1958), pp. 9-10. literary language and national identity 15 lished in Vilnius the Hrammatika Slovenska s”vershennago iskustva osmi chastïi slova (Slavic Grammar of the Complete Art of the Eight Parts of Speech). The title of his primer, Nauka ku chitaniu i rozu- miniu pisma Slovenskogo: tu tyzh o sviatoi troici, i o v chlovechinii Gospodni (Instruction on Reading and Understanding the Slavic Lan- guage: and also about the Holy Trinity and the Lord’s Incarnation) shows how he blended Church Slavonic with elements from his native Rusyn (noted here in bold).6 To the primer he added a dictionary in which words “from Church Slavonic [are] defined in the simple Rusyn dialect [iz slovenskago iazyka na prostyi Ruskii dialect istolkovany].”7 The author drew from his native dialect which is clearly demonstrated in his explanations of individual words in the dictionary. Likewise, the seventeenth-century writer Kyryl Stavrovets’kyi, also from Galicia, was the author of many religious works which became popular and widespread in Subcarpathian Rus’ during his lifetime. In his introduction to the tract, Zertsalo bogoslaviia (The Mirror of The- ology), he states that he employed Church Slavonic in citations from theologians and the Bible, but that in addition he used the vernacular (“simple language”) because several Church Slavonic words were al- ready difficult for his readers to understand.8 In northeastern Hungary, as well as in the region later known as Subcarpathian Rus’, there were no scholarly institutions or schools which could have educated read- ers in Church Slavonic in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; consequently, those who were writing for the people were compelled to use the vernacular to an even greater degree. Among the works for Carpatho-Rusyns in which largely vernacular was employed were homilies, manuscript collections, polemical reli- gious tracts, chronicles, scholarly prose and, later, poetic works. Many Carpatho-Rusyn homily collections derive from this period (known from the village or town in which they were found as Berezenska, Bodanska, Hrabska, Kolochavska, Ladomirska, Miroshovska, Nia- govska, Preshovska, and others). One of these, titled in full the Nia­ govskaia postilla, is from 1757-1758 and demonstrates the use of the written vernacular from southern Maramorosh county at that time with its explicit linguistic elements reflecting dialects from the eastern 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Mykhailo Vozniak, Stare ukraïn’ske pysmens’tvo (L’viv, 1922), p. 278. 16 language and national identity regions of Subcarpathian Rus’ and also showing Hungarian influence. In the 1770s during the Enlightenment period of Maria Theresa (reigned 1740-1780) and her son Joseph II (reigned 1780-1790), throughout the entire Habsburg Monarchy parochial elementary and middle schools were established, and on the teachers’ initiative gram- mars and other textbooks were prepared to respond to the needs of pu- pils. The oldest Carpatho-Rusyn grammar was completed in the sec- ond half of the eighteenth century by Basilian monk Arsenii Kotsak, a native of the Rusyn village Bukovce in the present Stropkov district of Slovakia. Kotsak prepared four grammars of a language he called “Slavic or Russian” (slovenskii ili russkii) for the monastery’s school,9 which were essentially textbooks of liturgical Church Slavonic in its East Slavic redaction. According to the tradition of the time, he divid- ed his grammar into four sections: orthography, prosody, etymology, and syntax, and modelled it on the 1619 grammar of Ukrainian writer Meletii Smotryts’kyi, a fact which Kotsak mentions in his preface. Kotsak’s grammar differs significantly from Smotryts’kyi’s, how- ever, not only in terms of grammatical theory, but also in linguistic practice. First of all, it is based on the vernacular, specifically on the dialect of his native Makovytsia region (north of the town of Svid- ník). For instance, in the declension of masculine nouns of the former a-stem type (eg., papa, pianitsia [papa, drunkard]), Kotsak has the ending -om (papom, pianitsom) for the instrumental singular, where Church Slavonic would use the ending -oi and East Slavic –oiu or –oi. Similarly, he employs the genitive singular ending –u instead of –a for inanimate o-stem nouns (domu, chasu [home, time]). A final ex- ample of is the dative singular –ovi, which he introduces alongside of –u in all o-stem paradigms. Similarly, in the declension of adjectives, in Kotsak’s text there are several forms taken from the Makovytsia dialect which the Smotryts’kyi grammar does not cite. In particular, besides the Church Slavonic ending -ŷ for feminine genitive singular, Kotsak also introduces also –oi (eg., dobroi [good]), and for mascu- line and feminine nominative plural, alongside of the uncontracted Kotsak’s grammars remained in manuscript until the twentieth century, when 9 two of them—Grammatika russkaia (1722-1778) and Shkola ili uchilishche gramatiki russkoi—were first published with an extensive analytical introduc- tion by Iosyf Dzendzelivs’kyi and Zuzana Hanudel’ in Naukovyi zbirnyk Muzeiu ukraïns’koï kul’tury u Svydnyku, XV, pt. 2 (Prešov, 1990), pp. 5-332. literary language and national identity 17 ending –ŷi, he also introduces the contracted form –ŷ from the ver- nacular (eg., dobrŷ). In verb morphology, Kotsak introduces the ver- nacular imperative forms budme, budte [let us be! be!] alongside of the forms budim”, budiete. Aside from dialectal elements, Kotsak’s grammar also employs as the ethnonym to identify the Rusyns that which was used by the majority of Rusyns themselves: Rusnak, Rusniak. In the versified in- troduction to the grammar, Kotsak says that because his people had not possessed any grammar text up to that moment, he was inspired to write one, “in order that we wretched Rusnaks not be judged as stupid.”10 No less interesting is the fact that Kotsak distinguishes be- tween “Makovytsians” and “Hungarian Russians”/“Hungarian Rus­ yns” (uhrorossiany). In a section, entitled “Dedication and Offering,”11 he states that he has dedicated his grammar not only to the priests and his brother Basilians from his native Makovytsia, but also to all “Hun- garian Rusyns.”12 From such a statement it is clear that Kotsak differ- entiates between “Makovytsians” and “Hungarian Rusyns” while at the same time refers to himself as a “Makovytsian.” Makovytsia is lo- cated in the center of the Rusyn-inhabited Prešov Region of northeast- ern Slovakia and its inhabitants, including native son Kotsak, identify themselves as Rusyns. The term Hungarian Rusyns corresponds with the present ethnonym Subcarpathian Rusyns. Kotsak’s undeniable contribution lies largely in the fact that his grammar standardized the Slaveno-Rusyn language which had been inherited from the seven- teenth century in a relatively fluid form. The first and most complete attempt at codifying the literary Car- patho-Rusyn language is evident in the writings of the Greek Catholic bishop Andrii Bachyns’kyi, a native of Beňatina near Sobrance, who headed the Mukachevo Eparchy from 1772 to 1809 and who is now considered the first national activist of Subcarpathian Rus’.13 Several extant texts written by him and connected to his ecclesiastical office 10 “Rukopys Mariiapovchans’koho varianta hramatyky Arseniia Kotsaka 1772-1778,” in ibid., p. 74. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Pavlo Robert Magochii, Formuvannia natsional’noï samosvidomosti: Pidkarpats’ka Rus’ (1848-1948) (Uzhhorod, 1994), pp. 24-25. See also the orig- inal edition of this book: Shaping of a National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus’ 1848-1948 (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), p. 26. 18 language and national identity provide typical examples of Carpatho-Rusyn administrative language which is relatively distinct from Church Slavonic and contains obvi- ous West Slavic and East Slavic linguistic features.14 The Bukvar’ (Primer, 1797 and further editions) of Ioann Kutka defined three styles in the language of the time. The simplest of them, in the segment entitled Nauka sviets’ka (Secular Scholarship), was based on the living language of parishioners in the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo and contrasts with the highest style (Church Slavonic) and middle style (Church Slavonic mixed with vernacular). At this time, the Greek Catholic Church clearly moved forward in its practice of using a literary language based on the vernacular. A similar situation took place in secular society in connection with the reforms of Maria Theresa in the second half of the eighteenth century, a time when Rusyn was used as a language of official state documents for the first time in the land registry list.15 Church Slavonic as a literary language reached a crisis point in the second half of the seventeenth century. At that time its function was limited largely to religious literature which served the Church’s needs and whose main producers and consumers were members of the clergy. The inner dissolution of the Church Slavonic language system in the Carpathian region culminated during the period of the Enlight- enment and as a result of the struggle with western influences from the second half of the eighteenth century which ended with the victory of the Latin language. The last Carpatho-Rusyn writers who still could use Church Sla- vonic, Ioanykii Bazylovych and Mykhail Luchkai, actually wrote their most significant works in Latin. For Bazylovych this was his tract on church rules and his commentary on the Liturgy, and for Luchkai, his collection of sermons. When Bazylovych used Church Slavonic, he employed it in its southern-Rus’ redaction stripped of “provincialisms” because he “cared about the purity of the forms and the vocabulary.”16 Luchkai was comfortable writing in Church Slavonic, which in his grammar he called Slaveno-Rusyn (lingua slavo-ruthena).17 Support- ing the idea of the cultural and linguistic kinship of Slavic languages 14 Tichý, Vývoj, pp. 22-26. 15 Ibid., p. 27. 16 Ibid. 17 The full title was Grammatika Slavo-Ruthena. literary language and national identity 19 and favoring the role of Church Slavonic as the single literary lan- guage for all Slavs, Luchkai in the preface to his grammar voiced the opinion that his mother tongue (from his native village of Velyki Luchky near Mukachevo) was almost identical to Church Slavonic, and that it thus differed from other Slavic languages. This fact sig- nificantly characterized the language of his grammar in which there was already an evident disintegration of the well-established style of Church Slavonic and in which could be seen the seeds of a new lit- erary language. Thus, to a significant degree Luchkai promoted the modernization and normalization of orthography since as a capable— and also the first—Rusyn philologist, he offered a scholarly description of the living vernacular of the people in his grammar with samples drawn from oral folk literature. Besides Luchkai, Ioann Fogarashii showed scholarly interest in the spoken language of Carpatho-Rusyns, and he published a Rusyn-Hungar- ian grammar in 1833.18 Most interesting from the perspective of the de- velopment of the Rusyn language is, however, Fogarashii’s unpublished 1827 manuscript, V obshche o razlichii slavianskikh narechii, sobstvenno zhe o malo i karpato ili ugrorusskikh (About the Differences Among the Slavic Languages Generally, and Especially about the Little- and Car- patho- or Hungarian-Russian Dialects), which is the first of the extant descriptions of Subcarpathian Rusyn dialects.19 Like Luchkai, Fogarashii advocated Church Slavonic as the single literary language, although in practice both of them significantly withdrew from this theory. The use of Church Slavonic, instead of one’s native vernacular language, was widespread among the majority of Slavic peoples at this stage in their development. For example, both the Subcarpathian Rusyns and the Serbs still clung to this tradition well into the first half of the nineteenth century. The vernacular base of the Rusyn language Toward the beginning of the nineteenth century, writers of grammars intended for Rusyns recognized that the Slaveno-Rusyn language was 18 Ivan Fogorossî, Rus’ko uhorska ili madiarska hrammatika (Vienna, 1833). For more about this, see Tichý, Vývoj, p. 42. 19 Tichý, Vývoj, p. 42; Ilarion Svientsitskii, ed., Materialy po istorii vozrozhde- niia Karpatskoi Rusi (L’viv, 1906), p. 54. 20 language and national identity significantly distanced from the Rusyn vernacular, although it was still used in the religious sphere. Nevertheless, the attempts in the nine- teenth century to form Slavic literary languages on the basis of living and comprehensible speech also and most certainly resonated with Carpatho-Rusyns. In this sense Luchkai’s paradoxical position was well known. He openly expressed disenchantment with initiatives tak- en by many Slavic peoples to create “their own languages,” expressing fear at the spread of these languages and the possible “submergence” of minority languages by “the other (majority) languages.”20 With this argument he not only remained loyal to his old positions, but demand- ed this of other educated people as well. Among educated individuals of that time, including adherents of Pan Slavism, there were some who did not reject the possibility of the rise of new literary languages, including Rusyn. Such a view was summed up in the famous and often quoted rhetorical question posed by L’udovít Štúr [poet and standard- izer of the Slovak literary language—translator]. While several of his countrymen exerted pressure on Carpatho-Rusyns to use Slovak as their literary language, Štúr defended the Rusyn language: “Who here demands that Rusyns accept Slovak as their own language? After all, they have their own beautiful Rusyn language … .”21 Štúr’s appeal, supported by yet other representatives of Slovak cul- ture, inspired a change in attitude on the part of Carpatho-Rusyn cul- tural activists toward their own language in the middle of nineteenth century. Among them was Aleksander Dukhnovych who was regarded with respect by his contemporaries and considered to be the national awakener, and who is still considered the most significant personality in the world of Carpatho-Rusyn literature and culture. Dukhnovych was the author of many poems with national-awakening and other themes, books of a religious and pedagogical character, the first story and theatrical play in Rusyn literature, and the first Rusyn literary al- manac.22 He was also active in journalism and wrote for periodicals in L’viv (Zoria halyts’ka [Galician Dawn]) and Vienna (Vîstnyk Rusynov [Rusyn Messenger], Otechestvennyi sbornik [Fatherland Collection]). Lutskay, Grammatika, p. vii. 20 [L‘udovít Štúr] “Prjehlad časopisou,” in Slovenskje národňje novini, č. 63 21 (Bratislava, 1846), pp. 1-2. 22 Virtually all his published and unpublished writings appear in Oleksander Dukhnovych, Tvory, 3 vols. (Prešov, 1967-89). literary language and national identity 21 In pro-Ukrainian circles, Duchnovych is portrayed as identifying Rusyns as Ukrainians with his statement that “on the other side of the mountains are our kin” (za horami ne chuzhye). During his life- time, however, he maintained active contact only with the Old Ruthe- nians (starorusyny) and with Russophiles and their centers in L’viv, such as the Rus’ National Home, the Stauropigial Institute, and the Galician-Rus’ Cultural Foundation (Galitsko-russka matitsa).23 These Russophiles included Bohdan A. Didyts’kyi and Iakov Holovats’kyi, both of whom categorically rejected the idea of a distinct Ukrainian people. Dukhnovych was, in fact, a harsh critic of Ukrainophile efforts and openly challenged Galicians and Rusyns in Hungary not to go to Ukraine or to be inspired by cultural activities there.24 Dukhnovych also maintained intensive contacts with activists in the Slovak national movement (Jonáš Záborský, Ján Andraščík, Ján Francisci-Rimavský, Andrej Radlinský, Viliam Paulíny-Tóth) and with Russian scholars (Izmail I. Sreznevskii, M. F. Raevskii). He was a defender of the theory of two forms of language: the “low” form consisting of the spoken Rusyn language appropriate for literature ad- dressed to the masses; and the “high” form, or Slaveno-Rusyn, that is a mix of Russian, Church Slavonic, and Rusyn vernacular. Critics dis- paragingly called this the “macaronic” language (iazŷchie),25 although Dukhnovych considered it appropriate for professional literature. On the eve of the revolution of 1848, Dukhnovych published a textbook, Knyzhytsia chytalnaia dlia nachynaiushchykh (A Little Reading Book for Beginners),26 which fixed mainly lexical and gram- matical features of the spoken Rusyn language in Carpatho-Rusyn ethnographic territory. The basic lexicon of this textbook is Rusyn vernacular as revealed in the following: names of items linked with school (papir’, pero, tynta, lavka, pozor, palytsia, zastava, shkolar’ [paper, pen, ink , desk, attention, stick, flag, pupil]); names of animals, 23 For details, see Paul Robert Magocsi and Ivan Pop, “Dukhnovych, Aleksan- der,” in Magocsi and Pop, Encyclopedia pp. 101-103. 24 An open letter of Dukhnovych concerning this issue was published in the Vi- enna Vîstnyk rusynov Avstriiskoi derzhavy, No. 1 (Vienna, 1863). About this, see Ľudovít Haraksim, K sociálnym a kultúrnym dejinám Ukrajincov na Slovensku po r. 1867 (Bratislava, 1961), pp. 182-183. 25 Ibid. 26 A.D. [Aleksander Dukhnovych], Knyzhytsia chytalnaia dlia nachynaiush- chykh (Buda, 1847). 22 language and national identity plants, and things (zozulia, iahniatka, zahorodka, hromadka, shalata, ohurkŷ, ruzha, napast’, pasha, etc.[cuckoo, lamb, kitchen garden, a pile or bunch of salad greens, cucumbers, rose, misfortune, pasture] ); names of professions (drutar’, sluzhka, voiak, husar’, etc. [tinker, servant, soldier, hussar] ); verbs typical for Rusyn (povidaty, spra- vovaty, pliantatysia, bavytysia, hlumytysia, etc. [to say, to manage, to loaf about, to have fun, to mock]); and adverbs (krasno, riadno, doraz, poklia, okrem, tsi, etc. [beautifully, correctly, now/immedi- ately, beside, or]). Besides these lexical elements, the text reflects many phonetic and morphological features characteristic of Rusyn dialects in north- eastern Slovakia. These were to become the basis for the codification of an independent Rusyn literary language, but only at the end of the twentieth century.27 Among such features are the following: (1) the presence of the phoneme -ŷ in various positions within words (e.g., mŷsl’, vŷidu, vshŷtko, shkolŷ, etc. [thought, I will go out, everything, school]); (2) the preservation of the original soft –r’ at the end of words (eg., bukvar’, shkoliar’, etc. [primer, pupil]); (3) the absence of the prothetic consonants v- and –h (e.g., ulytsia, ohen’, ukho, etc. [street, fire, ear]); (4) the ending –ov in the feminine locative singu- lar (e.g., knyzhochkov, shablychkov, etc. [small book, small sword]); (5) the ending –ovy in masculine dative singular nouns (e.g., synovy, shkoliarovy, etc. [son, pupil]); (6) the ending –y in the feminine genitive singular of former i-stems nouns (e.g., radosty, chesty, etc. [joy, honor]); (7) the ending –ove in the nominative plural (e.g., panove, ottsove, etc. [lords, fathers]); (8) enclitic forms of personal pronouns (eg., my, ty, sy: 1st- and 2nd-person dative and reflexive dative; tia, ho, iu: 2nd-, 3rd-person masculine accusative, and 3rd- person feminine accusative; mu: 3rd-person dative etc.); (9) infini- tives with the ending –ty (zabavyty, poshkodyty, etc. [to occupy, to ruin]); (10) the ending –me in the first person plural present tense (e.g., yhraeme, bavyme sia, etc. [we are playing, we are having a good time]); (11) forms of the imperative without –y (e.g., khod’me, mol’sia, poklon’sia, etc. [let’s go!, pray!, bow down!]); and (12) pre- positive and post-positive use of the particle sia (e.g., zachaly sia, Paul Robert Magocsi and Joshua Fishman, “Scholarly Seminar on the Codi- 27 fication of the Rusyn Language,” International Journal of the Sociology of Lan- guage, No. 104 (Berlin and New York, 1993), p. 122. literary language and national identity 23 sia hlumyt’, etc. [began, mock]).28 The revolution of 1848 signalled the beginning of the Carpatho- Rusyn revival and at the same time a noticeable turnaround in lit- erature and language. At the time there were two explicit linguistic orientations: Carpatho-Russian (in today’s terminology, Rusyn) and Russian which dominated in Rusyn society in eastern Slovakia and Transcarpathia until the 1890s. Dukhnovych’s newspaper articles, in particular, are perhaps the clearest example of the internal struggles taking place among representatives of Rusyn culture with regard to what should be the most appropriate form of the literary language. It is well known that from the beginning Dukhnovych completely sup- ported the use of the spoken language. As he wrote in 1850: “I am working on the Carpatho- or Beskido-Rusyn language used by the peoples of Galicia and Hungary.”29 He justified his position with the fact that this speech preserved in its simplicity the purity of the “Old Rus’” or Slaveno-Rusyn language,30 and thus was close to the the “Old Slavic mother language,”31 Church Slavonic. Such views were widely held at that time, and one proponent was Mykhailo Luchkai. According to Dukhnovych, it was necessary to embellish this language and to cut out the “foreign coloring,” because “in a foreign costume Rusyn speech loses its color.” Later he advo- 28 Mykola Shtets’, “Mova ‘Bukvaria’ ta inshykh posibnykiv O.V. Dukh- novycha,” in Mykhailo Rychalka, ed., Oleksandr Dukhnovych: zbirnyk materi- aliv naukovoï konferentsiï prysviachenoï 100-richchiu z dnia smerti (1865-1965) (Prešov, 1965), pp. 184-191. On specific elements characteristic of the Rusyn language, see: Vasyl’ Iabur, “Daktorŷ znakŷ rusyns’kŷkh dialektiv Sloven’ska v porivnaniu z rus’kŷma i ukrain’skŷma dialektamy,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, IV, 32-33 (Prešov, 1994), pp. 5-6; Vasyl’ Jabur, “Select Aspects of the Rusyn Language Norm in Slovakia,” in Magocsi, A New Slavic Language is Born, pp. 51-62; Va- sil’ Jabur, “Systém slovesných tvarov v  rusínskom jazyku v  porovnaní s  ukra- jinským,” in Aleksander D. Dulichenko, ed., Iazyki malye i bol’shie: in memo- riam Acad. Nikita I. Tolstoi (Tartu, 1998), pp. 149-156; Vasyl’ Iabur and Anna Plishkova, “Priashivska Rus’,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk (Opole, 2004), pp. 147-209; Vasyl’ Iabur and Anna Plishkova, Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v zerkalï novŷkh pravyl pro osnovnŷ i serednï shkolŷ z navchanëm rusyn’skoho iazŷka (Prešov, 2005); Iurii Van’ko, “Klasifikatsiia i holovnŷ znakŷ karpat’skŷkh rusyn’skŷkh dialektiv,” in Magocsi, ed., Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk, pp. 67-84. 29 Vîstnyk, I, 20 (Vienna, 1850), cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 51. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 24 language and national identity cated a middle road if “our simple speech” were to become a liter- ary language.32 According to Dukhnovych, the literary language for Rusyns should unquestionably be based on Church Slavonic, and only that which corresponded properly with this foundation could be added from out of the living speech. Somewhat later he urged Rusyn writ- ers not to surrender completely to Church Slavonic. After all, he was not writing articles according to Church Slavonic grammar, but was adapting his written language to the living, spoken vernacular.33 In the first half of the 1850s under the influence of his own par- ticular situation, Dukhnovych became a defender of the idea of pan- Russian unity in terms of culture and language. From the position of this new linguistic orientation, in 1856 he finally expressed disrespect toward the vernacular of his people, referring to the Rusyn language as an “incompetent, stupid maid servant, illiterate, dragging herself from tavern to tavern and to houses of ill-repute.”34 Nevertheless, sev- eral years later it appeared that such a change in Dukhnovych’s views, in particular the turn away from his initial linguistic orientation and adoption of a new one, also was not satisfying to him. Wracked by feelings of absolute powerlessness and uncertainty, he descended into a state of pessimism and depression, which is attested in a letter to Iakov Holovats’kyi, dated 22 November 1860: “In Hungary the Rus’ nationality (russkaia narodnost’) no longer exists.” And on Christmas Eve of that year he wrote again to Holovats’kyi: “… don’t ask about us; we have already completely failed.”35 Regardless of such an ambivalent position toward the Carpatho- Rusyn linguistic and national question, whose direction Dukhnovych could have influenced in a manner similar to that of L’udovít Štúr and the Slovak national awakening, Dukhnovych remains the most signifi- cant figure in the history of the development of the Rusyn language, in particular with regard to its basis in the spoken language which was so important in his creative literary work as the national awakener. Until the 1850s most of his writings were in Rusyn, despite the fact that he was at that time theoretically a defender of the Church Slavonic language. Vîstnyk, I, 35, cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 51. 32 Vîstnyk, I, 62, cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 51. 33 34 Semeinaia biblioteka (L’viv, 1856), p. 68, cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 52. 35 Cited in Kyrylo Studyns’kyi, “Aleksander Dukhnovych i Halychyna,” Naukovŷi zbornyk Tovarystva ‘Prosvîta’, III (Uzhhorod, 1924), pp. 98 and 100. literary language and national identity 25 The Russian base of the Rusyn language The idea that Church Slavonic could serve as the base for the literary language in the Rusyn cultural-linguistic and ethnic environment—the viewpoint represented both by Luchkai and Fogarashii in their gram- mars as well as by Dukhnovych—underwent a transformation in the middle of the nineteenth century. Indeed, these three writers had them- selves moved away from this idea rather quickly and in practice they used a written language based on the vernacular speech of the people. For various reasons, neither in Subcarpathian Rus’ nor in the Prešov Region was there any concern about the codification of a Carpatho- Rusyn language. This is because it seemed that the easiest solution to the literary language question was to adopt the Russian or, as it was called at the time, the “common Russian language” (obshcherusskii iazyk). In the second half of the nineteenth century “common Rus- sian” experienced the greatest expansion in its history and began to be used as a common Slavic literary language. The idea of Slavic kinship, which Ján Kollár nurtured in Slovakia and which reflected admiration for the gigantic might of the Russian people and the Russian Empire, was readily understood in Subcarpathian Rus’ and the Prešov Region because of the national, linguistic, and geographical proximity, as well as the use of a common Cyrillic script. In light of the dominance of the Russian orientation in Carpatho- Rusyn society in northeastern Slovakia and Transcarpathia, local activists rejected everything that was Ukrainian. Their statements addressed to Galician Ukrainians testify to this situation. The well- known Russophile-oriented Carpatho-Rusyn poet, Iulii Stavrovs’kyi- Popradov, who wrote poems in Russian, considered Galician Ukraini- ans to be radicals who weakened the unity of the larger Russian world to which, according to him, Rusyn-inhabited lands of the Hungarian Kingdom belonged. He insisted that the Ukrainian language, which was steadily gaining ground in neighboring Galicia, was unintelligible and also unacceptable.36 Ievmenii Sabov, the author of Russian gram- mars and readers for Carpatho-Rusyns, spoke about Galician Ukraini- ans in the same manner. According to him, works written in Ukrainian which were published by the L’viv-based Shevchenko Scientific So- 36 About Stavrovs’kyi-Popradov‘s connection with Ukrainians, see Iosif Pere- ni [József Perényi], Iz istorii zakarpatskikh ukraintsev (1849-1914) (Budapest, 1957), p. 101. 26 language and national identity ciety were unintelligible, and there was not a single Carpatho-Rusyn in the Hungarian Kingdom who would accept this linguistic orienta- tion. The Carpatho-Rusyn writer Ioann/Ivan Sil’vai likewise rejected Galician Ukrainian, and in a letter to the Galician-Ukrainian Slavist Volodymyr Hnatiuk, he wrote that “on this side of the Carpathians [i.e., in eastern Slovakia and Transcarpathia—A.P.] there is not one educated Rus’ (russkii) person who could be enthusiastic about your independent [i.e., Ukrainian—A.P.] writing…. We have nothing in common; therefore leave me in peace.”37 Nevertheless, even these explicit statements could not mask the fact that within Carpatho-Rusyn society there existed at that time other views regarding the pro-Russian orientation. A weak mastery of stan- dard Russian on the part of leading representatives of the Russophile orientation contributed to the deformation of the Russian language in practical use. Finally, neither the Subcarpathian and Galician Rusyns nor the Rusyns of eastern Slovakia used Russian in its standard codi- fied form, but rather with phonetic adaptations from their own local spoken language. As a result, the so-called Carpatho-Rusyn or Prešov- Region redaction of Russian emerged. The following comment by the writer Mykhaїl Kotradov underscores this phenomenon: “We write in Russian, just like the intelligent and educated majority of the Russian people, although we read our own and others’ writings in accord with our people’s language” (My pishem po russki, tak jak pishet rozumnei­ shaia, obrazovanneishaia i bol’shaia chast’ russkogo sveta, a pis’ma svoi i zagranichnyi chitaem po vygovoru nashogo naroda… .).38 Evmi- nii Sabov spoke about this mixing of languages in reference to the Carpatho-Rusyn youth of the 1860s and 1870s, who studied and spoke using the literary language: “In Prešov they speak in the Prešov style, while in Uzhhorod they use the Uzhhorod pronunciation.”39 The use of the Russian literary language in Subcarpathian Rus’ also corresponded to the aristocratic approach of the local Carpatho-Rusyn society of the time toward the notion of language itself, specifically that there should exist both a “language of servants” and a “language Volodymyr Hnatiuk, “Prychynok do istoriï znosyn halyts’kykh i uhors’kykh 37 Rusyniv,” Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk, No. 7 (L’viv, 1899), p. 170. 38 Slovo, V, 86 (L’viv, 1865), cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 61. 39 Ievmenii Sabov, Riech po sluchaiu otkrytiia pamiatnika A. Dukhnovicha v V. Sevliushie (Uzhhorod, 1925), p. 34. literary language and national identity 27 of lords.” From this perspective, the Russian literary language occu- pied a position analogous to Church Slavonic which previously was used only for the very highest levels of communication. With the acceptance of Russian as the literary language, Subcar- pathian Rus’ did not renounce its past or its prior literary works, or its potential future language independence. The Subcarpathian tradi- tion of cultural contact with the Russian Empire, however, worked in favor of adopting the Russian literary language.40 Besides this, the Russian literary language at that time was also a political instrument. Thus, Slavophiles as well as official circles in Russia ascribed a major role to Subcarpathian Rus’ and neighboring Slovakia. The important social-political activist in the Prešov Region and Subcarpathian Rus’, Adolf Dobrian’s’kyi, a native of Rudl’ov near Vranov nad Topl’ou in present-day northeastern Slovakia, understood very well the linguis- tic politics of Russia. Consequently, the pro-Russian orientation was intensified in the works of his contemporary Dukhnovych and others. Among these was Ioann Rakovs’kyi, who also went through a trans- formation from using the “Carpatho-Russian” language while a corre- spondent for the Vienna periodical Vîstnyk (The Messenger, 1850-66), to using the Russian literary language as a publisher of the Budapest newspaper Tserkovnaia gazeta (The Church Newspaper, 1856-58). The latter newspaper was particularly marked by the Russian liter- ary language since Rakovs’kyi chose to reprint articles from Russian newspapers. Some readers, including primarily Galicia’s Greek Cath- olic clergy, were discontent with Rakovs’kyi’s choice of language. He nevertheless defended his use of Russian and at the same time criti- cized the idea of creating a language based on the vernacular, pointing to the great number of individual Rusyn dialects: Among us Austro-[Hungarian] Rusyns likewise there continues a linguis- tic struggle. Those who do not agree with us wish to choose one of the lo- cal dialects as a literary language. But we have an almost unlimited num- ber of such dialects. Our Hungarian Rusyns definitely loathe Galicia’s Little Russian dialect. Here in Hungary we speak differently in almost every county. Even scholars distinguish among Hungarian Rusyns sev- eral Rusyn sub-dialects by name; thus, some are called Lemaks, others 40 On the significant position of the Carpatho-Rusyn intelligentsia in Russia, see Tamara Baitsura, Zakarpatoukrainskaia intelligentsiia a Rossii v pervoi po- lovine XIX veka (Bratislava and Prešov, 1971). 28 language and national identity Lishaks, and yet other dialects are considered Šariš, Košice, and Sotak dialects. Beyond this, the Russians who live [in village islets] among the Magyars more or less constitute a distinct dialect. In our opinion, in light of such a mix of dialects, there is nothing to do other than to accept Great Russian for the enlightenment of the people.41 Even after such justification, however, complaints about the lan- guage of the Tserkovnaia gazeta did not cease, resulting in the pe- riodical’s complete loss of support from its patron, the St. Stephan Society in Budapest. After some government intervention in the mat- ter, Rakovs’kyi began on 10 July 1858 to publish a new newspaper, the Tserkovnyi viestnik dlia Rusinov avstriiskoi derzhavy (Church Messenger for Rusyns of the Austrian Empire), in a language close to Rusyn dialects, or as the publisher himself stated, “in our regional language” or “in such a language which is in use here.”42 In 1866, Dobrian’s’kyi together with Rakovs’kyi founded the So- ciety of St. Basil the Great in Uzhhorod. Its goal was to publish and disseminate school textbooks, cultural and educational publications, newspapers, etc. Already in 1867 the society began to publish a lit- erary newspaper called Svît (The Light), which was the first Slavic newspaper published in Uzhhorod and addressed exclusively to Sub- carpathian Rusyns. The newspaper held to the tradition of using the “common Russian” literary language, and this aroused dissatisfaction among readers and subscribers who eventually curtailed their patron- age. By the beginning of 1868, the newspaper had hardly 200 sub- scribers, at a time when for its survival twice as many were needed. Thus, the editorial office was forced to publish in the opening issue of its second year a letter from one reader signed with the pseudonym Verkhovynets’ (The Highlander).43 According to the letter writer, the main reason for the newspaper’s decline lay in its distancing itself from the vernacular language of the people: The first reason for the decline of Svît in the eyes of our public seems to be the language in which it is written. It seems that Svît writes in a language that is unintelligible and incomprehensible to the public. The writers choose at whim words, phrases, and syllables from dictionaries; they do not use the language we speak or words that every reader might 41 Cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 65-66. 42 Cited in ibid. 43 Cited in Voloshyn, O pys’mennom iazŷtsî, p. 25. literary language and national identity 29 understand without a dictionary—a dictionary, moreover, which does not yet exist and in which the meanings of words in Hungarian could be found. Our public wishes you to write po nashemu [in our own way], without ‘fancy’ words, without ‘Muscovite’ words, without ‘new’ ex- pressions.44 Even such criticism did not lead to changes, however, with the re- sult that dissatisfaction with the newspaper’s language deepened. In the third year, the editors published an article under the title, “Kak imieem pisati” (How We Should Write),45 in which an anonymous au- thor, identified only by the letter A, having criticized the newspaper’s decline and the loss of over half of its subscribers, came to the conclu- sion that “a Rus’ person (russkii chelovek) can demand only one thing, and that is, that the one who is writing for him should do so in such a way that he [the reader] understands, or is able to understand, even when he doesn’t have a dictionary handy.”46 The anonymous author further recommended that the newspaper resolve the language ques- tion in the following way: “Blend the vernacular with church language while using the forms and grammar of secular language.”47 By its fourth year Svît had failed, and in its place the Society of St. Basil began in January 1871 publishing a weekly entitled Novŷi svît “ (The New Light)48 under the leadership of the priest Viktor Ge- bei. Gebei announced that articles would be published in accordance with the 1865 grammar of Kyryl Sabov which meant that they would be in Russian with a Carpatho-Rusyn influence. The editorial office, however, failed to rally around itself a wider circle of Rusyn intel- ligentsia, and this led to the fragmentation of the intelligentsia who accused each other of betraying national interests. The newspaper did not report on current events from the various corners of Hungarian Rus’ (Uhorska Rus’), nor did it publish the literary works of local writers or include articles about the history and culture of Rusyns. 44 Cited in ibid. 45 Svît, III, 30 (Uzhhorod, 1869), cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 69. 46 Cited in ibid. 47 Cited in ibid. 48 On these developments, see Valerii Padiak, “Stanovlennia zhurnalistyky Uhors’koï Rusi: hazeta ‘Novŷi svît’ ta ïï suchasnyky,” in idem., ed., Uzhhorods’kyi tyzhnevyk ‘Novŷi svît’ (1871-1872): anotovana bibliohrafiia materialiv ta is- torichnyi narys (Uzhhorod, 2006), pp. 3-35. 30 language and national identity Instead, it was replete with long articles on topics remote from issues important to the Rusyn community. Thus, Novŷi svît, born in the wake of Svît and as a reaction against Russophilism, was filled with extreme positions with which the majority of Society of St. Basil readers did not identify. Therefore, it also did not last long. After two years of publication and with the decline of the society, the newspaper ceased operations in 1872. Its contents, however, offer rich material, which reveals that already in 1871 a new epoch in the Rusyn cultural and national revival was emerging.49 The movement against radical Rus- sophilism that was epitomized in the struggle of Svît and Novŷi svît for survival shows the gradual awakening of the idea of a distinct Rusyn nationality, not dependent on Russian as a literary language, but rather on its own local vernacular. In the spirit of the period’s pro-Russian language orientation, and besides the periodical publications already mentioned, Aleksander Mytrak50 and Emilii Kubek51 each published Russian-Hungarian dic- tionaries. Mytrak’s dictionary, compiled with the help of Ioann Sil’vai, made a contribution to the collection of Rusyn lexicon. Aware of his dictionary’s incompleteness, Mytrak hoped that its defects would be offset by the newly published Rusyn-Hungarian (rus’ko-madiarskii) dictionary of Laslov Chopei.52 Mytrak identified a large number of words as “regional,” that is, widespread only in the Carpatho-Rusyn area, and thus were specifically Rusyn. There were, according to My- trak, very few words in Chopei’s dictionary which were to be found in the more distant Ukrainian territory. The last quarter of the nineteenth century was characterized by a decline in Rusyn language developments. This was in large part due to pressure exerted by magyarization which was strengthened at the beginning of 1870s with the introduction of the Roman alpha- bet (latynika) into Rusyn religious textbooks and literature. Ievhenii A comprehensive annotated bibliography (151 entries) appears in ibid., pp. 49 41-157. 50 Aleksander Mytrak/Sándor Mitrák, Russko-mad’iarskii slovar’/Orosz-mag- yar szótár (Uzhhorod, 1881). 51 Emilïi A. Kubek [Emil Kubek], Ó-szlav-, magyar-, ruthén-(orosz), német szotár/Staroslavianskii-ouhorskii-russkii-niemetskii slovar’/Alt-slavisches-, un- garisches; russisches-, deutsches Wörterbuch (Uzhhorod, 1906). 52 Laslov Chopei/László Csopey, Rus’ko madiarskyi slovar’/Rutén-magyar szótár (Budapest, 1883). literary language and national identity 31 Fentsyk, the editor and publisher of the Russophile newspaper Listok (The Paper, 1885-1903), referred to this situation in an article entitled “Putanitsa v nashei pis’mennosti” (Confusion in Our Literature).53 He pointed to the fact that Carpatho-Rusyn writers did not possess mastery over Russian, and thus all their literary works were one big linguistic mix without the mark of any kind of consistent linguistic progress. According to Fentsyk, language progress was possible to achieve only when writers held to some kind of norm and respected valid orthographic rules. Nevertheless, during its third year of publication, Fentsyk began publishing in Listok Rusyn folk songs instead of poetry in Russian. From 1891, he initiated the publication of a supplement (Dodatok k Listku) in an attempt to bring its written language closer to spoken Rusyn. By the time of Fentsyk’s death in 1902, however, Listok had fewer than twenty-five subscribers. The publication was no longer popular among Russophiles in the Rusyn community. At the same time, the Russophiles’ position in society was weakening. Instead, it was a group of persons who represented the Rusyn orientation and who wanted to resolve all questions of their national life (literary lan- guage, national identity, national orientation, etc.) in agreement with the real conditions and needs of the community that were increasingly on the rise. The return of the Rusyn language to its vernacular base The effort to introduce Russian as a literary language for the Rusy- ns was never a universal phenomenon in Subcarpathian Rus’ or in the Prešov Region. Opposed to the Russophile enthusiasts, who called for linguistic unity based on Russian that was supposed to lead to national unity, there emerged the so-called Rusynophile nationalists or patriots, among them Ievmenii Sabov, Iurii Zhatkovych, Hiiador Stryps’kyi, and Mykhaïl Vrabel’.54 In the last decade of the nineteenth century, they began to express eloquently the belief that the people of a distinct nationality ought to possess their own mother tongue. Based on their Rusyn national orientation, they opposed the adoption of Russian as the group’s literary language. They reasoned that, in any case, Carpatho- 53 Listok, III, 5 (Uzhhorod, 1887), pp. 65-66. 54 Pereni, Iz istorii zakarpatskikh ukraintsev, pp. 102-103. 32 language and national identity Rusyns, including even the local leaders of the Russophile orientation, did not have a mastery over literary Russian. Consequently, without instruction in Russian and without mastery of the grammar, Carpatho- Rusyns could not understand written texts in literary Russian with- out the help of a dictionary or at least some kind of explanation. The Rusynophile activists concentrated their attention on presenting the history, folklore, and above all the language of the local population. They essentially adhered to nationalist views which in the 1880s were outlined by Laslov Chopei. Even so, a segment of these educated Rusyns from the beginning took a positive approach to the Ukrainian literary language and did not reject Ukrainian emancipation efforts. After World War I a certain number of Rusynophiles gradually de- veloped a Ukrainian national consciousness, and they transplanted into the Rusyn environment of Eastern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus’ a Ukrainian linguistic and cultural orientation, and eventually also a Ukrainian national orientation.55 It was these national activists who essentially became the first Subcarpathian generation to demon- strate a certain sympathy toward the Ukrainophile movement in neigh- boring Galicia. This does not mean, however, that at that time they went as far as to identify unconditionally with the national ideals of their fellow Ukrainophiles in Galicia. They remained aware that their Carpatho-Rusyn culture was distinct and characterized by its own rich history. Eventually, representatives of groups with a Rusyn orientation and those with a Ukrainian orientation were to come to a confrontation played out in the press and in public activity. Contradictory opinions about the resolution of the literary language question for Carpatho-Rusyns resonated on the pages of Rusyn- and also in Hungarian-language periodical literature. Among these was the Hungarian weekly Kelet (The East,1888-97), published in Uzhhorod for Magyar and Rusyn Greek Catholics.56 An article by Miklós Mathé, entitled “Za rusyn’skŷ iazyk” (For the Rusyn Language) provoked a confrontation because the author took a stand “for our own mother 55 L’udovít Haraksim, “Rusofilstvo a ukrajinofilstvo Rusínov východného Slo- venska a Zakarpatska na rozhraní 19. a 20. storočia,” in Michal Kaľavský and Martin Priečko, eds., Súčasné prezentácie rusínskej identity (od akceptácie po emancipáciu)/Ethnologia Actualis Slovaca, No. 5 (Trnava, 2004), pp. 26-41. 56 From 1895 to 1897, Kelet was the publication of the revitalized Society of St. Basil the Great and later of the Hungarian People‘s party. literary language and national identity 33 tongue,” that is, for the Rusyn language (rutén nyelv), which accord- ing to him the ancestors of Rusyns neglected because they cultivated “the Old Slavic and Russian languages.”57 Mathé spoke out against both the Russian and Ukrainian linguistic orientations, because in his opinion Rusyns were neither Russians nor Ukrainians. His article concluded with the cry: “Let us remain Rusyns!” A week later, in re- sponse to Mathé’s piece, the newspaper published an article by an anonymous writer who opposed the adoption of Russian as the literary language for Rusyns and wrote that he was also against “unity with ‘Shevchenko’ (i.e., Ukrainian) literature.”58 To this he added that Car- patho-Rusyns did not want any unity with their Galician brothers, that is, with those Galician Rusyns who considered themselves Ukraini- ans. Two weeks after Mathé’s letter (15 April 1897) the main editor of the weekly Kelet, Iurii Zhatkovych, addressed the question by simply stating that “our Rusyn people” belonged to the family of the “Little Russian” (Ukrainian) people and thus should be able to accept as the literary language the Galician Little Russian (i.e., Ukrainian) literary standard which they understood well. At the same time, however, he proposed another option: to accept as the literary language the dialect of the Rusyns of Hungary (i.e., the Carpatho-Rusyns of northeast Slo- vakia and Subcarpathian Rus’) which was the least contaminated by the languages of neighboring peoples.59 The Russophile weekly Listok published a similar view, voiced by Hiiador Stryps’kyi, who pointed to the need to abandon the “dead lit- erary language” which, by the way, Listok was also using. Stryps’kyi defended the use of, above all, a living language in the role of a lit- erary language. He added that if Carpatho-Rusyns in the Hungarian Kingdom did not want to maintain ties with Galicia, then they should raise the language of their own people to the status of a literary lan- guage. Continuing this discussion elsewhere, Stryps’kyi explained why it was senseless for Rusyns to accept as their literary language the “administrative Muscovite state language.”60 Rusyns were not moskali 57 Miklós Mathé, “A rutén nyelvért,” in Kelet, 1 April 1897. 58 Kelet, 8 April 1897. On the discussion about the Rusyn language question in the newspaper Kelet, see Haraksim, “Rusofilstvo a ukrajinofilstvo,” pp. 30-35. 59 Kálmán G. Zsatkovics, “Nyilt levél,” Kelet, 23 December 1897, cited in Ha- raksim, “Rusofilstvo a ukrajinofilstvo,” p. 31. 60 Hiiador Sztripszky [Stryps’kyi], “Párviadal egy fegyverrel Petrassevich úr figyelmébe,” Kelet, 18 January and 1 February (1900), cited in Haraksim, p. 34. 34 language and national identity (Moscovite Russians), he contended, and there was no benefit to be gained from using Russian. Rusyns simply did not want anything like this. According to Stryps’kyi: during the fifty years which have lapsed from the time that the followers of Dobrian’s’kyi attempted to domesticate [the Russian language] among Rusyns, [that language] failed to put down roots in the local environment. Nobody learned how to speak Russian, nothing was written in this lan- guage, and no one contributed to the rise of an indigenous Rusyn litera- ture or to the enlightenment of the Rusyn people. Thus there is no sense in recommending to Rusyns that they accept Russian as their literary language.61 Stryps’kyi repeatedly expressed the opinion that Carpatho-Rusyns in the Hungarian Kingdom ought to raise up their living language to the level of a literary language and with its help then raise the educa- tional level of the ordinary Rusyn. At the same time, he added that the language of the Galicians (i.e., Ukrainian) could not be transplanted to the Rusyn environment of Hungary without adaptive measures, and he emphasized that in such an environment any revival of the “Muscovite language” could not be permitted because it would be detrimental to Carpatho-Rusyns.62 At the same time, Avhustyn Voloshyn, a co-worker at Kelet, voiced a negative opinion about ukrainianization. He warned the Rusyns of Hungary “about the terrible infection of vikrainianism [an insulting derivation of the ethnonym Ukrainian—A.P.] and radicalism which has gained ground and provoked a continuous struggle” and which would serve to alienate Rusyns from their church and language.63 A similar discussion appeared on the pages of other Rusyn-language pe- riodicals, namely the Uzhhorod popular educational weekly, Nauka (Science, 1897-1914, 1918-22),64 the Budapest weekly Nedîlia (Sun- Cited in ibid., p. 35. 61 Cited in ibid. 62 63 Mîsiatsoslov na 1909, ed. Avhustyn Voloshyn (Uzhhorod, 1908), p. 34, cited in Magochii, Formuvannia, p. 43/ Magocsi, Shaping, p. 62. 64 The weekly Nauka, with a supplement entitled Selo, was published in Uzhho- rod by the Society of St. Basil the Great. Its new non-Russophile management decided to use Rusyn, hoping thereby to help elevate the educational and cultural level of Carpatho-Rusyns. literary language and national identity 35 day, 1898-1919),65 and others. With increasing frequency writers voiced justifications for the need to use the spoken language, perhaps based on the philosophy that one’s own vernacular is the best, no matter what. “All well and good!,” claimed one writer in rejecting the use of Russian as a liter- ary language: “One doesn’t remember exactly what one’s mother’s milk was like—but only that honey isn’t sweeter.”66 With these words the author expressed love for his native language and echoed Dukh- novych’s own formulation: “Thus does the honest, though impover- ished, Subcarpathian Rusyn console himself: My shirt is closer to me than my vest; my shirt may be crude, but still it is my own.”67 All the authors who published their poetry in Dukhnovych’s al- manacs identified with the indigenous Carpatho-Rusyn orientation. Among them the most significant was Aleksander Pavlovych, a na- tive of Šarišské Čierne. Besides Dukhnovych, Pavlovych is the most eloquent writer of Rusyn literature and a proponent of language based on a vernacular folk language base. In his role as yet another national awakener in the struggle for a dignified life for the Rusyns in the Ma- kovytsia district and against magyarization, he followed the example of Czech and Slovak awakeners and maintained with them creative scholarly and political contacts. Pavlovych’s plan of action disclosed an interest in history, particularly the history of Makovytsia and its residents. Based on his experiences, he defended the position of the Rusyns as the autochtonous inhabitants, a view he clearly declared in his historically-themed poems. Among other writers of a Rusyn na- tional orientation at that time were Nykolai Nod’, Ivan Vyslots’kyi, and Anatolii Kralyts’kyi, all of whom wrote their works in the Rusyn vernacular. It was precisely the folk language base employed by these poets and prose writers that became the foundation upon which lin- guists of the time were beginning to construct their grammars, thus accentuating the distinctness of the Rusyn language. 65 The weekly Nedîlia was published in Rusyn and provided information about the national life of Carpatho-Rusyns in the last decades of the Hungarian King- dom. From 1916 to 1919, when the Hungarian government forbade use of the Cyrillic alphabet (azbuka), Nedîlia used the Roman alphabet [latynika]. 66 “Eshche o narodnoi literaturie,” Slovo, IV, 64 (L’viv, 1864), cited in Tichý, Vývoj, p. 100. 67 Cited in Frantishek Tykhŷi, “V pamiat’ A. Dukhnovycha 1803-1923,” in Knyzhkŷ Rusyna, No. 8 (Uzhhorod, 1923), p. 46. 36 language and national identity Carpatho-Rusyn cultural and linguistic development did not take place in a vacuum. At the end of the nineteenth century, Austria-Hun- gary and especially the Hungarian government expressed discontent with the foreign policy of tsarist Russia. Among the Russian Empire’s priorities was its stated interest in and support of the Slavic peoples of Austria-Hungary, and this included promoting the Russian language (and the Orthodox faith) among Carpatho-Rusyns. Hungary’s rulers did not accept this,68 and reacted by facilitating the publication of translations of textbooks for elementary schools in the Rusyn vernacu- lar.69 At the end of the nineteenth century there were attempts at creat- ing not only a Rusyn grammar with normative rules but also a manual of the historical grammar of Rusyn. Feodosii Zlots’kyi was the author of the first historical grammar of the Carpatho-Rusyn language; writ- ten in Hungarian, it remained only in manuscript.70 For this text he drew from the spoken language of his native Maramorosh county. Proof of the acute need for a Rusyn grammar at that time was the fact that in the same year that Zlots’kyi prepared his grammar (1883), Chopei’s Rusyn-Hungarian dictionary with a short grammar was also published.71 Chopei derived a new Rusyn norm on the basis of the vernacular used by the most numerous ethnographic group of Rusyns, the Lowlanders (Dolyniane) of Subcarpathian Rus’. The rich material he collected convinced him that the “Rusyn language is independent and need not depend on Russian.”72 During the last decades of the nineteenth century, the writers men- tioned above declared the independence of the language of Subcar- pathian Rusyns vis-à-vis the other East Slavic languages and also 68 Magocsi, “The Rusyn Question Revisited,” in Magocsi, A New Slavic Lan- guage is Born, pp. 25-26. 69 Among them were several textbooks by Pál Gönczy translated by Vasylii Chopei: Rus’ka azbuka i pervonachal’na chytanka dlia pervoho kliasa narodnŷkh shkol (Budapest, 1881) and Chytanka dlia narodnŷkh shkol (Budapest, 1889), as well as translated by Avhustyn Voloshyn: Azbuka y perva chytanka dlia pervoho klassa narodnŷkh shkol na rus’kom iazŷtsî (Budapest, 1898) with a second edi- tion in 1913. An additional example of such a textbook is János Gaspár’s Rus’ka chytanka dlia druhoi klasŷ narodnŷkh shkol (Budapest, 1891). 70 Theodoz Zloczky, “A karpátalji orosznyelv oknyomozó grammatikája” (1883, unpublished manuscript). 71 Chopei, Rus’ko madiarskyi slovar’ (see note 52). 72 Ibid., p. xxiii. literary language and national identity 37 stressed that local dialects should be the foundation of an independent literary language which could emerge from Chopei’s dictionary and the pre-war textbooks of Voloshyn. In this context Hiiador Stryps’kyi defended the distinctiveness of the language in his brochure, entitled Starsha rus’ka pys’mennost’ na Uhorshchynî (The Oldest Rusyn Lit- erature in Hungary).73 He drew from old manuscript books of the fif- teenth through eighteenth centuries, and stated that “all works of the oldest literature are written in the national language, Rusnak, as we spoke it then.”74In conclusion, he stated that if Carpatho-Rusyns had managed to continue in their national written tradition in the nine- teenth century, “instead of using the alien Great Russian, we would have stood high now in terms of enlightenment,”75 insofar as that old writing was “ours” (i.e., Rusyn), grew on “our” soil, and had a future, although it was necessary to develop it. He emphasized that “we stand resolutely behind Rusnak national writing, because it has a past as well as a future.”76 As is well known, Stryps’kyi later reworked the theoretical base for this fourth East Slavic language which drew on the vernacular of the Lowlanders because it was precisely they who were, according to him, “the purest Rusyns of all Subcarpathian Rus’.”77 Ievmenii Sabov also defended the independent status of the Car- patho-Rusyn language78 and considered the linguistic work of Mytrak and Fentsyk as laying the foundation for it. Already in his reader of 1893, Sabov stated that Mytrak’s dictionary could become the basis for a Rusyn literary language79; such an opinion suggests that Sabov must have devoted a good deal of time studying the Mytrak dictionary. In a letter to František Tichý, dated 16 June 1922, Sabov described his stance on the Russian language question. He denounced both “politi- cal Ukrainianism” and “Muscophilism,” since “these do not suit us,”80 and he considered the best choice for the education of the young gen- 73 Strypskii, Starsha rus’ka pys’mennost’. 74 Ibid., cited in Voloshyn, O pys’mennom iazŷtsî, pp. 23-24. 75 Cited in ibid., p. 24. 76 Cited in ibid. 77 Strypskii, Hdî dokumentŷ, p. 30. 78 Sabov, “Literární jazyk,” pp. 125-129. 79 E. Sabov, ed., Khristomatiia tserkovno-slavianskikh i uhro-russkikh litera- turnykh pamiatnikov s pribavleniem ugro-russkikh narodnykh skazok na podlin- nykh nariechiiakh (Uzhhorod, 1893), p. 209. 80 Cited in Tichý, Vývoj, pp. 116-117. 38 language and national identity eration to be the pre-World War I language that Rusyn writers used from Dukhnovych to Popradov.81 The scholarly, editorial, and educa- tional efforts of other significant adherents of the Rusyn national idea are reflected in the works of Antal Hodinka (Antonii Hodynka)82 and Aleksander Bonkalo.83 Aleksander Il’nyts’kyi claims a place in this context, as well.84 In spite of all the efforts at codifying an independent Rusyn lan- guage, the project was not successful. There were several reasons for this. First of all, there were complex socioeconomic, political, and cultural conditions which did not permit Carpatho-Rusyns to form a modern nationality, and these also had a negative influence on the linguistic process and its results.85 Important determining factors were also geography and demography: Carpatho-Rusyns lived along the boundary of two different linguistic regions, West Slavic and East Slavic, where besides Slovak and Polish influences, contact with non- Slavic languages (including Hungarian, German, and to a degree Ro- manian) complicated the linguistic situation. From these languages, there was phonetic, morphological, and lexical interference. As a re- sult, the Rusyn dialects faced difficulties in evolving along any direct 81 Ibid., p. 117. 82 Eden sokŷrnyts’kŷi syrokhman [Antonii Hodynka], Uttsiuznyna, gazdustvo y proshlost’ iuzhnokarpats’kŷkh rusynuv (1923)—reprinted (Nyíregyháza, 2000); Antal Hodinka/Antonii Hodynka, Hlaholnytsia. Rusyns’ko-madiars’kŷi slovar’ hlaholuv/Ruszin-magyar igetár (Uzhhorod, 1922)—a facsimile edition (Nyíre- gyháza, 1991). 83 O. Rakhivs’kyi [Aleksander Bonkalo], Vyimky yz uhors’ko-rus’koho pys’menstva XVII-XVIII vv. (Budapest, 1919); Alexander Bonkáló, “Die ungar- ländischen Ruthenen,” Ungarische Jahrbücher, I, 3 (Berlin, 1921), pp. 215-232 and 313-341; Alexander Bonkalo, Rus’kyi literaturnŷi jazŷk, Lyteraturno-nauko- va byblioteka, No. 4 (Uzhhorod, 1941). 84 Il’nyts’kŷi edited the Greek Catholic Church periodicals Dushpastŷr (1924- 38), Myssiinŷi vîstnyk (1931-38), Myssiinŷi kalendar’ (1935-44), Dobrŷi pastŷr’ (1932-42), and Blahovîstnyk (1939-44), as well as the secular periodicals Kar- patska nedîlia (1939-41) and Nedîlia (1941-44). Il’nyts’kŷi encouraged the idea of an independent Rusyn people and language; about this consult his “Mad­iarskoe pravytel’svto y narodnŷi iazŷk podkarpatskykh rusynov,” Menshynovŷi obîzhnyk, VII, 2—pryloha (Pécs, 1943), p. 14. 85 Stanislav Konečný, “Rusíni na Slovensku a  vývoj otázky ich spisovného jazyka,” in Človek a  spoločnosť. Štúdie a  články, www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000/ konecny2.html. literary language and national identity 39 vertical linguistic trajectory. As noted earlier by Ievmenii Sabov, the wide variety of Rusyn dialects for a long time served as an obstacle toward the rise of one as the literary language.86 Until 1848, the majority of Subcarpathian intelligentsia did not have a national consciouness, and the few who did owed their sense of national consciousness largely to their amateur interest in the history of their people. In 1918, most members of the Subcarpathian intelli- gentsia considered themselves Hungarians, and only a small enlight- ened number of individuals acknowledged a Slavic identity. In the period between 1848 and 1918, however, the development of Rusyn national consciousness nevertheless made some definite progress. A national awakening took place in which leaders, such as the political activist Adolf Dobrian’s’kyi and the writer Aleksander Dukhnovych, staked out the first political and ideological claims of the Carpatho- Rusyn national movement. Most importantly, they participated in the rise of the first Rusyn newspapers and cultural organizations and they maintained contact with neighboring Slovaks and Galician Rusyns. In spite of the fact that many aspects of Carpatho-Rusyn national life remained unresolved, including the crucial question of the literary language, the early activists nevertheless took the first steps toward consolidating national life. In reality, however, the Rusyn national movement did not have sufficient space or time in which to develop fully because after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, when the Hungarian King- dom effectively acquired self-rule, it began to intensify a program of magyarization throughout its territory. The basis for the Hungarian policy of magyarization was the formulation of the legal article XLIV from 1868, referring to what was called “equal rights of nationalties.” According to this law “all citizens of Hungary constitute a single na- tion, the indivisible, unitary Magyar nation (magyar nemzet) in which every citizen of any nationality (nemzetiség) is equally a member.”87 This meant that organizations representing national minorities could not legally exist because the law allowed for only one nation (narod), the Magyar nation. Although it is true that in administrative and reli- gious matters the use of minority languages was guaranteed, the legal regulations surrounding this guarantee were never put into practice. 86 Sabov, Khristomatiia, p. 205. 87 Cited in Magocsi, Rusynŷ na Slovens‘ku, p. 146. 40 language and national identity Thus, by the beginning of World War I, the majority of Rusyn—and Slovak—activists had assimilated into Hungarian culture. On the ba- sis of this reality, some observers of the time stated that those who at- tempted to belong to two nationalities (Rusyn and Magyar, or Slovak and Magyar) would in several years become totally assimilated.88 In the Prešov Region there were absolutely no Rusyn institutions or a Rusyn-language press. Without any kind of organization for in- digenous cultural life, local writers and cultural activists were forced to work and pursue their creative activities in isolation and to publish wherever possible, whether in Uzhhorod or in L’viv in neighboring Galicia. As a result of the political and social situation of the time, the Rusyn intelligentsia was divided into two groups: those who aided the assimilation process with Hungarian culture (the so-called mag- yarones); and those who preserved their Rusyn national consciousness or who felt that the use of the Russian language and their own identi- fication with the Russian nationality was the only way to prevent the demise of their people. Even more problematic from the perspective of the survival of Carpatho-Rusyns was the fact that the educational system did not pro- duce any further leading activists. In the city of Prešov, where middle schools prepared candidates for the Greek Catholic clergy, students studied in Hungarian. Any opportunity to acquire proficiency in read- ing Cyrillic or an orientation toward one’s own national culture ex- isted only at the lowest levels of the educational system, in elementary schools run by the church, village, or state. In 1874, the Prešov Region had 247 elementary schools which used some form of Rusyn for in- struction, but three decades later, in 1906, that number had fallen to only 23; in 68 other elementary schools there was Rusyn-Hungarian bilingual education. With the application of a new school law in 1907 proposed by Count Albert Appónyi, the situation worsened so much that between 1907 and 1912 the language used in the 68 Hungarian- Rusyn bilingual schools was completely magyarized, so that the num- ber of schools using any form of Rusyn fell from 23 to 9.89 See the views of the influential British scholar and critic of pre-World War I 88 Hungarian policy, Robert W. Seton-Watson, as discussed in Magocsi, Shaping of a National Identity, pp. 74-75. 89 For detailed statistical information about education, see Andrii Chuma and Andrii Bodnar, Ukraïns’ka shkola na Zakarpatti ta Skhidnii Slovachchyni, Part 1 literary language and national identity 41 Neither did the Greek Catholic Church with its bishop in Prešov succeed in acquiring any kind of autonomous position, although it tried to do so in 1870 at the Catholic Congress in Budapest. The Church founded only two educational establishments in Prešov— the Greek Catholic Theological Seminary (1880) and the Teachers’ Seminary (1895). Both had the potential to become fertile ground for Rusyn national life. Yet even despite being under the leadership of the Rusyn patriot Mykhaïl Kotradov, the first rector of the seminary, these new establishments responded instead to the demands of the time and allowed teaching only in Hungarian. In spite of the numerous difficulties that the Rusyns of Slovakia faced at this time, including the absence of a functional school system, they did not succumb to the pressure of Hungarian politics. Even with- out the stability which supportive nationality institutions provide, the Carpatho-Rusyns did manage to preserve their traditional distinctive- ness, identity, and culture. Thus, they were able to initiate a national renaissance in the new political and social atmosphere created after the demise of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the close of World War I. This new situation spanned the years 1918-1945 and provided a con- text and energy for the subsequent emergence of a Carpatho-Rusyn national ideology.90 The Rusyn language question after World War I The end of World War I heralded another stage in the evolution of the Rusyn literary language question. In the new political situation resulting from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in late 1918, Carpatho-Rusyns, like other nationalities in the former em- pire, mobilized in the struggle for their national rights. The future status of Carpatho-Rusyns and their inclusion in the structure of some new state became the subject of meetings at national councils which arose in regions with large Carpatho-Rusyn populations. There were several possible alternative political solutions for Carpatho-Rusyns: “autonomy within Hungary; complete independence; or union with Russia, Ukraine, or the new state of Czechoslovakia.”91 These various (Prešov, 1967), p. 110. 90 Magocsi, Shaping of a National Identity, p. 75. 91 Ibid., p. 76. 42 language and national identity possibilities dominated the political programs of individual Carpatho- Rusyn leaders. Subsequent international developments in 1919, how- ever, led to conditions which permitted the realization of only one of these alternatives—and this was union with the Czechoslovak Repub- lic. Carpatho-Rusyn leaders came to expect that the “territory south of the Carpathians which they inhabited would become the third state of the Czechoslovak Republic.”92 In the end, these expectations remained unfulfilled because Czecho- slovakia chose to become a centralized state rather than one based on a federal model. The president and founder of Czechoslovakia, Tomáš G. Masaryk, and the republic’s government did, however, recognize the Rusyns’ right to self-rule, and thus there appeared on the map a new province, Subcarpathian Rus’, with a certain level of autonomy guaranteed in international treaties (St. Germain, 1919 and Trianon, 1920) and by the Czechoslovak constitution of 1920. As a result of this solution, the Russian National party had to abandon its hope for “the unification of all the regions inhabited by Rusyns from the Poprad River (in Spish county) to the Tysa River (in Maramorosh county).”93 This meant that Rusyn villages in the Prešov Region were now within the borders of Slovakia, and that for the first time Carpatho-Rusyns there were clearly separated administratively from their brothers and sisters farther to the east in Subcarpathian Rus’. Within Czechoslovakia, where approximately 80 percent of the Rusyns of the former Hungarian Kingdom now found themselves, their legal status and their language were handled very differently de- pending on whether they lived in the Prešov Region of Slovakia or in Subcarpathian Rus’. In Subcarpathian Rus’, the “local language” became one of the official “state” languages alongside Czech. Already on 18 November 1919, the Czechoslovak government issued the Gen- eral Statute for the Organization and Adminstration of Subcarpathian Rus’ to be based in Uzhhorod. The General Statute addressed specifi- cally the Rusyn language question, stating that the “national language” 92 Carpatho-Rusyn leaders supported the view that the new state should be a federative republic with the name Czecho-Slovak-Rusyn Republic (Czech: Čes- ko-slovensko-ruská republika). See a discussion of this in Peter Švorc, “Podkar- patskí Rusíni a  ich vyrovnanie sa s  česko-slovenskou štátnosťou,” in Jaroslav Valenta et al., eds., Československo 1918-1938: osudy ve střední Evropě (Prague, 1999), pp. 194-200. 93 Cited in Magocsi, Rusynŷ na Slovens’ku, p. 157. literary language and national identity 43 should be used in the educational system and the administration.94 The statute also recommended that “Rusyn schools should be organized as soon as possible,” and that Rusyn should be the language of education in the lower grades and be introduced gradually as well in the higher grades of middle and high schools.95 Thanks to the new political situation and democratic system of the Czechoslovak Republic, Carpatho-Rusyns were presented with the opportunity to study and publish in their “local” language. The un- resolved problem of “dignity,” both linguistic and ethnic, however, again placed before them the dilemma of which language this should be. Some individuals were of the opinion that the local dialects of Carpatho-Rusyns should become the basis of a distinct Rusyn lit- erary language which could be developed on the basis of Chopei’s dictionary and Voloshyn’s textbooks from the end of the nineteenth century. Others, specifically immigrants from eastern Galicia, how- ever, thought that Rusyn dialects were dialects of Ukrainian and that standard Ukrainian should become the literary language of Rusyns. A third group recommended staying with Russian and helping the local population master it. In contrast to Subcarpathian Rus’, Carpatho-Rusyns residing in Slovakia did not have a statute regarding their status as a “state peo- ple.” They were considered only a national minority, although accord- ing to the Czechoslovak constitution they had the right to use their mother tongue in school and public life and to propagate Carpatho- Rusyn culture. A host of difficulties arose, however, when they tried to put this right into practice, particularly in the schools.96 During the academic year 1923-1924, there were only 95 village schools in east- ern Slovakia in which Rusyn was used. When Rusyn-American im- migrants drew President Masaryk’s attention to this situation, even he was forced to admit that the “statistics really reveal the fact that the 94 The Generální statut pro organisaci a  administraci Podkarpatské Rusi č. 26539/19 m. r. was publicized in the form of a proclamation, i.e., as a public announcement numbered “pres. 299.” Cited in Nikolai Zorkii, Spor o jazykie v Podkarpatskoi Rusi i cheshskaia Akademiia Nauk/Kak osviedomliaet d-r Ivan Pan’kevich cheshskuiu publiku o nashikh jazykovykh dielakh (Uzhhorod, 1926), p. 11. 95 Cited in ibid., p. 13. 96 Paul Robert Magocsi, The People From Nowhere: An Illustrated History of Carpatho-Rusyns (Uzhhorod, 2006), p. 7. 44 language and national identity Rusyns in Slovakia do not have an appropriately corresponding num- ber of schools.”97 This situation, as well as polemics surrounding what Carpatho-Rusyns considered to be the inaccurate tallies of their popu- lation, along with questions about the placement of the border with Subcarpathian Rus’, symbolized a new phenomenon—the growth of misunderstanding between Slovaks and Rusyns. This appeared espe- cially between political representatives of both sides during the course of the entire interwar period. Language debates in interwar Subcarpathian Rus’ The language situation in Subcarpathian Rus’, characterized by a struggle among three national orientations (Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian) naturally continued to fuel a linguistic polemic. In order to resolve the question of a literary language for Subcarpathian Rus’— and in doing so to fulfill the letter of the law (the General Statue for the Organization and Adminstration of Subcarpathian Rus’ of 18 No- vember 1919)—the local Czechoslovak political administration in Uzhhorod, the Civil Administration in Subcarpathian Rus’, initiated a project toward the creation of an independent literary language for which it requested expert advice from the Ministry of Education and National Culture.98 On the basis of this request, on 4 December 1919, the ministry convoked a special advisory council consisting of mem- bers of the Czech Academy of Sciences and others experts “who by the nature of their research [were] closer to this question and more qualified than others to resolve it.”99 The advisory council did not re­ commend to Subcarpathia’s Civil Administration that a new literary language be created because they considered that the local dialects belonged to “Little Russian,” as Ukrainian was referred to at the time. Thus, according to their opinion, the local Rusyn population should use the “Little Russian” language which their closest neighbors used, and that language was “Galician Ukrainian.”100 In their recommendations, however, the advisory council members Cited in Ivan Vanat, “Shkil’ne pytannia na Priashivshchyni pid chas domiun- 97 khens’koï respubliky,” Duklia, XIV, 5 (Prešov, 1966), p. 63. 98 Zorkii, Spor o jazykie, pp. 24-26. 99 Cited in ibid., p. 26. 100 Cited in ibid., p. 27. literary language and national identity 45 emphasized that “the decision about the literary language of any nation or people belongs above all to its own members. Thus, the Czech ex- perts express their opinion about a literary language for the population of Subcarpathian Rus’, but only with the caveat that their voice not be heeded against the will of this population [Zorkii’s emphasis].”101 Since among the ranks of the above-mentioned experts there was an overwhelming number of adherents of the Russophile tradition, who considered Ukrainians members of the “great Russian nation,” the ad- visory council added another recommendation: that along with Czech and Slovak, the mandatory study of Russian should be introduced into middle and high schools.102 Finally, the advisory council’s report con- cluded with the statement that “it is desirable for both scholarly and political reasons that the scientific investigation and evaluation of the efforts to date in creating a distinct literary language for the Carpatho- Rusyn people” should most appropriately be “entrusted to a young philologist who is trained to make this assessment.”103 The young phi- lologist chosen for this task turned out not to be a local Carpatho- Rusyn linguist, but rather Ivan Pan’kevych, a nationally consicious Ukrainian from Galicia. His appointment provoked a hostile reaction and protests on the part of Subcarpathia’s local Rusynophile and Rus- sophile intelligentsia.104 As writers and observers noted at the time, the significant Ukrai- nian emigration from Galicia to the territory of Subcarpathian Rus’ within Czechoslovakia at the beginning of the twentieth century and subsequently to northeastern Slovakia also brought with it the old “Galician language struggles,”105 which before then had not affected prewar Hungarian Rus’ in spite of the fact that they were well known already from the 1860s.106 These battles found fertile ground among the local intelligentsia which vacillated among Russophilism, Ukrain- ophilism, and Rusynism. For instance, for the first time the acerbic argument between Ihor Hus’nai and Avhustyn Voloshyn regarding lan- guage became public in what became known as their “brochure duel.” 101 Cited in ibid., p. 26. 102 Cited in ibid., p. 27. 103 Cited in ibid. 104 On these controversies, see the section “Protesty protiv ukrainizatsii,” in ibid., pp. 37-46. 105 Hartl, “K jazykovým sporům,” p. 163. 106 Ibid. 46 language and national identity In 1921, Hus’nai, a school inspector in Prešov, published a brochure, entitled The Language Question in Subcarpathian Rus’. Here, he ana- lyzed the 1919 decree of the General Statute for the Organization and Adminstration of Subcarpathian Rus’ in connection with the question of national language, which according to him people were interpret- ing in different ways.107 The Czech administrators did not know which language they should consider since the Ukrainians argued that adopt- ing Rusyn meant introducing a new language. Hus’nai responded that Subcarpathian Rus’ already had a literary language. It was the “Carpatho-Russian” of writers such as Fentsyk, Meteor (Ioann/Ivan Sil’vai), Dukhnovych, Pavlovych, and others; that is, the language in which Mytrak’s dictionary and Sabov’s grammar were published. As an adherent of the “common Russian” language, Hus’nai criticized any attempt to introduce the Ukrainian language as “linguistic sepa- ratism in the service of anti-Russians.”108 Voloshyn responded to Hus’nai’s argument in the same year with the brochure, O pys’mennom iazŷtsî Podkarpatskykh Rusynov (About the Literary Language of the Subcarpathian Rusyns), in which he re- jected Hus’nai’s thesis about “common Russian” as an appropriate literary language.109 Further he pointed to the impossibility of unit- ing languages which in the course of their historical development had already separated from each other. He argued that if, alongside the world language of German, other Germanic languages could exist— Flemish, Dutch, and others—so also alongside Russian, which had the character of a world language, it surely was possible to develop and cultivate Rusyn. Voloshyn outlined the linguistic development of Subcarpathian Rusyn writing and came to the conclusion that the Russian period from the second half of the nineteenth century was “a mistake and an anachronism which harms cultural efforts, the church, and religious life, and complicates political consolidation since there is a tendency leading to literature in vernacular languages.”110 In other words, he argued that there is a right and proper general tendency to develop literature in national languages, and that imposing Russian on Ihor Hus’nai, Iazykovyi vopros v Podkarpatskoi Rusi (Prešov, 1921). 107 Ibid., p. 164. 108 109 Avhustyn Voloshyn, O pys’mennom iazŷtsî podkarpatskykh rusynov (Uzh- horod, 1921). 110 Ibid., p. 42. literary language and national identity 47 the Rusyns was a regressive approach that ran counter to this natural tendency. The confrontation between the Russophile and Ukrainophile ori- entations played out again in 1923 on the pages of a multi-authored collection of essays published in Prague for an encyclopedic work entitled Podkarpatská Rus. This time the debate was between Ievme- nii Sabov111 and Ivan Pan’kevych.112 Sabov represented the indige- nous national orientation with traditional sympathy toward the Rus- sian language, while Pan’kevych declared Subcarpathian Rus’ to be ethnographically and linguistically a constituent part of Ukrainian ethnographic and linguistic territory. For the Czechoslovak govern- ment and educational administration, however, Pan’kevych’s views reflected the authoritative opinion of the Czech Academy of Sciences, which in 1919 designated “Little Russian” (i.e., Ukrainian) as the of- ficial language of Subcarpathian Rus’. Acknowledging local tradition, however, the academy recommended a historico-etymological orthog- raphy which was previously used in Galicia and recommended solving the shortage of textbooks by using Ukrainian textbooks. According to several writers, the ukrainianization of Subcarpath- ian Rus’ thus began already in 1920.113 At the time numerous pro- tests were registered against this decision, many in the form of news items and articles published in the Uzhhorod newspaper, Russkaia zemlia (The Russian Land). The Uzhhorod Central Rusyn National Council also protested against ukrainianization.114 In February 1920, a five-member delegation of peasants from Subcarpathian counties delivered a petition to the Czechoslovak premier Vlastimil Tusar in Prague. Its fourth point was a “protest against the forced introduc- tion of the Ukrainian language into our schools and instruction by Ukrainian teachers.”115 During a visit to Uzhhorod on 8 March 1920, the Czechoslovak prime minister Milan Hodža accepted a similar delegation of protesting residents from thirteen villages.116 In addition, 111 Sabov, “Literární jazyk,” pp. 125-129. 112 Paňkevič, “Jazyková otázka,” pp. 130-150. 113 Zorkii, Spor o iazykie, pp. 37-46. 114 Russkaia zemlia, II, 24 (Uzhhorod, 1920). 115 Cited in Zorkii, Spor o iazykie, p. 38. 116 Russkaia zemlia, II, 9 (Uzhhorod, 1920). 48 language and national identity village residents of Beňadikovce,117 Bilky,118 and members of the Re- naissance Carpatho-Russian Student Society (Vozrozhdenie)119 all pro- tested against the influx of Galician Ukrainians to Subcarpathian Rus’ and against the forced introduction of Ukrainian into the schools. The news media informed the public about many protests on the part of individuals and representatives of Rusyn cultural groups in Subcarpath- ian Rus’ addressed to the highest government organs of the Czecho- slovak Republic, demanding the dismissal from Subcarpathian Rus’ of Pan’kevych and other Galician Ukrainians.120 The Uzhhorod journal, Narodna shkola (The Elementary School), made public the protest of the cathedral chapter of the Greek Catholic Mukachevo Eparchy in Uzhhorod and of the Uzhhorod Greek Catholic Theological Lyceum.121 From the 1930s, the language arguments acquired a radically dif- ferent character than they had had up to 1922. With the exception of Hus’nai, all expressions of discontent against Ukrainian up until 1922 had accepted the local language, Rusyn, as the basis for a literary language. Both fundamental orientations began to retreat from this basic formulation in the 1930s. Up until that point, it had been pos- sible “to identify [these orientations] as Ukrainophile and Russophile, [but] now [they] were called the Ukrainian direction and the Russian direction; that is, the arguments were no longer just about grammar and language, but about national orientation. And so there is no peace or agreement here: this is a state of battle in which the decision will be made by victory or defeat unless official bilingualism is accepted as the final outcome.”122 Russian and Ukrainian émigrés had already had an effect on the population of Subcarpathian Rus’, leading to an apparent abandon- ment of the domestic linguistic base. This base and the orthography determined by the Czechoslovak administration left the language only in the schools. Adherents of the Ukrainian language moved away from etymological orthography, replaced it with phonetic orthography, and consistently began to use the term Ukrainian to describe the language. 117 Ibid., II, 11. 118 Ibid., II, 17. 119 Ibid., III, 48 (1921). 120 Ibid., II, 10 (1920). 121 Cited in Zorkii, Spor o iazykie, pp. 41-43. 122 Hartl, “K jazykovým sporům,” p. 166. literary language and national identity 49 Subsequently, Voloshyn announced the introduction of Ukrainian or- thography in the newspaper Svoboda (Freedom), beginning 1 January 1930. A year later a Russian offensive began. The Aleksander Dukh- novych Russian Cultural and Enlightenment Society, the Teachers’ Society, five senators, five deputies, three members of the district ad- ministration of Subcarpathian Rus’, and seven representatives of lo- cal political parties adopted the “Declaration of Cultural and National Rights of the Carpatho-Russian (karpatorusky) People” in 1931, in which they reproached the Czechoslovak government for the ukrai- nianization that was taking place. Attempts were made to find a basis upon which both the Ukrainian and Russian orientations could reach an agreement in order to establish some definite linguistic compro- mise. Such a compromise would perhaps have made possible the use of a single language in the educational system and in which school textbooks could be published. In spite of the fact that both sides pro- duced extensive memoranda, no final agreement was reached. The boisterous conflict between the increasingly estranged Rus- sian and Ukrainian factions seemed to muffle the ambitions of the local language, but in the Rusyn language’s favor all the while was the fact that the population’s practical knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian was simply weak. Neither of these two languages had any really strong influence on the Rusyns’ daily language use, and thus the Carpatho-Rusyn national orientation still entertained hope for suc- cess. Likewise, the earliest grades in the schools continued to employ the vernacular consistently until 1937, although other branches of the state administration tended to prefer Russian. Precisely at this time when a compromise between the Russian and Ukrainian extremes seemed impossible, voices from the Rusyn politi- cal camp called for national unity on the issue of the local language. In defense of the vernacular was the former government official and law- yer from Rakhiv, Avhustyn Shtefan/Ágoston Stéfán,123 who presented the basic thesis of Rusynism in which he found an analogy in the de- velopment of national consciousness among the Flemish. Meanwhile, the political activist Andrii Brodii, drawing from the legal language of the Treaty of St. Germain, argued that the Carpatho-Rusyn future was Avhustin Štefan, “Budoucnost rusínskeho národa,” Podkarpatské hlasy, VI, 123 15 and 17 (Uzhhorod, 1930), cited in Hartl, “K jazykovým sporům,” p. 166. 50 language and national identity in the midst of neither the Russian or Ukrainian peoples; rather, that his people must “create for themselves a small but strong Carpatho- Rusyn nationality.”124 In this same spirit, articles appeared in the Uzhhorod weekly Nedîlia (The Week). The editors rejected both “Ukrainian irredentism” and “Russian pan-Slavism” and defined the newspaper’s credo as follows: We do not need any kind of Ukrainian political ideology since we would rather be just a small drop in a non-Rus’ state than a nothing in your Ukrainian one! … We also do not need to wish for anything from Slavism or from Russia, which never intervened to save us when it had the chance.125 The editors tried to convince readers to be proud of the fact that they were Rusyns, because “in the framework of historical rights and cultural possibilities, they have already formed into an independent nationality.”126 According to the editors, Rusyns should orient them- selves toward Czechoslovakia because only that move could guaran- tee the survival of their nationality. Finally, they supported a literary language based on the Rusyn vernacular but favored a Russian direc- tion, rather than a Ukrainian direction because those who represented the Ukrainian orientation had initially moved away from the stand that the editors took regarding allegiance to Czechoslovakia. The Rusyn language question in interwar Slovakia In Slovakia the Carpatho-Rusyns were involved in the same kinds of nationality issues as in Subcarpathian Rus’. As a national minority in Slovakia since 1920, the Czechoslovak constitution guaranteed them the right to use their mother tongue publicly in the media, as well as in villages where at least 20 percent of the population was Carpatho- Rusyn, and they were permitted to use their native language for in- struction in the schools.127 Despite significant problems in the realm of politics and the economy, there was a gradual improvement of the situation in terms of culture during the interwar period. It seems that Andrii Brodii, “Treuga dei,” Russkii viestnyk, IX, 25 and 28 (Uzhhorod, 124 1932). 125 Cited in Mykhailo Kapral and Ivan Pop, “Nedîlia,” in Magocsi and Pop, Encyclopedia, p. 349. 126 Ibid., p. 273. 127 Ústava Československé republiky (Prague, 1921), pp. 30-32. literary language and national identity 51 the protests expressed by the local Russian National party and the Prešov Greek Catholic bishopric, as well as the newly-established Rusyn National Committee, founded in 1937, had a positive effect also in the cultural and educational sphere. In the years between 1932 and 1937, the Czechoslovak Ministry of Education allowed an ad- ditional 59 schools to join those already employing Rusyn as the lan- guage of instruction instead of Slovak, and another 43 introduced the study of Rusyn for at least three hours a week. Thus, by 1938 there existed a total of 168 Rusyn minority schools, while in the other 43 schools Rusyn was taught for at least part of the time.128 During the interwar period the Rusyn orientation in the Prešov Re- gion even considered the possibility of codifying certain dialects in order to formulate a Rusyn literary language. The proposed standard was to be based on linguistic practice in Rusyn schools from the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth, as well as on Voloshyn’s popular grammar and reader which, in its newest editions, continued to be used. Participants at a conference on 13 January 1920, held in Prešov within the framework of the so-called symposium of in- structors of associated schools, discussed the need for textbooks of the Rusyn language. Authors of the proposed textbooks were to employ the vernacular language, although they had to adapt Russian gram- matical terminology.129 A “Carpatho-Rusyn” literary language—largely Russian supple- mented with many dialectisms—was the dominant medium used already at the beginning of the 1920s as represented in the primer and reader by Ioann Kyzak.130 Also at that time Aleksander Sedlak published in Prešov the Grammatika russkago iazyka dlia narodnykh shkol eparkhii Priashevskoi (Grammar of the Russian Language for Elementary Schools in the Prešov Eparchy, 1920). This text was based on Russian grammar from the pre-Revolutionary period with the old etymological writing system using 35 letters, among which were the 128 For the most comprehensive statistical tables, see Ivan Vanat, “Shkil’na sprava na Priashivshchyni v period domiunkhens’koï Chekhoslovachchyny,” in Z mynuloho i suchasnoho ukraïntsiv Chekhoslovachchyny/Pedahohichnyi zbirnyk, No. 3 (Bratislava, 1973), pp. 159-195. 129 Mykola Shtets’, “Borot’ba za literaturnu movu ukraïntsiv Skhidnoï Slo- vachchyny v 1919-1945 rr.,” in Zhovten’ i ukraïns’ka kul’tura (Prešov, 1968), p. 285. 130 Magocsi, “The Rusyn Language Question Revisited,” p. 28. 52 language and national identity ө (feta), ±, ы, э, and ъ. The grammar also contained orthoepic or pro- nunciation rules, vocabulary taken from Russian and local Rusyn ver- nacular, and grammar rules from Russian and partly from Ukrainian, including many local archaic forms and suffixes. Supporters of this literary language were from large segments of the clergy and the secular intelligentsia. Used in schools, it was desig- nated as the "national Rusyn [rus’kyi] language”; in official discourse it was also referred to as the Russian language (russkii iazyk).131 In re- ality, the language was a combination of Rusyn dialectal elements, as well as Russian and Church Slavonic elements, and it was branded by some as the “macaronic language” (iazŷchie). This form of language could be considered an attempt at creating a distinct literary language which, although emerging out of current practice, was neither original nor generally accepted. At the same time, it indirectly conveyed the idea that Carpatho-Rusyns represented a distinct East Slavic people and were thus attempting to distance themselves from both Russians and Ukrainians.132 The Carpatho-Rusyn movement in Slovakia was supported mainly by the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Prešov and specifically by its bish- op, by Pavel Peter Goidych, OSBM. Goidych was vitally concerned about the development of his eparchy’s school system. During the in- terwar period education within the jurisdiction of the Greek Catholic Church was represented on three levels: elementary (village primary schools)133; middle (the “little seminary” within the Greek Catholic Theological Seminary, the Greek Catholic Rusyn Teachers’ Institute, the Greek Catholic Rusyn Junior High [horozhans’ka] School, the Greek Catholic Rusyn Gymnasium); and higher (the “big seminary” or the Greek Catholic Theological Seminary). Goidych took a significant step in attempting to standardize a lit- erary language for his eparchy’s schools. In a letter that alluded to a 1930 Report of the Ministry of Education and National Culture in Bratislava, the bishop demanded permission to conduct education in Shtets’, “Borot’ba,” p. 285. 131 Ibid., p. 286. 132 133 On the basis of a 1931 yearbook, there were 167 church-sponsored village schools in the eparchy, but only 24 state-run village schools. See Schematismus venerabilis cleri graeci ritus catholicorum dioceseos Fragopolitanae (Prešov- Prjašev) pro anno Domini 1931 (Prešov, 1931), pp. 189-196. literary language and national identity 53 the “Carpatho-Rusyn” language.134 He turned to the Ministry of Edu- cation in Prague and twice also to President Masaryk in letters dated 14 March 1932 and 26 June 1934, regarding the adoption of the lan- guage, and this activity demonstrated both his national and patriotic calling.135 Goidych rejected the Russian and Ukrainian languages and sought a foundation for a future Rusyn literary language based on the vernacular. The fact remains, however, that the bishop’s call for language standardization was not realized in practice in any consis- tent way, something attested to in publications produced by the bish- op’s ill-wishers. In rural schools, teaching formally followed official guidelines, although in practice the language of instruction was that which individual teachers knew best.136 In connection with Bishop Goidych’s activities concerning the de- mand for the introduction of the “Carpatho-Rusyn” language into the schools, there was even talk about the “process of rusynizing edu- cation,” which dates to 1930 when the “majority of schools in cer- tain Eastern Slovak villages began to submit requests for a change in the language of instruction from Slovak to ‘Subcarpathian Rusyn’ or ‘Rusyn’.”137 This action acquired a mass character so that by 1933 some 100 villages submitted this demand. Such activity on the part of Carpatho-Rusyn churches and political circles was in reaction to the Slovak League, an organization which from 1932 began to concern itself intensively with the situation of Greek Catholics of Slovak nationality.138 The tenth congress of the Slovak League, which took place from 8-10 June 1934 in Spišska Nová Ves, no longer considered only educational implications of the Slovak-Rusyn population ratio, but rather the Rusyn question in 134 Shtets’, Literaturna mova, p. 107. 135 Róbert Letz, “Postavenie gréckokatolíkov slovenskej národnosti v rokoch 1918 – 1950,” in Ján Doruľa, ed., Slovensko-rusínsko-ukrajinské vzťahy od ob- rodenia po súčasnosť (Bratislava, 2000), p. 107. 136 See, for instance, Narodnaia gazeta, VIII, 19 (Prešov, 1931), p. 2. 137 Cited in Letz, “Postavenie gréckokatolíkov,” p. 106. 138 The Slovak League, first established in the United States in 1907, was foun- ded in Slovakia at the initiative of Ignác Gessay on 22 October 1920. Its goal was to look after the cultural and material needs of Slovaks, especially those who lived among national minorities and were, therefore, a minority themselves. In a decree dated 11 November 1948, the Ministry of the Interior merged the Slovak League with the Matica slovenska. 54 language and national identity general.139 In accordance with the resolution of the Slovak League congress concerning the Rusyn question, a work entitled The Slovak- Rusyn Ratio in Eastern Slovakia that was published in 1935 met with a strong response from both the Slovak and Rusyn public. According to its author, Ján Ruman, “in this brochure, on the basis of rich mate- rial acquired on location, we have directed the attention of the Slovak public to the danger of the Rusyn movement in eastern Slovakia which aims both to rusynize the Slovak Greek Catholic Church and to tear away certain lands from eastern Slovakia and give them to Subcar- pathian Rus’.”140 The need to resolve the Slovak-Rusyn conflict was addressed in a resolution from the working meetings and congresses of the Slovak League in eastern Slovakia which demanded: “the establishment of an independent eparchy for Slovak Greek Catholics whose diocesan borders should coincide with the country’s borders. Let a Slovak be the head of this eparchy.”141 The public relations section of the Slo- vak League organized several demonstrations on behalf of Slovak Greek Catholics, and in the course of 1937 it intensively searched for an appropriate candidate for the position of Greek Catholic bishop of Slovakia. This, however, failed to lead to a change in the Prešov Ep- archy, which continued to be headed by the apostolic administrator, Bishop Goidych, a staunch defender of Carpatho-Rusyns as a dis- tinct nationality. He especially looked after Greek Catholic schools in the city of Prešov, which he considered the source for the educa- tion of the eparchy’s intelligentsia. Most of all he participated in the establishment of the Rusyn Greek Catholic Gymnasium in Prešov in 1936 and tried—although as it turned out in vain—to soften the rela- tionship between representatives of the various national and cultural orientations. The Greek Catholic Church had traditionally influenced the entire cultural life of Carpatho-Rusyns, namely in the countryside and in 139 See “Zápisnicu X. kongresu Slovenskej ligy, konaného 8.-10. júna 1934 v Spišskej Novej Vsi,” Slovenská liga, XI, 7-8 (1934), p. 204. 140 Ján Ruman, “K slovensko-rusínskemu problému,” Národnie noviny, LXVI, 106 (Martin, 1935), p. 1, cited in Letz, “Postavenie gréckokatolíkov,” pp. 109- 110. 141 “Zápisnica o XII Kongrese Slovenskej ligy v Bratislave,” Slovenská liga, XIII, 9 (Bratislava, 1936), p. 290, cited in Letz, “Postavenie gréckokatolíkov,” p. 112. literary language and national identity 55 the lower levels of society, and this was true also during Goidych’s reign as bishop of the Prešov Eparchy. Given the fact that most of the eparchy’s parishes were located in northeastern Slovakia, that is, in the most impoverished area of the Czechoslovak Republic, and that a significant segment of the eparchy’s faithful identified as Carpatho- Rusyns, an ethnicity closely linked with the Church, that institution’s activity in the field of culture acquired still greater significance. Czechoslovak legislation created a broad landscape for the expand- ing development of grassroots group activity. A number of cultural, educational, scholarly organizations and interest groups emerged, which attracted its members from among the Greek Catholic faithful. Bishop Goidych himself took advantage of the possibility presented by numerous cultural initiatives in the secular world, including that traditional part of culture and education inextricably linked with so- cial action—publishing. Goidych especially supported the eparchy’s unofficial media organ, Russkoe slovo (The Russian Word), which appeared from 1924 to 1939 and which vacillated, depending on its editors, among the different East Slavic national ideologies—Russian, Rusyn, and even Ukrainian.142 At the newspaper’s tenth anniversary in 1934, the bishop conveyed his archpastoral blessing and stated: Besides serving the Holy Catholic Faith, Russkoe slovo will serve the fatherland and the Carpatho-Rusyn people for another decade. And its program will continue to focus on cultural enlightenment and to provide Rusyns with a patrioiceducation, always in the Catholic spirit, and in that language which is easiest for them to understand, the language which they hold as their own, which they love, which they speak.143 During the years 1924 to 1933, the organ that the Prešov Eparchy recommended as reading for clergy was the periodical Dushpastŷr’ (Pastor of the Soul), published in Uzhhorod. Originally intended only for the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo, it later became the periodical for the Prešov Eparchy as well. Its first chief editor was the Reverend Iulii Grigashii who sympathized with the Ukrainian move- ment.144 From 1924 the well known activist of the Mukachevo Epar- chy, the Reverend Aleksander Il’nyts’kyi, who forged his worldview 142 For a list of editors, see Athanasius B. Pekar, Narysy istoriї tserkvy Zakar- pattia, Vol. II (Rome and L‘viv, 1997), p. 282. 143 Cited in Ján Birčák, ed., Slovo episkopa Gojdiča (Prešov, 2004), p. 144. 144 Pekar, Narysy istoriї, Vol. II, pp. 220-221. 56 language and national identity from a combination of local Subcarpathian patriotism, his own brand of “common-Russian” convictions, and pro-Hungarian sympathies, took over the editorship. Already from 1927 a segment of Prešov Ep- archy clergy questioned the need to consider Dushpastŷr’ as the epar- chy’s official periodical magazine.145 The main reason for this was its policy of ukrainianization. As a result of its weak popularity, brought about by its non-proportional representation of articles about the Mu- kachevo Eparchy at the expense of news about the Prešov Eparchy, the magazine ceased its role as the official organ of the Prešov Eparchy on Bishop Goidych’s order in 1933.146 With regard to the activity of cultural organizations among Rusyn Greek Catholic activists, the most popular was the Alexander Dukh- novych Russian Cultural and Enlightenment Society which was found- ed in Mukachevo in 1923. And while the society’s headquarters was in Uzhhorod, by 1929 it boasted 18 libraries, 13 drama circles, 3 orches- tras, and 6 choral societies in eastern Slovakia.147 In 1930, the Prešov branch of the organization became legally independent from the cen- tral headquarters in Uzhhorod, and its members declared the whole of Czechoslovakia, with the exception of Subcarpathian Rus’, as its sphere of activity.148 Unlike the Uzhhorod headquarters, the Prešov “Dukhnovychites” announced a “golden mean” between “common- Russian” culture and their own distinct local Carpathian Rus’ culture which had developed under entirely different conditions than in other East Slavic lands. Meanwhile, the Ukrainophile orientation in Slovakia did not at- tain an overall strong position. The Ukrainophile organization Pros- vita (Enlightenment), established in Uzhhorod in 1920, had only a few members in Slovakia. The official Prešov branch of Prosvita was founded in 1930 with the Reverend Emanuïl Bihari at its head.149 In a declaration from the society, Bihari and secretary Emil Andrei- kovych150 addressed their brother (and sister) Rusyns who, accord- Dushpastyr’, IV (Uzhhorod, 1927), p. 513. 145 Russkoe slovo, XI (Prešov, 1934), p. 4. 146 147 Ivan Vanat, Narysy novitn’oï istoriï ukraïntsiv Skhidnoï Slovachchyny, Vol. I: 1918-1938 (Bratislava and Prešov, 1979), p. 328. 148 Russkii zemledielets, II, 91 (1930), p. 1. 149 Fedir Kovach et al., Kraieznavchyi slovnyk rusyniv-ukraïntsiv: Priashiv- shchyna (Prešov, 1999), pp. 41-42. 150 Ibid., p. 27. literary language and national identity 57 ing to them, were not “Carpatho-Rusyns,” but “Rusyn-Ukrainians.”151 The publication of the Prešov branch of the Prosvita Society was the newspaper, Slovo naroda (The People’s Word), but because of weak financial support only 15 issues were published between 1931 and 1932.152 Slovo naroda directly and repeatedly attacked the nationality politics of Bishop Goidych,153 provoking the bishop’s dissatisfaction with the Prešov Ukrainophiles. The society did not have any rural branches in the Prešov Region, however, with the result that the in- cipient Ukrainophile movement did not reach beyond a small group of the intelligentsia. Among the Prešov Region Rusyns during the interwar period there existed, then, only two clear national and cultural orientations, Rus- sian and Rusyn, although there was often a problem in distinguish- ing them from each other. Both proclaimed themselves Carpatho- Russian (karpatorusskii), a term which invoked associations with the nineteenth-century national activists Dukhnovych and Dobrians’kyi, and which implied rejection of “the artificial Ukrainian language or jargon” from Galicia that was being used in Subcarpathian Rus’.154 The Russophiles were originally represented by Antonii Beskyd, then president of the Central Rusyn National Council. They took a decisive stand against the Ukrainophile presence both in government venues and in the Rusyn and Czech press; they were joined by adherents from the Prešov-based Russian National party which demanded that Rus- sian be introduced as the language of instruction in local schools; and they sympathized with the concept of a single Russian nation “from the Poprad River to the Pacific Ocean.”155 The norm for their liter- ary language became the 1924 grammar under the editorship of Iev- menii Sabov but compiled by the Russian émigré teacher Aleksandr 151 For the text of the declaration, see the Archive of the Greek Catholic Bisho- pric in Prešov, PS, inv. no. 65, sign. 58. 152 For a bibliography, see Iosyf Shelepets’, Slovo naroda (Prešov, 2000), pp. 25-36. Also see Mykola Shtets’, “Hazeta Slovo naroda v borot’bi za ukraïns’ku movu v Skhidnii Slovachchyni na pochatku 30-kh rr.,” in Mykola Mushynka, ed., Naukovyi zbirnyk Muzeiu ukraïns’koï kul’tury v Svydnyku, III (Prešov, 1967), pp. 329-342. 153 For the open letter to Goidych, see Slovo naroda, No. 5 (1932), p. 29. 154 Cited in Magochii, Rusynŷ na Slovens’ku, p. 41. 155 Cited in ibid. 58 language and national identity Grigor’ev.156 Further works of this type, written by Mykhail I. Vasyl- enko, Ivan Dobosh, Pavel Fedor, Mykhailo Mykyta, and others, were also connected with this linguistic norm. The Russian-oriented intelligentsia in Slovakia adopted a strongly negative approach toward Ukrainophile tendencies in the resolution of the language question for Carpatho-Rusyns in Czechoslovakia. Nev- ertheless, Ukrainophile views were more than once accepted with sig- nificant sympathy and supported, even if indirectly, by Prague. The highest government places considered the Ukrainianization of the minority to be the lesser evil, since they regard Ukraine—squeezed on one side by Russia, on another by Poland, and finally by allied Roma- nia—as less dangerous for the integrity of Czechoslovakia than any imperial ambitions of a united Russia. They saw again as they usually did—and sometimes justifiably so—that the Rusyn orientation served the interests of Hungary.157 The struggle of the three orientations regarding the appropriate lit- erary language for the Rusyn population of Slovakia was intensified in the 1930s. The reason for this was the current political evolution in Subcarpathian Rus’. In the end, there was not sufficient strength, time, or will for a serious resolution of the language problem in the tense atmosphere of the period. The division between the Ukrainian and Russian national orien- tations in Subcarpathian Rus’ became apparent in the 1930s. It was especially evident in the area of education and was connected above all with the choice of textbooks and grammars for study of the “local language.” The Czechoslovak educational administration had attempt- ed to resolve the language question by summoning to Uzhhorod Ivan Pan’kevych, a Ukrainian linguist from Galicia, and entrusting him with the concrete task to analyze the situation and to find a solution. His first responsibility was “to regulate the language for education and for official communication” in Subcarpathian Rus’.158 Toward this end, Pan’kevych worked out a plan to publish a dialectal dictionary, and in 1922 the first edition of his “compromise” Hramatyka rus’koho Evmenii Iv. Sabov, ed., Grammatika russkago iazyka dlia srednikh ucheb- 156 nykh zavedenii Podkarpatskoi Rusi (Uzhhorod, 1924). 157 Konečný, “Rusíni na Slovensku,” p. 11. 158 Ivan Pan’kevych, “Mii zhyttiepys,” Naukovyi zbirnyk Muzeiu ukraïns’koï kul’tury v Svydnyku, IV, pt. 1 (Bratislava and Prešov, 1969), p. 33. literary language and national identity 59 iazŷka (Grammar of the Rusyn Language) came out. The Pan’kevych grammar was to be based on the Czechoslovak state’s legal require- ment that the official literary language should be the language of the population of Subcarpathian Rus’, that is, the “local language,” along with the traditional writing system. The problem, however, was that Pan’kevych selected as the “local language” the Verkhovyna dialect which was close to the Ukrainian used in immediately neighboring Galicia. The main school administration’s subsequent recommenda- tion that this grammar be introduced into the schools in Subcarpathian Rus’ provoked a strong negative response in the ranks of the Rus- sophile intelligentsia. Especially dissatisfied were teachers who, at a meeting in Berehovo in 1923, voiced their overwhelming opposition to Pan’kevych’s grammar because “it did not conform to the character of the Carpatho-Russian language.” They took a similar stand con- cerning textbooks based on the Pan’kevych grammar and sent their message to the central government in Prague in the form of an official memorandum.159 The Russophile orientation preferred the grammar of Voloshyn from 1901 and its updated edition from 1919 for use in primary schools.160 The textbooks were written in the Subcarpathian variant of Russian with the inclusion of many dialectisms. For the highest levels of edu- cation, instead of the Pan’kevych grammar the Russophile orientation recommended “Sabov’s Russian grammar” from 1924.161 The work under Sabov’s editorship had, in fact, been approved in 1936 by the Czechoslovak state administration in the wake of numerous petitions from adherents of the Russophile orientation. The Ukrainophile orientation, on the other hand, initially supported the “compromise” language of Ivan Pan’kevych, whose influence was apparent in the numerous published grammars and readers prepared for primary schools.162 The methodology of all of these textbooks 159 “Memorandum učiteľstva z Podkarpatské Rusi,” in Národní listy (Prague, 1923). 160 Metodicheskaia grammatika ugro-russkogo literaturnogo iazyka dlia na- rodnykh shkol (Uzhhorod, 1901); Metodycheska hrammatyka karpato-russkoho iazŷka dlia narodnŷkh shkol (Uzhhorod, 1919). 161 See note 156. 162 Between 1923 and 1837 twelve primers and readers for the first through eighth grades and four readers in geography and law were published by the State Publishing House in Prague or the Pedagogical Society of Subcarpathian Rus’ in 60 language and national identity was essentially based on a single principle—”mastery of the literary Ukrainian language by means of local dialects.”163 Before long, how- ever, this led to a more radical turn in favor of the Ukrainian literary language as is evident in the later editions of Pan’kevych’s grammar (1927, 1936), in readers for middle-level schools,164 and subsequently in Ukrainian-language textbooks for primary schools165 and grammars for middle schools in Subcarpathian Rus’.166 The authors of the texts “applied contemporary orthography almost without employing any [Rusyn] dialectisms.”167 The most graphic example of the various language orientations dur- ing the period of the First Czechoslovak Republic in Subcarpathian Rus’ was the periodical press. Several secular titles represented the Rusyn orientation and came out in dialect (Rusyn, 1920-21; Rusyn, 1938; Zoria [Dawn], 1920-30), including one in Latin script (Novoje vremja [New Times], 1925-33). The Russophile orientation was repre- sented by political newspapers in a Subcarpathian variant of Russian (Karpatorusskii viestnik [Carpatho-Russian Messenger], Karpato- russkii golos [Carpatho-Russian Voice], Russkaia zemlia [The Rus- sian Land], Zemlediel’skaia politika [Agricultural Politics], Narodnaia gazeta [The National Newspaper]) and likewise literary and scholarly journals in literary Russian (Karpatskii krai [The Carpathian Region], Karpatskii sviet [The Carpathian World], Russkii narodnyi golos [The Russian National Voice]). Representing the Ukrainophile orientation initially were publications in Subcarpathian Rusyn dialects with ety- mological script, but which later moved to contemporary script and standard Ukrainian (Pravda [The Truth], later Karpatskaia pravda and Karpats’ka pravda [The Carpathian Truth] from 1926; Narod [The Uzhhorod. 163 Magocsi, Shaping of a National Identity, p. 141. 164 Volodymyr Birchak, Rus’ka chytanka dlia I kliasŷ himnaziinoî y horo­ zhans’kykh shkôl (Prague, 1922)—2nd ed. under the title Vesna: Rus’ka chytanka dlia I kliasŷ himnaziinoï (Prague, 1925); Rus’ka chytanka dlia II. kliasŷ (Prague, 1922); dlia III. kliasŷ (Prague, 1923); dlia IV. kliasŷ (Prague, 1924)—2nd ed. (Prague, 1928). 165 Frants Ahii, Zhyva mova, ch. I: hramatyka, pravopys, styl’ (Uzhhorod, 1938). 166 Iaroslav Nevrli, Hramatyka i pravopys ukraïns’koï movy, u 2 ch. (Uzh- horod, 1937-38). 167 Magocsi, Shaping of a National Identity, p. 141. literary language and national identity 61 People], later Vpered [Forward] from 1926; Svoboda [Freedom] from 1930; and others). Certain journals, however, from the very outset ap- peared in literary Ukrainian (Nasha zemlia [Our Land], Uchytel’s’kyi holos [The Teacher’s Voice], Ukraїns’ke slovo [The Ukrainian Word]), but the “highpoint of Ukrainian-language periodicals came during the autonomous regime of Carpatho-Ukraine from late 1938 to the early 1939.”168 All of this demonstrates that before 1939 no constructive at- tempts were made to create a distinct Rusyn literary language on the basis of any one of the Subcarpathian dialects. It is true, however, that certain writers, largely from the ranks of the Greek Catholic clergy, did in fact prefer using variants of Rusyn in their publications.169 The Rusyn language question, 1939 to 1948 The situation changed completely in March 1939, when Hungary an- nexed Subcarpathian Rus’ and liquidated the independent Carpatho- Ukraine which had existed for less than a day. The Hungarian gov- ernment renamed the region Kárpátalja [Subcarpathia].170 The new rulers did not prohibit the application of the Russian language, but they did forbid the use of Ukrainian and in its place returned again to what was called the “Hungarian-Rusyn” (uhrorus’kyi) orientation, something that the former Károlyi administration had introduced to Subcarpathian Rus’ at the beginning of 1919.171 At that time the Hun- garian government had tried to accept certain demands put forth by Carpatho-Rusyns. It supported the publication of a reader172 and an anthology of Rusyn literature173 and opened a department of Rusyn language and literature at the University of Budapest during the aca- 168 Ibid., p. 141; and for additional detail, see the chapter “The Problem of Language,” pp. 130-144. 169 These writers include, for example, the historian Vasyl’ Hadzhega, the dra- matist Ivan Muranii, and Emiliian Bokshai, author of cathecisms, prayerbooks, and church histories for both ecclesiastical and secular schools, and others. 170 Pavel Robert Magochii, “Iazŷkovyi vopros,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyns’kŷi iazŷk (Opole, 2004), p. 100. 171 Ibid. 172 Iador [Stryps’kyi], Chytanka dlia doroslykh (Mukachevo,1919). 173 O. Rakhivs’kyi [Aleksander Bonkalo], Vyimky yz uhors’ko-rus’koho pys’menstva XVII-XVIII vv. (Budapest, 1919). 62 language and national identity demic year 1919-1920.174 After the Hungarian occupation in 1939, “Hungarian Rusynism” (uhrorusinizmus) was interpreted as a return to local traditions; in other words, neither to Russianism nor to Ukrainianism. The first step in this direction was the publication of five readers for elementary schools175 and a grammar of the “Hungarian-Rusyn” language for middle schools written by a group of Subcarpathain teachers and cul- tural activists as members of the educational commission of the Hun- garian Kingdom.176 The grammar published under the direction of the Administration of the Hungarian Regent’s Commissar in Subcarpathia was intended, in the words of the ministry’s adviser Iulii Maryna, to put an end to the language arguments of the day by returning to the principles of Voloshyn’s grammar of 1907 (reissued in 1919).177 The state commission believed that these books were “grammars of the Hungarian-Rusyn language, and not some ‘macaronic’ language.”178 The actual language, however, was similar to that in texts from the end of the nineteenth century, i.e., the Russian language with dialectal in- fluences. The authors’ aim, in their own words, was to continue in the older language tradition and thereby to limit Ukrainianophile interests and influence, while at the same time safeguarding the “natural rights of the living vernacular in the Hungarian-Rusyn literary language.”179 Despite the reservations of certain members of the commission about the weak representation of local words in this publication, the gram- mar became “official,” largely because its acceptance was considered an “official obligation.”180 Some writers assess World War II Hungarian rule in Subcarpathian Rus’ as favorable to the development of a Rusyn literary language because for the first time since the reforms of Empress Maria Theresa, the language acquired widespread state support.181 In Hungarian-ruled Alexander Bonkalo, The Rusyns (New York, 1990), pp. xiii-xiv. 174 Pervŷi/Druhŷi/Tretii/Chetvertŷi/Piatŷi tsvît dîtskoi mudrosty dlia I-VIII. 175 klassa narodnoi shkolŷ (Uzhhorod, 1939). 176 Grammatika ugrorusskogo iazyka dlia serednikh uchebnykh zavedenii, with a preface by Iulii Maryna (Uzhhorod, 1940). 177 Ibid., p. 4. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid., p. 6. 180 Ibid., p. 7. 181 M. Kapral’ and I. Pop, “Iazyk podkarpatorusinskii,” in Ivan Pop, Entsiklo- literary language and national identity 63 Subcarpathia between 1939 and 1944, an official statute upheld the use of Rusyn alongside Hungarian as an official language in all contexts, and institutions were established to guarantee the statute’s promulga- tion. For instance, in 1941, the Subcarpathian Academy of Sciences was established in Uzhhorod182 and was headed by Ivan Haraida, who as executive director fulfilled the purpose of this institution in the field of linguistics by producing a new Rusyn-language grammar, entitled A Grammar of the Rusyn Language.183 The grammar represented a com- promise between the spoken language and the “traditional Carpatho- Russian language.” In spite of the fact that Haraida retained many borrowings from Russian, certain scholars agree with the view that the new grammar at that time did indeed fulfill “a factually codificatory function.”184 Although representatives of the Hungarian state administration ex- pected a “resolution to the Rusyn language question once and for all,” as stated in the introduction to the Grammar of the Hungarian-Rusyn Language for Middle Schools,185 the fact of the matter was that un- til 1945 that question remained unresolved. The Rusyns continued to use Russian, Ukrainian, or the local spoken language in schools and publications. Although during the first half of the twentieth century it seemed that a definite consensus about the form of the language would be achieved as a result of the polemic among important figures, including Voloshyn, Hus’nai, Sabov, Zorkii, Shtefan, and Brodii, all hopes melted away with the imposition of the new political system after 1945 which sought to resolve the language question for Rusyns by administrative fiat through ukrainianization. After the Soviet Army’s “liberation” of Subcarpathian Rus’ from Hungary, representatives of the Soviet Union at first accepted the decision of the other Allied Powers to return this territory to what was pre-war Czechoslovakia. Stalin’s unexpected decision to annex Subcarpathian Rus’, however, meant not only a radical change in the post-war European map, but also dramatically defined the future of the pediia Podkarpatskoi Rusi (Uzhhorod, 2001), p. 428. 182 Ibid., p. 306. 183 Ivan Haraida, Hrammatyka rus’koho iazŷka (Uzhhorod, 1941). 184 Kapral’ and Pop, “Iazyk podkarpatorusinskii,” p. 428 185 Iulii Maryna, “Predislovie,” in Grammatika ugrorusskogo iazyka dlia se- rednikh uchebnykh zavedenii (Uzhhorod, 1940), p. 5. 64 language and national identity population of Subcarpathian Rus’ by intervening in the natural process of self-identification of its people. Red Army commissars and Soviet Secret Service operatives, along with help from local Communists, laid the foundations for Subcarpathia’s reunion—now as the Trans- carpathian Ukraine—with its “Motherland of Soviet Ukraine.”186 The Czechoslovak government ceded Subcarpathian Rus’ to the Soviet Union without any general plebiscite in June 1945, and Czechoslova- kia’s provisional national parliament ratified this decision in Novem- ber 1945, again without the participation of any official Rusyn repre- sentatives. The Soviet government reduced the status of Transcarpath- ian Ukraine to an ordinary oblast of the Soviet Ukraine and initiated action based on a resolution taken in 1924 at the Fifth Congress of the Comintern regarding the resolution of the “identity question in west- ern Ukrainian lands.”187 Carpatho-Rusyns were now declared to be a “branch of the Ukrainian nationality,” regardless of what the people themselves might have thought.188 The Comintern’s decision concerning the national identity of the population of Transcarpathia, which the Soviet government put into action after “liberating” Subcarpathian Rus’, led to significant chang- es in the public sector, particularly with regard to education. Instruc- tion in schools from the end of 1944 began to be shaped “according to Soviet norms using literary Ukrainian, and Ukrainian was in theo- ry considered the titular or republic language to be used in the local administration.”189 In reality, however, Russian continued as a subject of study in all the schools and was employed in administrative and public spheres of activity. In the end, Soviet nationality policy satis- fied at least two of the three language orientations which were strug- gling for domination in the former Subcarpathian Rus’—the Russian and the Ukrainian. As a result of the implementation of the Soviet model of nationality politics, the third orientation, the Rusyn orientation, was suppressed. Historian Paul Robert Magocsi points out that the “name Rusyn was associated with the ‘unenlightened’ pre-Soviet past and was linked in Soviet propaganda with the bourgeois Czechoslovak and fascist Hun- 186 Magocsi, The People From Nowhere, p. 91. 187 Magocsi, “The Rusyn Language Question Revisited,” p. 31. 188 Ibid. 189 Ibid. literary language and national identity 65 garian regimes that had occupied the province, as well as with the ‘reactionary’ Greek Catholic Church, which in 1949 was abolished entirely.”190 Subsequently, on the territory of Subcarpathian Rus’, now Transcarpathia, up to 1991 no publications appeared in Rusyn dia- lects. The general rule was that even the language of local folksongs, folk tales, and other forms of folklore and literary works was adapted to Ukrainian. Precisely this model of nationality politics in connection with the Carpatho-Rusyn population was then pursued a few years later in neighboring Czechoslovakia. In Slovakia during the period of the interwar Czechoslovak Re- public, the Rusyn question was not among the most pressing political problems. Therefore, Carpatho-Rusyns were not of particular interest to the Slovak authorities. At the same time, Czechoslovakia’s demo- cratic system and liberal nationality politics provided a rather broad opportunity for Carpatho-Rusyns to develop their cultural sphere and to engage in political activity. The political situation in Subcarpathian Rus’, however, clearly influenced attitudes toward Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia, regardless of administrative borders. The Carpatho- Rusyn community in Slovakia nevertheless had its own distinct fea- tures which were shaped by the social and national situation in eastern Slovakia itself. The community’s evolution was thus marked by three significant developments: (1) political conflicts linked to the question of unification with Subcarpathian Rus’ and consequent polemics with Slovaks about questions of political loyalty, the population census, and the language used in the schools; (2) the dismal economic condi- tions which worsened as a result of the Great Depression in the 1930s; and (3) the cultural renaissance which gave rise to the problem of the Rusyns’ pursuit of their own national identity. In the second half of the 1930s, after Subcarpathian Rus’ gained autonomy, Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia had focused on that issue and demanded that the Rusyn-inhabited region of eastern Slovakia be annexed to Subcarpathian Rus’. Their attempts increased after they became convinced that Slovakia’s autonomous administration had no interest in their demands.191 Consequently, the Rusyn National Coun- Ibid., pp. 31-32. 190 Ladislav Suško, “Politický vývoj Slovenska v  posledných rokoch 191 buržoázneho Československa,” Historický časopis, XXVII (Bratislava, 1979), p. 587. 66 language and national identity cil in Prešov under the leadership of Teodor Roikovych emphasized the right to self-determination, and teachers in Rusyn schools and Greek Catholic priests collected signatures to support a memorandum demanding that Carpatho-Rusyn villages be joined to Subcarpathian Rus’.192 After the Ukrainian orientation under the Voloshyn administration came to power in autonomous Subcarpathian Rus’, the stance of Car- patho-Rusyns in Slovakia changed. At its meeting on 22 November 1938, Prešov’s Rusyn National Council decided by a large majority that the Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia should remain within autono- mous Slovakia. It then decideed to concentrate its attention on prepa- rations for elections to the Slovak autonomous parliament to which two Rusyn deputies were in fact elected (Antonii Simko and Gejza Horniak).193 According to Stanislav Konečný, a noted scholar on Car- patho-Rusyn history: The rise of the Slovak state clearly included recognition of the position of Slovakia’s national minorities, and this was determined by Slovakia’s direct dependence on Germany Third Reich. That dependence was re- flected specifically by the application of the national principle, which was a total retreat from democratic principles. The constitution of the Slovak Republic from 21 July 1939, recognized the linguistic, cultural, and political rights of national minorities, but subsequent laws limited the extent of constitutional guarantees and political practice more than once circumvented national rights … . Slovak governmental organs were confronted with a paradoxical situation. They were interested in strength- ening the autonomous status of Slovakia; at the same time, however, they opposed the recognition of the full national rights of Rusyns.194 After the Munich crisis of 1938, Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia’s Prešov Region became the target of concentrated discrimination when they openly expressed their desire to be joined to Subcarpathian Rus’. They were accused of Bolshevism and of being schismatics; the Greek Catholic Church, and especially Bishop Goidych, were suspected of 192 Michal Murcko, “Postavenie Rusínov-Ukrajincov a osudy Židov v okrese Stará Ľubovňa v rokoch 1938-1945,” in Peter Švorc, ed., Spiš v kontinuite času (Prešov, Bratislava, and Vienna, 1995), p. 198. 193 Magocsi, Rusynŷ na Slovens’ku, p. 164. 194 Stanislav Konečný, “Rusíni/Ukrajinci ako fenomén slovenskej politiky,” in Ján Dorul’a, ed., Slovensko-rusínsko-ukrajinské vzťahy od obrodenia po súčas- nosť (Bratislava, 2000), pp. 137 and 138. literary language and national identity 67 disloyalty and pro-Hungarian sympathies. The government’s national- ity policy toward Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia emerged from a view linked with the so-called Dudáš doctrine,195 which insisted that “the so-called Rusyn people in the Carpathian basin are by origin and char- acter Slovak,” but that “… they do not dare to be Slovak because they would have to become Hungarian!”196 In practice this meant that Slovakia’s ruling circles disparaged and ignored the Rusyn national- ity question. Under the World War II Slovak state, the activity of the Rusyn National Council was suspended, as was its newspaper, Pria- shevskaia Rus’ (Prešov Region Rus’), and all Rusyn political parties and their newspapers. Nevertheless, the activity of Carpatho-Rusyn cultural and educational organizations (the Dukhnovych Society and Prosvita Society) and professional and civic associations continued, and newspapers published under the protection of the Greek Catholic Eparchy (and thus of a religious nature) were permitted. Consequently, only the Greek Catholic Church under the leadership of Bishop Goidych was capable of protecting Rusyn national interests in Slovakia’s Prešov Region. An important step in the area of nation- ality was Goidych’s call to the faithful in the form of an archpastoral letter in October 1940. His intention was to reach out to the faith- ful prior to the census of 12 December 1940, by means of which the government intended “to pacify the Rusyn movement and strengthen the position of Slovaks in the Greek Catholic Church” because it was concerned that the Church was the main instrument of “rusynization” of eastern Slovakia.197 In his letter, the bishop appealed to his clergy that, in the interest of unity of the people, they explain to the faith- ful the importance of accurately declaring their nationality: “Despite the fact that we all belong to one great Rus’ tribe, our people use dif- ferent names: Rusyn, Rusnak, Rus’, Subcarpathian Rus’, Ukrainian, etc., and this needlessly divides and weakens us; thus, I implore, and in the interest of unity, that in the coming census we all register as Rusyns, the term which our father Dukhnovych used.”198 As a result of 195 Andrej Dudáš was the head (župan) of Šariš-Zemplín county from 1940 to 1944. His views at that time were later spelled out in a memoir-like account: Andrej Dudáš, Rusínska otázka a jej úzadie (Buenos Aires, 1971). 196 Ibid., p. 226, cited in Konečný, “Rusíni/Ukrajinci ako fenomén,” p. 139. 197 Konečný, “Rusíni/Ukrajinci ako fenomén,” pp. 140-141. 198 Rasporiazheniia Eparkhial’nago Pravitel’stva v Priashevie, IX (Prešov, 1940), p. 70. 68 language and national identity the overall unfavorable atmosphere, however, 7,471 fewer individuals identified as Rusyns, in contrast to 1938.199 On the basis of Law No. 309 in the Slovak Law Code of 26 No- vember 1940, it was decided that instruction in elementary schools should be overseen by the Church. This permitted the use of Rusyn in village schools, as well as the publication of four new textbooks. Other kinds of cultural activities were restricted (eg., theater, publica- tions), and attempts were made to deny the status of the city of Prešov as the cultural center of the Slovakia’s Carpatho-Rusyns. At the same time, certain Slovak government circles tried, although finally un- successfully, to transfer Bishop Goidych’s seat to Medzilaborce. The only newspaper for Rusyns that was permitted was Novoe vremia (The New Times, 1940-44), published in Medzilaborce.200 Like the Greek Catholic school system, Novoe vremia used the “traditional Carpatho- Rusyn language” (i.e., Russian with Rusyn dialectal elements) and it propagated the Russophile national orientation. While writers from the Prešov Region were largely isolated from each other during the war years, students at the university in Bratislava were engaging in definite cultural activity in their Dobrian’s’kyi Carpatho-Russian Stu- dent Society, and by means of their journals, Studencheskii zhurnal (The Students’ Journal, 1940-41) and Iar’ (Spring, 1942-43). The three national and cultural orientations of the Rusyns in Slova- kia (Russophilism, Ukrainophilism, and the indigenous Rusyn orien- tation) held their ground in the Prešov Region during the World War II Slovak state. Naturally, the totalitarian regime enforced at the time throughout Slovakia, as well as the atmosphere of the war, forced the numerically and politically weakened Rusyn national movement into an obvious defensive position.201 Under the protection of the Greek Catholic Eparchy and with the help of diplomacy and Carpatho-Rusyn According to the population census of 31 December 1938, in eastern Slo- 199 vakia 79,590 individuals claimed Rusyn identity; this represented a decline of 12 percent from 1930. On this matter, see Ivan Vanat, Narysy novitn’oï istoriï ukra- ïntsiv skhidnoï Slovachchyny, Vol. II: 1938-1948 (Prešov, 1985), pp. 53. 200 The teacher Havryil Mlynarych was chief editor; and the publisher was also a teacher and deputy of the Slovak parliament Michal Boňko (1903-1983). About him, see Fedir Kovach, Kraeznavchyi slovnyk, p. 51. 201 Andrii Kovach, “Natsional’na polityka Slovats’koï respubliky po vidnosh- enniu do rusyniv-ukraïntsiv (1939-1945 rr.),” in Zhovten’ i ukraïns’ka kul’tura (Prešov, 1968), pp. 132-144. literary language and national identity 69 émigrés abroad, the Rusyns in Slovakia concentrated on defending their national minority schools and cultural organizations. The lan- guage question played a secondary role in connection with decisions regarding the schools, the press, political parties, and a proposal for a general statute concerning the Carpatho-Rusyn national group. The liberation of Czechoslovakia shed new light on a resolution of the Rusyn question in Slovakia, in particular as a result of “the annex- ation of Subcarpathian Rus’ to the Soviet Union, the position of the Soviet Army, and the strengthening of left-wing and pro-Communist tendencies in the republic.”202 The foreign policy of Czechoslovakia was now reoriented toward the Soviet Union, and the Czechoslovak Communist party was transformed into the strongest internal political power in the country. The language question among Rusyns of Slovakia, 1948-1989 The Soviet policy regarding Carpatho-Rusyn national identity and lan- guage questions influenced neighboring countries which, like postwar Czechoslovakia, now found themselves under Communist domination. Moreover, the installation of a Communist regime in Czechoslovakia in 1948 halted both the natural ethnic self-identification process and the political ambitions of the Carpatho-Rusyn minority in Slovakia. The Communist party of Czechoslovakia followed the example of the Soviet Union in refusing to recognize Carpatho-Rusyns as a separate nationality. In all official documents, Carpatho-Rusyns, whether they wanted or not, were registered as Ukrainians. In 1950, the Greek Cath- olic Church in Slovakia, which during the past had been the main sup- porter of Carpatho-Rusyn national life, was liquidated. In the spirit of the new Communist ideology, from 1951 there was gradual movement toward establishment of a Ukrainian-language press, cultural institu- tions, and finally, education. Under these conditions, the Russophile orientation might have seemed absurd and Carpatho-Rusyn political life impossible, but Russian-Ukrainian bilingualism continued to sur- vive for some years. Carpatho-Rusyn institutions and nationality or- ganizations in Slovakia gradually began adopting the modifier Ukrai- nian in their names (i.e., the Ukrainian National Council of the Prešov Region, the Ukrainian National Theater, the Department of Ukrainian Konečný, “Rusíni/Ukrajinci ako fenomén,” pp. 141-142. 202 70 language and national identity Schools), even though the working language of these institutions con- tinued to be Russian.203 Thus the language question, as well as the unresolved question of the Carpatho-Rusyn ethnic identity, continued to resurface on occasion. For instance, at the regional conference of the Communist party of Slovakia in Prešov in 1950, Carpatho-Rusyn dele­gates complained that it was already “[f]ive years after the war, and we still do not know who we are: Russians, Ukrainians, or Rus­ yns. This is shameful.”204 While the process of ukrainianization directly after World War II was slow, from June 1952, when the chairman of the Central Commit- tee of the Communist Party of Slovakia in Bratislava decided to in- troduce the Ukrainian literary language into what had been up to then “Russian” (rusky) schools, the situation changed radically.205 From 1949, Ukrainian had been studied in these schools only as a separate subject for two hours weekly, but beginning with the academic year 1953-1954 it became the primary language of instruction. This created an enormous problem, since the measures were realized by adminis- trative directive without regard to local conditions and the will of the people, who, could not understand why “from one day to the very next” Rusyns were supposed to become Ukrainians.206 This historical period and political system, which stripped Rusyns of their nationality (through ukrainianization), their Church (through forcing Greek Catholics to become Orthodox), and their land (through collectivization), was aptly characterized in the words of an ordinary Carpatho-Rusyn villager in 1968, when political strictures were re- laxed: “Today I am like that lost sheep. I have nothing. I had one God, and they took him from me; I had my nationality, and they took it from me, too; I had my little piece of land, and they took this from me. Everything that I once had—everything—they have taken from Magocsi, Rusynŷ na Slovens’ku, p. 166; Ivan Matsyns’kyi, “20 lit ukraïn­ 203 s’koï vydavnychoï spravy na skhodi respubliku,” Duklia, XII, 3 (Prešov, 1969), pp. 1-5. 204 Cited in Ivan Bajcura [Baitsura], Ukrajinská otázka v ČSSR (Košice, 1967), p. 141. 205 Marián Gajdoš and Stanislav Konečný, eds., Rusíni a Ukrajinci na Sloven- sku v procesoch transformácie (1989-1995): výber z dokumentov, Vol. I (Prešov, 2005), p. 16. 206 Ivan Bajcura, “KSČ a  ukrajinská otázka,” in Z mynuloho i suchasnoho ukraïntsiv/Pedahohichnyi zbirnyk, Vol. III (Bratislava, 1973), p. 9. literary language and national identity 71 me.”207 As a result of discontent with the new language, Slovakia’s Carpatho-Rusyns boycotted Ukrainian cultural institutions and their activities, primarily theater performances and most publications in Ukrainian which, in effect, were addressed only to the Ukrainian in- telligentsia. The situation in which “writers who had torn themselves away from the people were becoming as powerless as generals with- out an army”was beginning to seem natural. 208 After the change to the Ukrainian literary language, the number of “Russian” schools dropped. In this ambiguous ethnic and linguis- tic situation, the Carpatho-Rusyns of Slovakia sought and found an escape in the use of the Slovak language and gradually in a Slovak national orientation. Their decision to identify as Slovak was expe- dited because their children were compelled to use school textbooks in Ukrainian, a language that they could not understand. The textbooks, at first imported from Ukraine and later, given the absence of quali- fied local Ukrainians, compiled by immigrants from Ukraine, did not reflect the local realia. By the 1960s it was clear to the local Ukrainian intelligentsia that they “were losing contact with the people,”209 and naturally they were forced to react to this situation. At the same time, freer discussions about specific problems in the Prešov Region, dominated again by the old language question, were possible in the more liberated atmosphere on the eve of 1968. Thus, Ivan Matsyns’kyi, the head of the Depart- ment of Ukrainian Literature of the Slovak Pedagogical Publishing House in Prešov and a significant socio-cultural activist, openly and sharply criticized Ukrainian writers and cultural activists in Czecho- slovakia for “disparaging their own culture.”210 His statement referred accurately to what thirty years later would be called the problem of dignitas, i.e., the ethnic and linguistic dignity of the local popula- 207 Cited in Ivan Matsyns’kyi, “Mozhete dyskutuvaty, ale ne miniaty: [Shchyri slova, prochytani po radio 17. bereznia 1968],” Nove zhyttia, XVIII, 12 (Prešov, 1968), pp. 2-3. 208 Mykhailo Hyriak, “Z dyskusiï do nashoï literatury i zhurnaliv,” Druzhno vpered, VII, 24 (Prešov, 1957), p. 20. 209 Vasyl’ Turok, “Rusyns’ki paradoksy,” Nove zhyttia, XVIII, 1 (Prešov, 1968), p. 7.211. 210 Ivan Matsyns’kyi, “Kontseptsiï, bezkontseptsiinist’ i – de ti, kontsepsiie na- shoho kul’turnoho zhyttia,” Duklia, XIII, 2 (Prešov, 1965), p. 39. 72 language and national identity tion.211 Matsyns’kyi possessed a thorough understanding of regional conditions from which he himself had emerged. He was able to speak about them with the greatest objectivity, as well as with the deep emo- tion that he personally felt toward his compatriots when he character- ized the lack of dignity as “our national illness.”212 Matsyns’kyi also criticized writers for ignoring Rusyn dialects, be- cause by doing this “we do not value the language of [the villages] Habura, Chmel’ová, Kamienka, or Orlik in the eyes of our popula- tion … thus it is high time for our writers to consider this because an artistic work without the living human word, without the depiction of action couched in the local language has an effect on our ordinary reader as something just as foreign as if it were written in Russian or in the ‘macaronic language’… .”213 Matsyns’kyi thus saw a resolution to the language question of Slovakia’s Carpatho-Rusyns in the eleva- tion of their dialect from “the present level of smallness, humility, and superfluousness” to the status of an equal member in the family of other literary languages.214 This should have happened immediately “after the re-orientation of our cultural life from the Russian to the Ukrainian path,” but, as he notes with regret, it did not happen. He warned Ukrainian writers and the Ukrainian intelligentsia in general that by continuing in this course of development “we will deliberately promote the decline of our cul- ture and tear literature away from life,” because the language question is not a problem only of writers, but also of the broadcast media, the theater, and the press.215 With an understanding of the present situation as well as the reality that in the future it would hardly be possible to communicate with the local population using literary Ukrainian, cer- tain writers began to introduce into their literary works numerous lo- cal dialectisms. Similarly, several leaders of the Ukrainian orientation working in Prešov came to the conclusion that in Ukrainian-language publications, as well as in the broadcast media, theater, and schools, it would be necessary to employ a great deal of Rusyn vernacular.216 211 Magocsi, “The Rusyn Language Question Revisited,” p. 23. 212 Matsyns’kyi, “Kontseptsiï, bezkontseptsiinist’,” p. 39 213 Ibid. 214 Ibid. 215 Ibid. 216 Mykola Shtets’, “Za chystotu movy,” Duklia, XI, 2 (Prešov, 1963), pp. 65- 67. introduction 73 As a result of the extensive language discussions, and especially of the unceasing demands of readers, a two-page insert in Rusyn dialect was introduced in 1967 into the Ukrainian-language newspaper, Nove zhyttia. Greater freedom of the press in the course of several months in early 1968 during the Prague Spring obviously gave Carpatho-Rusy- ns in Czechoslovakia real hope for a renewal of their rights of self- determination and the state’s guarantee of the dignified position also of their mother tongue. The Ukrainian intelligentsia, however, while feeling secure in their institutional dominance, nevertheless sensed a threat from the increasingly frequent expressions of Rusyn identity and opposed them. At the beginning they had been tolerant of the local population’s right to self-determination, and they explained away this impulse by saying that Rusyns had allegedly still “not grasped their Ukrainian nationality.” They could then conclude that “we do not need to understand them [Rusyns] as an independent national minority,” because according to the Communist concept, “a Rusyn nationality does not exist.”217 Despite such statements, the Rusyn language question remained a focus of attention. Some members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia, spe- cifically philologists who approved of how the Soviets had resolved the Rusyn language question in Subcarpathian Rus’, did not feel any special need to concern themselves with this issue in Slovakia. From their perspective the problem had already been solved. Individuals who worked in the media and who could not stay completely isolated from the rest of the Rusyn population, but rather were dependent on keeping in contact and communication with them, demanded a ratio- nal but also sensitive approach to resolving the language issue. Here again, Ivan Matsyns’kyi, the highest representative of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers, resumed his call for radical changes in the nationality and language policy in connection with Carpatho- Rusyns. After being elected to the post of the first secretary of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers, he openly restated his proposal that school textbooks, popular brochures, and the weekly Nove zhyt- tia should begin coming out in the spoken language of the Rusyns of northeastern Slovakia.218 When he was later relieved of this important P.A. Uram, “Hovorymo pro konstytutsiinyi zakon,” Nove zhyttia, XVIII, 23 217 November 1968, pp. 2-3. 218 Ivan Matsyns’kyi, “Osnovy kontseptsiï rozhornutoï diial’nosti TsK KSUT,” 74 language and national identity function because of his views—although he was still a representative of that clearly Ukrainian-oriented organization—he became the author of a 28-page memorandum proposing orthographic norms on the basis of specific local Rusyn dialects intended for use in the local press.219 This proposal, however, remained only in manuscript form. Subsequent strong criticism by the Ukrainian intelligentsia shifted the arguments from language to politics and labeled Rusyn demands for the introduction of their vernacular into the local press and schools as “political rusynism coming from the bourgeois republic [that is, from the period of the interwar First Czechoslovak Republic— Translator.].”220With the support of the Communist party, the Ukrai- nian intelligentsia finally secured the superiority of the Ukrainian ori- entation in Czechoslovakia for several more decades. During this entire period, the Communist party devoted many re- sources to the development of the Ukrainian national, cultural, and linguistic orientation in Czechoslovakia. Despite this, under the con- ditions of forced collectivization, de-Catholization, and ukrainian- ization after 1948, the Rusyns began assimilating with the majority Slovak population more quickly. From 1970, the next stage of admin- istrative ukrainianization, similar to that from the 1950s, started with a “process of consolidation.” In June 1970, Nove zhyttia stopped pub- lishing its two-page insert in Rusyn dialect; it no longer offered space for discussions about the language and ethnicity questions; and it pre- ferred to emphasize the leading role of the Communist party “for the comprehensive development of the Ukrainian national minority.”221 The truth is, however, that these words failed to hide the fact that the number of Ukrainian schools was continuing to decline, that the number of readers of the Ukrainian press was dropping off, and as time went on fewer and fewer people were willing to identify as Ukrainians or as Carpatho-Rusyns.222 Neither did the relegalization of the Greek Nove zhyttia, XIX, 23 May 1969, pp. 2-4. 219 Ivan Matsyns’kyi, Normy redaktsiinoï praktyky narodnorozmovnoiu mo- voiu dlia “Novoho zhyttia” (manuscript) (Prešov, 1969). 220 Nove zhyttia, XIV, 30 (Prešov, 1969) p. 1. 221 “Rik bahatoï i plidnoï pratsi KSUT,” Nove zhyttia, XXIII, 5 January 1979, p. 1. 222 According to the results of the 1930 population census in the Czechoslo- vak Republic, there were 91,079 Rusyns and Ukrainians; in 1970, the figure was 42,238 Ukrainians (Rusyns) and Russians; and by 1980, it dropped to only 36,850 introduction 75 Catholic Church beginning in January 1968, when the Carpatho- Rusyn movement revived again, manage to overturn this unfavorable nationality development. This was because during the period when claiming a Rusyn national identity was illegal, the Church had become significantly slovakized and ceased to support the Rusyn minority as it had in the past. The slovakization of those who had rejected a Ukrai- nian national identity and the Ukrainian literary language at the be- ginning of the 1950s was one of the reasons for an unfavorable trend in Carpatho-Rusyn community development.223 This trend continued into the next period which was characterized by political apathy and an intensification of the decline in the community’s morale. Under these conditions, the “natural assimilation of Rusyns and Ukrainians began to acquire dangerous dimensions. While in the first half of the 1970s the average yearly growth of the population of Slovakia was 7 percent, among the Ukrainian minority it was only 3.7 percent.”224 The number of Rusyns and Ukrainians in Slovakia dropped during the pe- riod between 1950 and 1991, “absolutely by 34 percent, and relatively, given a natural growth of 51 percent, finally by 85 percent.”225 The Rusyn national awakening after 1989 Perestroika, the politics of economic reform and the democratization of society initiated after 1985 by the new leadership of the Commu- nist party of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, also became a significant impulse on the road to overcoming the general social stagnation of life and society in Czechoslovakia. From the perspec- tive of the Carpatho-Rusyn national minority, perestroika seemed a powerful weapon against the shortcomings connected with the resolu- Ukrainians (Rusyns) and Russians. About this, see Pavlo R. Magochi, “Natsio­ nalni i kulturno-sotsiialni rozvoi Rusinokh-Ukraïntsokh Chekhoslovatskei,” Sh- vetlosts, XXVIII, 1 (Novi Sad, 1990), p. 80; Konečný, “Rusíni/Ukrajinci ako fenomén,” p. 147. 223 Stanislav Konečný, “Rusíni na Slovensku a ich národné vedomie v období socializmu,” in Marián Gajdoš and Stanislav Konečný, eds., Etnické minority na Slovensku: história, súčasnosť, súvislosti (Košice, 1997), pp. 69-71. 224 Ibid., p. 78. 225 Cited in Marián Gajdoš, “Rusíni a Ukrajinci na Slovensku v procese trans- formácie spoločnosti (stav výskumu),” in Štefan Šutaj, ed., Národ a národnosti: stav výskumu po roku 1989 a jeho perspektívy (Prešov, 2004), p. 147. 76 language and national identity tion of the national question in the Soviet Union. Among these were the administrative methods adopted to resolve the Carpatho-Rusyn na- tionality question in the Soviet Union that had also been applied to the Carpatho-Rusyns in Czechoslovakia who increasingly felt themselves on the brink of total assimilation. The pre-1989 conservative regime in Czechoslovakia represented the “clumsy leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist party of Czechoslovakia which had attempted to preserve the totalitar- ian system and not to acknowledge any compromise. The state had set its repressive forces against opponents and dissidents.”226 The national life of Ukrainians (and Rusyns) was also clearly limited by such a political situation. In the words of the historican Stanislav Konečný: “National minority rights were reduced to the area of culture, and gov- ernment support for culture was intended to cover up other shortcom- ings in the situation of the minorities, as well as ambiguities in the decisive questions in all other aspects of their further development.”227 Finally, as a result of the November revolution of 1989, it was again possible to open up the longtime unresolved questions surrounding the national life and existence of the Carpatho-Rusyns. From 1989, the Carpatho-Rusyns of Slovakia embarked on yet an- other attempt at discovering, or rather strengthening, their national identity, as part of a struggle for national emancipation. The post-No- vember federal and republic organs in Czechoslovakia welcomed and essentially supported this process, but the sometimes unclear stand on the ethnicity of the East Slavic population of northeastern Slovakia, which identified itself as either Rusyn or Ukrainian, also complicated and to this day continues to complicate the government’s nationality policy. The self-identification process among Carpatho-Rusyns even led again to a short-lived revival of a third orientation—”Carpatho-Rus- sian”—which in the beginning of the national revitalization process emerged as one of the options within the Rusyn orientation.228 The beginnings of the dissolution of this orientation dates first to the popu- lation census of 1991, when its adherents expressed their discontent that in the census forms there was no option for a Carpatho-Russian, 226 Konečný, “Rusíni na Slovensku,” p. 79. 227 Ibid., p. 79. 228 Stanovy Spoločnosti Rusínov-Karpatorusov, článok 3. literary language and national identity 77 but only for a Rusyn and a Ukrainian nationality. The dissolution deepened following the Rusyn Renaissance Society’s adoption of a codified standard literary Rusyn language in 1995, whereupon sup- porters of the Carpatho-Russian orientation proposed that the Rusyn and Ukrainian population in Slovakia return to use of the Russian lit- erary language.229 After the mid-1990s, the Carpatho-Russian orienta- tion has held only a peripheral position among citizens of Rusyn and Ukrainian nationality in Slovakia; its membership is very small and not involved in any really significant activity. A few of its members have moved over to the Rusyn orientation and have identified with its demands in view of the unrealistic and outdated perspective of the Carpatho-Russian national and linguistic orientation among the local population after 1989. Hence, the two distinct national orientations that have had a deci- sive influence on the East Slavic population of northeastern Slovakia after November 1989 are the Rusyn and the Ukrainian. As noted by one impartial observer, both orientations “claim the right to national emancipation and to full-fledged national, political, and cultural life, because both justifiably feel damaged and wronged by the forty years of totalitarian rule. In spite of the fact that certain exponents of the Ukrainian orientation profited during this regime, others were perse- cuted and yet others, politically and from the perspective of national identity, completely failed.”230 The decline by more than half in the number of Rusyns and Ukrainians during the four decades of Com- munist rule was one of the more important phenomena which drew attention to the following: that the approach to the resolution of the Carpatho-Rusyn nationality and language question inevitably had to 229 The Society of Carpatho-Rusyns [Spolochnost’ Rusynov-Karpatorusov], together with the Society of Carpatho-Russian Women [Spolok karpatoruskykh zhen] and the Society of Carpathian Rusyns [Spolok karpatskykh Rusynov], created the Association of Carpatho-Russians [Asosiatsia Karpatorusov], which from 1996 distanced itself from activities of the Rusyn orientation represented by the Rusyn Renaissance Society. On these developments, see Marián Gajdoš, “Rusíni a Ukrajinci na Slovensku v procese transformácie spoločnosti (stav výs- kumu),” in Šutaj, ed., Národ a národnosti: stav výskumu po roku 1989, p. 147; and Marián Gajdoš, “Rusíni (Ukrajinci) na Slovensku v podmienkach transfor- mácie spoločnosti,” in Marián Gajdoš and Pavol Matula, eds., Niektoré otázky vývoja národnostných menšín na Slovensku (Košice, 1997), pp. 180-192. 230 Gajdoš, “Rusíni a Ukrajinci na Slovensku v procese transformácie,” p. 147. 78 language and national identity be transformed both from the perspective of the state, as well as from the minority itself which became an active promoter of change across the society. Already before 1989, individual cultural activists had expressed growing discontent with the Ukrainian language orientation in argu- ments concerning publications they felt should have been made avail- able in the Rusyn vernacular. This concerned particularly the pub- lication of religious texts for use by Greek Catholic parishes with a majority of Rusyn speakers, as well as pastoral practice in the Rusyn mother tongue. Before 1989, though, such expressions of discontent remained the isolated efforts of a few individuals. An organized Carpatho-Rusyn movement began only toward the end of 1989 with the rise of cultural groups in neighboring Poland and Ukraine (Subcarpathian Rus’/Transcarpathia). In the course of the following two years (somewhat later in Romania and Croatia) cultural and civic organizations sprang up in every country in which Carpatho- Rusyns live, including the Obshchestvo karpats’kykh rusynov (So- ciety of Carpathian Rusyns in Ukraine); Rusyn’ska obroda (Rusyn Renaissance Society in Slovakia); Stovaryshŷnia Lemkiv (Lemko Society in Poland); Společnost přátel Podkarpatské Rusi (Society of Friends of Subcarpathian Rus’ in the Czech Republic); Ruska matka (Rusyn Society in Yugoslavia); and Organizatsiia Rusyniv v Madiar- sku (Organization of Rusyns in Hungary)—the last in a country where it was thought that Rusyns had vanished as a result of assimilation already at the end of the nineteenth century. Besides this, for the first time since the end of World War II, newspapers and journals began coming out in Rusyn: the journal Rusyn and the newspaper Narodnŷ novynkŷ in Slovakia; the newspaper Podkarpats’ka Rus’ (Subcarpath- ian Rus’) in Ukraine; the journal Besida (Conversation) in Poland; and the magazine Rusynskŷi zhŷvot (Rusyn Life) in Hungary. Apart from the different names of the organizations and the country or city in which they were founded, these groups shared a main mis- sion which emerged from four fundamental principles: (1) Carpatho-Rusyns constitute a people that has lived at least from the early Middle Ages as an indigenous population in the valleys of the Carpathian Mountains (with the exception of those living in Yugoslavia and the Lemko Rusyns in Poland, who as a result of the post-World War II Vistula Operation in 1947 were forcibly deported from the Lemko Region to Poland’s southwest- literary language and national identity 79 ern borderland areas); (2) Carpatho-Rusyns do not belong to the Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, or Slovak national groups, but constitute a distinct and in- dependent East-Slavic nationality; (3) Carpatho-Rusyns as a distinct nationality are aware of the need to have their own codified literary language formulated on the ba- sis of their spoken dialects; (4) Carpatho-Rusyns should have the same rights as other national minorities in the countries in which they reside, which means that they should have the right to use their own Rusyn mother tongue in the press, radio and television media, and in cultural institu- tions, particularly in the schools.231 The political movement after the Revolution of 1989 resonated among the Carpatho-Rusyns of northeastern Slovakia, and they mobi- lized in defense of their national and linguistic dignity as they had done several times before in similar historically transitional situations. Al- ready on 26 November 1989, that is, only ten days after the the Velvet Revolution, an organization calling itself Initsiiativna hrupa rusyniv- ukraїntsiv za perebudovu (Initiative Group of Rusyn-Ukrainians for Perestroika), emerged in Prešov. At its first meeting it announced that “the Rusyn nationality question in Czecho-Slovakia has never been definitively resolved.”232 Evidence of this showed itself on 20 Janu- ary 1990, in the tense atmosphere of an extraordinary meeting of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers in Prešov. Among the partici- pants were delegates of local branches of that organization along with representatives from many Carpatho-Rusyn villages of northeastern Slovakia, from both the Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches, and from other institutions engaged in promoting Rusyn ethnic culture. At the meeting several delegates, especially from Medzilaborce and the surrounding region, sharply criticized the period of ukrainianiza- tion “as the darkest page of our history.”233 They emphatically de- manded an end to ukrainianization as the product of the totalitarian Communist regime, as well as the dissolution of the Cultural Union of 231 Vasil’ Jabur, “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku,” in Dorul’a, Slovensko-rusíns- ko-ukrajinské vzťahy, pp. 191-192. 232 Cited in Oleksandr Zozuliak, “Pershyi krok Initsiiatyvnoi hrupi,” Nove zhyt- tia, XXXIX, 48 (Prešov, 1989), p. 2. 233 Cited in ibid. 80 language and national identity Ukrainian Workers, and they insisted on the creation of a new organi- zation. Contrary to Rusyn expectations and despite their strong pro- tests, the meeting ended with only one result: the further complication of the nationality situation with the introduction of a new ethnonym for the group—Rusyn-Ukrainians. Hence, after decades of national and linguistic negation, Carpatho-Rusyns were presented with only a name change: the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers was now called the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Czech and Slovak Fed- erated Republics. This “resolution” could not hide the truth that the organization with its new name in a new situation had nevertheless not retreated from its old positions. In response to this situation a new civic association was organized in Medzilaborce on a Rusyn platform, calling itself Kulturnŷi rukh Rusyniv (the Cultural Movement of Rusyns). Its activity was based on the following goals: the revival of Carpatho-Rusyns as an inde- pendent nationality and the creation of a Rusyn literary language on the basis of dialects in the Laborec district which should become a required subject of study in the elementary school grades one through five.234 The language issue was surely one of the most important items in what Paul Robert Magocsi has dubbed the “third Rusyn national revival,”235 and it provoked much lively discussion. One result of the discussion was that the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians’ Nove zhyttia edi- torial office changed the newspaper’s subtitle from the “organ of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers,” to the “Weekly of the Rusyn- Ukrainians of Czechoslovakia.” Also, it responded to readers’ many demands, as they had back in 1967, by reinstating a two-page insert written in the Rusyn vernacular, this time entitled Holos Rusyniv (The Voice of the Rusyns) from February 1990. The variety of Rusyns dia- lects which was immediately obvious in submissions to Holos Rusyniv clearly demonstrated a need for consistency in the written language, and this became the initial impulse for the preparation of an ortho- graphic rule book.236 234 Mykola Mušynka, “The Postwar Development of the Regional Culture of the Rusyn-Ukrainians of Czechoslovakia,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., The Per- sistence of Regional Cultures: Rusyns and Ukrainians in their Carpathian Home- land and Abroad (New York, 1993), p. 71. 235 On the “third Rusyn national revival,” see Magocsi, The People From Nowhere, pp. 101-111. 236 On the beginning of the codification process of the Rusyn literary language literary language and national identity 81 In addition, pastoral work in Greek Catholic parishes with a major- ity of Carpatho-Rusyn faithful also necessitated a resolution to the question of the codification of the language. Several Rusyn Greek Catholic priests had spoken about this need for a long time, particu- larly in response to a movement within the Greek Catholic Church in the 1970s toward use of the Slovak language in the liturgy and in pastoral practice. In response to this Slovak language trend, a group of Greek Catholic priests, headed by the Reverend Frantishek Krai- niak from Medzilaborce, proposed an alternative to pastoral care for Rusyn Greek Catholics. In the 1980s they created a small language commission and prepared for publication several church books in the Rusyn vernacular according to their own orthographic rules.237 Later, in 1990, in the interest of a coordinated approach in terms of linguis- tics, they proposed these rules for use to the editor of Nove zhyttia in Prešov, thus opening the discussion about an appropriate form for the future Rusyn orthography. The language polemic, so closely linked with the question of Rusyn national identity, again came up in the 1990s as it did during the inter- war period. This polemic became especially dynamic and goal-orient- ed after the transformation on 25 March 1990 of the Medzilaborce Cul- tural Movement of Rusyns into the Rusyn’ska obroda (Rusyn Renais- sance Society). This new organization for Rusyns throughout Slovakia was initially headquartered in Medzilaborce. In its statute, published in the first issue of the magazine Rusyn,238 the Rusyn Renaissance So- ciety stated its goal: “To propagate our culture, traditions, and history in our own language by means of civic and educational activity, the press, radio, television, etc.”239 In a subsequent declaration, the soci- ety articulated its principle demands directed toward state institutions, in Slovakia, see Anna Plishkova, “Priashivska Rus’,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyns’kŷi iazŷk, revised and expanded ed. (Opole, 2007), pp. 332-335. 237 Already before the 1995 codification of the Rusyn literary language, the Reverend Frantishek Krainiak published Malŷi grekokatolyts’kŷi katekhizm pro rusyn’skŷ dity (Prešov, 1992) and along with a group of priests and laypeople pre- pared for publication the Apostolŷ na nedili i sviata tsiloho roku (Medzilaborce, 1999), which came out after the codification. In terms of language, both of these texts were brought into agreement with the newly codified orthographic rules. 238 The initial issue of the “Christian cultural magazine” Rusyn was published by the Andy Warhol Society in Medzilaborce in 1990. 239 “Stanovŷ Rusyns’koi obrodŷ,” Rusyn, I, 1 (Medzilaborce, 1991), p. 3. 82 language and national identity which, if realized should have guaranteed certain rights in accordance with the constitution; namely, equality of Carpatho-Rusyns among the other nationalities in the Czecho-Slovak Federal Republic; equality of Rusyn among other languages used in the republic; and, above all, the creation of opportunities to be educated in Rusyn in Carpatho-Rusyn- inhabited territory.240 The necessity of codifying the Rusyn language was most apparent in connection with the introduction of the language into various areas of life, most especially, in the media and educa- tional spheres. The national emancipation process of Carpatho-Rusyns fueled, on the one hand, a euphoric sense of freedom and hope for change within the framework of other national minorities in the republic. And, on the other hand, it led to a dilemma, particularly in circles of Ukrainian-ori- ented scholars who at that time had had at least forty years to solidify their power in the country’s various institutions and who had benefited from state support, according to the Soviet model, in propagating the Ukrainian idea among the Carpatho-Rusyns of Czechoslovakia. After the demise in late 1989 of the Communist party of Czechoslovakia as the political power which had for such a long time guaranteed the development of a Ukrainian national minority, it is understandable that the local Ukrainophiles rejected any initiatives connected with the national consciousness-raising process among Carpatho-Rusyns, including the preparation of norms for a new literary language. This, however, did not stop the Carpatho-Rusyns from moving forward. The newspaper Narodnŷ novynkŷ published the first such project with re- gard to the literary language already in 1992.241 Both before and after 1989, the Ukrainophile intelligentsia was convinced that similar initiatives on behalf of Carpatho-Rusyn distinc- tiveness undertaken in the past were “already outdated experiments fated to fail,” “unnecessary,” “incorrect,” and “detrimental”; they “in- troduced chaos into the schools and cultural life, from which there was only one outcome—a transition to literary Slovak.”242 The Prešov Re- “Deklarácia Rusínskej obrody,” ibid., p. 5. 240 Iurii Pan’ko, “Normŷ rusyn’skoho pravopysu,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, II, 17-21 241 (Prešov, 1992), supplement. 242 Mikuláš Štec, K otázke “rusínskeho” spisovného jazyka (Prešov, 1991); and Mykola Shtets’ and Iurii Mulynchak, “Analiz norm pravopysu t. zv. Rusyns’koi movy,” Nove zhyttia, 42 (Prešov, 1992), supplement. literary language and national identity 83 gion’s Ukrainophile intelligentsia reacted with mockery and denigrat- ed the first steps of Carpatho-Rusyn activists in the literary language project which they characterized as “nationalistic tactlessness,”243 proving that Rusyn-ness (rusynstvo) was nothing other than a “po- litically inspired … antihistorical … and anti-scholarly aberration,”244 originating “from long-ago obsolete magyarone intrigues.”245 In polemical articles concerning the newly created antagonistic pair, “Ukrainian language/Rusyn language,” emotions dominated, and the discussion was linked to politics rather than lending itself to genuine linguistic issues—the evolutionary origins of language and the present condition of the language. Defenders of the Rusyn orientation responded to these arguments by preparing publications which could serve as a basis for the codi- fication of Rusyn and by carrying out this work in the context of a scholarly institution. The idea of actually establishing a scholarly in- stitution which would be responsible for resolving the principle ques- tions which loomed before the codification process, perhaps in the form of a department of Rusyn language and culture, was increasingly brought up in the media. When certain individuals, who otherwise could have helped resolve the problem of finding a suitable scholarly institution for pursuing the Rusyn codification process, showed no interest, the Rusyn Renais- sance Society, at the time the most representative Rusyn national orga- nization, assumed responsibility for this project. The First World Con- gress of Rusyns, which took place in Medzilaborce on 22-23 March 1991, also played a significant role. In the interest of a high-quality resolution to the Rusyn language question, the congress recommend- ed that experts be summoned to an international linguistic seminar at which the theoretical problems linked with the cultivation and stan- dardization of the languages of “small peoples” should be clarified, and likewise a practical method for coordinating work in the area of “language management” on the basis of analogous situations in other countries could be determined. 243 Fedir Kovach, “Nashi natsional’ni paradoksy,” Duklia, XXXIX, 2 (Prešov, 1991), p. 28. 244 Mykola Mushynka, Rusynizm na antyukraïns’kii osnovi: persha knyzhka Rusyns’koï obrody (Prešov, 1992), p. 1. 245 Kovach, “Nashi natsional’ni paradoksy,” p. 28. 84 language and national identity Thus, the First International Congress of the Rusyn Language took place on 6-7 November 1992, in Bardejovské Kúpele, with the par- ticipation of scholars, writers, journalists, priests, and minority-lan- gauge activists from nine countries (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Switzerland, Monaco, Sweden, and the United States).246 This meeting is still considered one of the most significant milestones in the Rusyn language codification process. Besides call- ing for further systematic work on the codification, this forum at the same time also resolved several important conceptual issues: (1) The codification of the Rusyn literary language should be based on the living language of the Rusyns; (2) The Romansch model247 of the construction of a literary lan- guage should be employed, meaning that each one of the four regions (countries) in which Rusyns live should create its own variant of the literary language whose basis should be the most widespread dialect on its territory248; (3) the Cyrillic (azbuka), rather than Latin script, should be em- ployed for the Rusyn literary language. At the same time, the First Congress of the Rusyn Language men- tioned the need for a scholarly institution which could organize the 246 On the First International Congress of the Rusyn Language, see Magocsi and Fishman, “Scholarly Seminar,” pp. 119-125. 247 Rätoromansch, the language of the Romansch in Switzerland, is used by only 0.6 percent of Swiss citizens (approximately 35,000 people) in the southeastern corner of the country. Rätoromansch comprises six literary microlanguages (Sursilvan, Sutsilvan, Surmiran, Puter, Vallader) on the basis of which was created in 1982 a common literary language (koiné), called Rumantsch Grischun. In 1996, Rätoromansch became the fourth official language of Switzerland alongside German, French, and Italian. In theory, the Rusyn literary language could be built analogously on the basis of the spoken variants from the four main regions (countries) in which Carpatho-Rusyn live: Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine, and Yugoslavia (where, in fact, Rusyns already have a literary language); on the basis of these variants one single common, interregional literary Rusyn language, that is, a koiné, could gradually be realized. 248 In Slovakia, the literary form of the Rusyn language comes from two territo- ries containing dialects with the most speakers located in the eastern and western areas of historic Zemplén (Zemplyn) county; specifically, the spoken language in the area along the line of the following villages: Osadné, Hostovice, Parihu- zovce, Čukalovce, Pčoliné, Pichne, Nechválova Polianka, Nižná Jablonka, Vyšná Jablonka, Svetlice, Zbojné, and others. literary language and national identity 85 codification process, and it stressed the need for government support from the Czecho-Slovak Federated Republic and other countries in which Rusyns live, arguing on the basis of human rights and rights of minority peoples in a democratic social system. On the basis of the initiative of the leadership of the Rusyn Re- naissance Society in Slovakia, two months later, in January 1993, the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic offered financial support for the establishment of the Institute of Rusyn Language and Culture in Prešov, which from the beginning served as an inter-regional co- ordinating center of the codification work.249 At the very same time, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic separated into individual countries, and by the following year (1994) financial support was cut off; naturally, work on the codification was undermined. Thanks to the responsible approach of the leadership of the Institute and the Rusyn Renaissance Society, however, the codification work did not com- pletely come to an end. Despite the brief existence of the Institute, it did fulfill its assigned goal by preparing fundamental materials which served as the basis for the codification of the Rusyn literary language in Slovakia. This included a rule-book for Rusyn orthography, an orthographic diction- ary, a primer, a dictionary of linguistic terms, and other religious, pub- licistic, and literary works.250 The ceremonial announcement of the codified Rusyn language took place on 27 January 1995 in Bratislava, with the participation of several important cultural, social, ecclesi- astical, political, and scholarly representatives who supported the national emancipation process of the Rusyns. The presentation took place despite attempts on the part of ill-wishers from the ranks of the Ukrainophile intelligentsia, exponents of the former Communist re- gime, and even some post-Communist government officials to derail 249 The first director of the institute, which in fact was established by the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Prešov in January 1993, was Iurii Pan’ko. In 1994, the second and most recent director is Vasyl’ Iabur. 250 Vasyl’ Iabur and Iurii Paňko, Pravyla rusyn’skoho pravopysu (Prešov, 1994); Iurii Pan’ko et al., Orfografichnŷi slovnyk rusyn’skoho iazŷka (Prešov, 1994); Iurii Paňko, Rusyn’sko-rus’ko-ukrain’sko-sloven’sko-pol’skŷi slovnyk lingvistichnŷkh terminiv (Prešov, 1994); Ian Hryb, Bukvar’ pro rusyn’skŷ dity (Prešov, 1994) and Chitanka pro rusyn’skŷ dity (Prešov, 1994); Frantishek Krai- niak, Malŷi grekokatolyts’kŷi katekhizm pro rusyn’skŷ dity (Prešov, 1992); Pavel Robert Magochii, Rusynŷ na Slovens’ku/Rusíni na Slovensku (Prešov, 1994). 86 language and national identity it. After several months of hesitation, the government of independent Slovakia finally subsidized a portion of the expenses connected with the international scholarly seminar that took place in conjunction with the announcement of codification. The codification ceremony symbolically represented the comple- tion of the first stage in the work involved in standardizing the Rusyn language in Slovakia. Immediately after this, however, the Carpatho- Rusyn movement confronted a new and much more difficult task, the introduction of the new literary language into various areas of Rusyn life in Slovakia, including the media, publications, and the theater, as well as official, educational, and religious spheres. From the per- spective of national development, the Carpatho-Rusyns from the very beginning of their “third” national revival considered education the most important goal, that is, the introduction of the study of the Rusyn language and culture as a subject within the school system of the Slo- vak Republic.  CHAPTER 2 The Functional Domains of the Rusyn Literary Language in Slovakia T he codification of the Rusyn language in Slovakia in 1995 was the basic prerequisite for its introduction into various functional do- mains of Rusyn life.1 Even before formal codification, the Rusyn dia- lects served as the basic language of communication within families in everyday life as well as in a non-normative form in the media, lit- erature, the theater, and religious life. For example, even before 1989 Rusyn dialects were heard mainly on the radio,2 where they became 1 On the contexts in which the Rusyn language functions, see Anna Pliško- vá, “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku po roku 1989,” in Štefan Šutaj, ed., Náro- dy a  národnosti: stav výskum po roku 1989 a jeho perspektívy (Prešov, 2004), pp. 198-203—also in http://www.rusynacademy.sk/slovak/sl_jazyk.html; Anna Plishkova, “Priashivska Rus’,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk (Opole, 2004), pp. 331-345; Anna Plishkova, “Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk na Sloven’sku po 10 rokakh aktivnoho fungovania,” in Aleksander Zozuliak, ed., Rusyn’skŷi narodnŷi kalendar’ na rik 2002 (Prešov, 2001), pp. 35-46; Anna Plishkova, “Os- novnŷ sferŷ funktsionovania kodifikavanoho rusyn’skoho iazŷka na Sloven’sku,” at http://www.rusynacademy.sk/rusynski/rusyn_jazyk.html; and Anna Plishkova, “Practical Spheres of Rusyn Language in Slovakia,” Studia Slavica Hungari- ca, LIII, 1 (Budapest, 2008), pp. 95-115—also at http://www.akademiai.com/ content/86g4185508m28726/ or http://www.rusynacademy.sk/english/en_jazyk. html. 2 Rusyn was employed in radio broadcasts already in the 1930s in the radio association “Rádiožurnál,” a precursor to Czechoslovak Radio in Košice, which broadcast to eastern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus’; then after World War II in several programs on Czechoslovak Radio: the Ukrainian Studio of Czechoslovak Radio in Bratislava beginning in 1945 in Bratislava and from 1948 in Prešov; from 1989 by the Rusyn-Ukrainian Editorial Office of Slovak Radio in Prešov; 87 88 language and national identity the medium to present programs about folklore and daily life broad- cast to rural localities where a Rusyn-speaking population was dom- inant. Among the most successful and popular of these broadcasts, thanks to the understandable language, was Podorozhuvannia kumiv (The Godparents’ Trips), later called Besida kumiv (The Godparents’ Conversations). In the print media, Rusyn dialects also appeared at times in the weekly Nove zhyttia—published from 1951 first by the Regional Com- mittee of the Communist party of Slovakia in Prešov; from 1959 by the Central Committee of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers in Prešov; and from 1990 to today by the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic in Prešov. The newspaper included a column, “Na dialekti” (In Dialect), which appeared with some interruptions between 1965 and 1970, and then systematically from 1973 to 1977.3 The publication of articles in Rusyn dialects was revived in Nove zhyt- tia in a column,”Voice of the Rusyns,” beginning with the “Velvet Revolution” of 1989 and, at the insistence of readers, for at least an- other year during which time the nationality position of its publishers, the new leadership of the Cultural Union, crystallized. Nove zhyttia’s Ukrainophile leadership clearly had no interest in redirecting either their national or linguistic orientation toward Rusyn, even though their name change from the organization from the Cul- tural Union of Ukrainian Workers to the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Czecho-Slovak Federal Republic seemed to suggest otherwise. They adopted the new name, it seems, more for practical reasons, that is, in the interest of maintaining a stable membership base in the new political situation rather than out of a genuine intention to change. Indeed, subsequent steps taken by the organization’s new leadership could not cover up the actual intent of the organization. In an attempt to hold fast to a pro-Ukrainian line, the leadership of the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians began to purge adherents of the Rusyn orientation from among its ranks.4 This move only led to hastening the estab- from 2002 by the Main Editorial Office of Slovak Radio’s Nationality and Ethni- city Broadcasting in Prešov; then finally from January 9, 2003, in Košice. 3 Mariia Follrikh, “Fakty z istoriï ukraïns’koï zhurnalistyky v Chekhoslova- chchyni,” in Naukovyi zbirnyk KSUT, No. 11 (Prešov, 1985), pp. 117-131. 4 In May 1991, members of the editorial staff, Aleksander Zozuliak, Kvetosla- va Koporova, Anna Kuzmiakova, and Anna Plishkova, left the newspaper Nove zhyttia, and Mariia Mal’tsovs’ka left the newspaper Druzhno vpered; and at the functional domains of the rusyn language 89 lishment of a Rusyn-language editorial office which began publishing in June 1991 a new weekly newspaper, entitled Narodnŷ novynkŷ, as the organ of the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Prešov.5 Still, in the absence of a codified Rusyn language, Narodnŷ novynkŷ’s editors fol- lowed their own internal orthographic rules based on the dialect of the Laborec region which, beginning in 1990, had become the center of the Carpatho-Rusyn revival movement in the former Czechoslovakia. With regard to the literary sphere, in the 1970s the Central Commit- tee of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers in Prešov published several individual and multi-authored collections of poetry and prose by so-called folk writers, which in vernacular Rusyn appeared along- side standard Ukrainian. Beginning in 1991, the Rusyn Renaissance Society published literature exclusively in Rusyn, using a general dialectal koiné, first according to their own individual orthographic guidelines and then, after 1995, in the newly codified standard literary Rusyn. In the theater, local dialects were used in performances locally and regionally even before the 1995 codification of the Rusyn standard. Uncodified Rusyn vernacular was used in texts read by moderators, in the interpretation of the poetry of the folk writers, in music and song recordings of amateur folklore ensembles, and in performances of folk singers and amateur theater groups. By the middle of the 1990s, in re- sponse to public demand, the professional Ukrainian National Theater (today the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater) in Prešov began using vernacular Rusyn rather than literary Ukrainian in their performances. Finally, in the religious sphere there were discussions about the need for an understandable language for use in pastoral care, particu- larly in the Greek Catholic Church in Slovakia. Hence, in the early 1990s, even before the formal codification, the first concrete steps to- ward the publication of religious literature in Rusyn had already taken place. In other words, by 1995 the Rusyn vernacular was represented in all of the above spheres in which communication was realized in spo- ken form. As for the written form of the language, there were obvious end of June 1991 together they founded a new Rusyn-language editorial office. 5 The first issue of the weekly newspaper, Narodnŷ novynkŷ, appeared on the symbolic date of 21 August 1991 [anniversary of the day in 1968 when Soviet troops invaded Czechoslovakia—translator]. 90 language and national identity attempts at respecting a norm, and this was clear as Rusyn gradually expanded into various functional domains, including schools and gov- ernment administration. Overall, this growth in the use of the literary language has influenced in a positive way the Rusyns’ consciousness of their linguistic distinctiveness and the concurrent development of their national identity. In a study of the influence of Rusyn on the development and level of national consciouness, we determined—by examining use of the language in its various functional contexts—that the religious and educational contexts are today the most influential and thus the most significant for the future survival of Carpatho-Rusyns. In the 2001 population census, 24,210 individuals claimed Rusyn nationality and 54,907 claimed Rusyn as their mother tongue, as compared with the 1991 census in which 16,937 claimed Rusyn nationality and 49,099 claimed Rusyn as their mother tongue. In our study, the results of the 2001 in comparison with the 1991 census were much more favorable in those 40 out of 69 villages in which the local priest respected the national affiliation of his faithful and practiced his pastoral care in Rusyn. There has also been a tendency toward an increasing number of individuals claiming Rusyn nationality in villages where schools teach Rusyn. Thanks to these situations in regions of northeastern Slo- vakia with compact Carpatho-Rusyn settlements, in 2002 the number of people claiming Rusyn nationality in several villages rose over 500 percent in comparison with 1991.6 The following villages provide an example of communities in which the percentage of citizens claiming Rusyn nationality rose at the least 100 percent in 2001 in comparison with the percentage in 1991. For example, in the former district of Svidník (part of which has become part of the Stropkov district), the increase in the number of Rusyns recorded in the 1991 and 2001 censuses rose in Beňadikovce from 3 to 29, Brusnica 22/122, Cernina 25/70, Duplín 1/8, Fijaš 2/13, Gribov 6/20, Hunkovce 14/36, Chotča 5/12, Kapišová 5/16, Krajná Bystrá 34/72, Krajná Porúbka 20/40, Krajné Čierne 11/34, Makovce 11/22, Nižná Olšava 1/5, Nižný Komárnik 7/16, Rakovčík 1/20, Rovné 12/95, Ruský Kručov 5/15, Soboš 4/14, Sol’ník 1/4, Stropkov See the extensive statistics in Ján Lipinský, ed., Sebareflexia postavenia 6 a vývoja Rusínov na Slovensku: niektoré výsledky etnosociologického výskumu na severovýchodnom Slovensku v roku 2002 (Prešov, 2002), pp. 112-123. functional domains of the rusyn language 91 103/209, and Šemetkovce 0/7.7 In the former district of Humenné (part of which now belongs to the Snina and Medzilaborce districts), the villages with an increase in Rusyns include: Čabalovce 63/150, Maškovce 0/5, Ňagov 135/356, Príslop 6/13, Roškovce 8/48, Stakčínska Roztoka 20/42, Sukov 27/54, Šmigovec 5/13, Topoľa 29/94, and Volica 43/98. In the district of Bardejov: Cigel’ka 2/35, Krivé 5/16, Ondavka 9/18, Ortut’ová 4/9, Šašová 1/4, and Rešov 10/22. In the district of Stará L’ubovňa: Čirč 100/373, D’urková 0/9, Jakubovany 8/57, Kamienka 92/237, Malý Lipník 2/9, Orlov 18/71, Starina 5/11, Šambron 8/20, Vel’ký Lipník 23/73, and Stará L’ubovňa 120/240. In the former district of Spišska Nová Ves (some of whose villages now belong to Gelnica and Levoča districts): Helcmanovce 0/3, Nižné Repše 0/2, Ol’šavica 5/13, Poráč 18/84, and Torysky 2/10. In the former district of Michalovce (some of whose villages now be- long to the district of Sobrance), the villages with increases in number of Rusyns are: Beňatina 0/28, Inovce 2/5, Podhorod’ 0/5, Ruská Bystrá 0/5, Ruský Hrabovec 3/21, Strážske 7/20, and Michalovce 45/116. In the former district of Prešov (some of whose villages now belong to the Sabinov district), the villages of interest are: Bajerovce 22/60, Drie­ nica 0/2, Hanigovce 0/6, Renčišov 0/2, Tichý Potok 4/34, and Sabinov 16/44. In the former district of Vranov nad Top’lou (some of whose vil- lages now belong to the Humenné district), the villages increases were in: Piskorovce 0/22, Pritul’any 21/55, and Ruská Kajňa 0/34. In connection with these statistics it is also important to remember that the growth in the percentage of the population claiming Rusyn nationality and considering Rusyn their mother tongue directly corre- sponds with the growth in the percentage of Greek Catholics adherents in 11 of the 69 villages, and of Orthodox adherents in 14 of the 69 vil- lages. The most significant growth in the number of citizens claiming Rusyn nationality in Slovakia is evident in those villages, 20 out of the 69, which experienced a growth in the number of faithful of both denominations simultaneously. On the basis of our study, it can be clearly seen why it is necessary to focus attention on the use of Rusyn in the religious sphere in connection with both the Greek Catholic and Orthodox churches to which Rusyns traditionally belong. 7 All the data in this and the following paragraphs are found in ibid. 92 language and national identity Family and everyday communication The Rusyn vernacular in its many dialects has been the basic form of language communication among the vast majority of Carpatho-Rusyns from time immemorial. To a significant degree it continues in this role to this very day. Unfortunately, assimilation into the larger Slovak so- ciety cannot help but be reflected in the current choice of the language of communication, especially among the young generation of Carpatho- Rusyns. Such assimilation has been a consequence of, among other things, the elimination of elementary schools in villages with a majority Rusyn-speaking population, the integration of young people into city schools with Slovak as the language of instruction, as well as a period of over four decades during which it was illegal to identify as Rusyn and to use the Rusyn language in official communication spheres. Today, young Carpatho-Rusyns often prefer to use Slovak in ordinary com- munication even in traditionally Rusyn villages. They do not consider this situation unnatural because in the media, in schools, in places of worship, and often even at home they hear Slovak. They are reared in a bilingual environment in which even in the family setting they relegate the status of their ancestors’ language to second place. A certain segment of the most nationally-conscious middle and old- er generations of Rusyns, initially steeped in Russophilism, Ukrain- ophilism, or Carpatho-Rusyn traditions, tends to criticize the current tendency of young people to distance themselves from the ancestral heritage. The older generations, generally speaking, view this situ- ation silently and passively because they themselves have become accustomed to speaking Slovak with their grandchildren and great- grandchildren. With regard to language choice and preservation, it is important to note that the national and linguistic identification of members of the family—not only that of the parents but also of the grandparents—is crucial in connection with the choice of an everyday language of verbal communication. Sociological research in Slovakia after 1989 has demonstrated that in families in which the parents have claimed Rusyn nationality, most often the language of communication is some dialectal form of Rusyn.8 Marián Gajdoš et al., Rusíni/Ukrajinci na Slovensku na konci 20. storočia; 8 k vybraným výsledkom historicko-sociologického výskumu v roku 2000 (Prešov, 2001); and the essays by Stanislav Konečny, František Baumgartner, Miroslav Frankovský, and Marián Gajdoš in Lipinský, Sebareflexia. functional domains of the rusyn language 93 The Rusyn language is the “intraethnic language” of Carpatho- Rusyns, that is, they speak “in their own way” (in Rusyn) “with their own,” that is, with fellow Carpatho-Rusyns in everyday, holiday, and official communication situations. Rusyn is used in everyday contact within families, in the circle of friends and acquaintances, in venues such as meetings, parties, and other gatherings, and in work at home or in the field. Rusyn likewise can be heard during Carpatho-Rusyn national, church, and cultural activities, and also in public places and institutions: on the streets, in stores, in buses, at the post office, in the hospital, in village government, and so on.9 Besides oral communication, Rusyn is used in the family sphere in connection with personal correspondence, in the conveying of con- gratulations, and in messages to those who are close and familiar. In these cases, Rusyn is most often rendered in the Latin script rather than in Cyrillic. The Carpatho-Rusyn intelligentsia, however, more of- ten uses Cyrillic, especially that segment for whom the Rusyn literary language is the fundamental subject of interest, research, or as a basic commnication medium in either oral or written form. The intensity of Rusyn-language use in the everyday family sphere is highest in villages with a compact settlement of Rusyns. As a rule, it is not the literary form of the language which is used, but one of its dialects or some form of mixed dialects (interdialekta). In cities, however, often even in the family environment, the language of the ancestors is being lost and the younger generation’s mastery of Rusyn is often limited to a passive form. While younger people understand Rusyn, they do not speak it. Individuals who use Rusyn in everyday communication are exceptional. Finally, there is a small group of in- dividuals who speak Rusyn, but are not Carpatho-Rusyns. Rather, they are members of mixed-nationality families, direct neighbors of Rus­yns, and admirers of their culture. For example, people who love Rusyn folksongs often learn the language thanks to direct linguistic contact with the music and lyrics. On the basis of these observations, we can state that the intensity 9 On the functional domains of the Rusyn language in various countries, see: Igor’ Kercha, “Pudkarpats’ka Rus’,” pp. 319-329; Olena Duts’-Faifer, “Lemko- vyna,” pp. 347-361; Gergei Benedek, “Madiar’sko,” pp. 363-372; Mykhailo Fei- sa, “Voivodina,” pp. 373-382; and Magocsi, “Ameryka,” pp. 383-390, all in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk, revised and expanded ed. (Opole, 2007). 94 language and national identity of communication in Rusyn is decreasing in the following transitional categories: (1) from home and family to public places; (2) from the oldest generation to the youngest generation; and (3) from marriages that are homogeneous in terms of nationality to those that are hetero- geneous.10 There is, however, hope for a wider use of Rusyn in current communication in the introduction of Rusyn-language teaching in the schools and in the stabilization of the language’s position in its present functioning domains. Official and administrative interaction The current use of Rusyn as the language of a national minority in the Slovak Republic is governed, first of all, by the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (1992), then by laws and legal regulations regard- ing the status of national minorities and ethnic groups, and finally by international agreements concerning the rights of individuals belong- ing to national minorities of which Slovakia is a signatory state and to which it is bound. Among the most significant of these agreements are the “Framework Convention for the Protection of National Mi- norities” (1998) and the “European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages” (1998; ratified by the National Council of the Slovak Re- public in 2001). Reflecting these international conventions, the right of national minorities in the Slovak Republic is regulated by several statutes, including the “Law On the Usage of Languages of National Minorities” (1999) which regulates the rights of national minorities to use their mother tongue in official venues. According to this law, individuals—who belong to a national minority and who on the basis of the most recent population census constitute minimally 20 percent of the population in a given locality— have the right in that village or town to use their language in the local administration. They also have the right to have the language of their national minority used in: (1) written submissions to state and self-governing organizations and in the written responses they obtain from such bodies; (2) signs on public institutions; (3) administrative forms; (4) the business of assemblies in connection with territorial self- governance and in presentations at such assemblies; 10 Gajdoš, Rusíni/Ukrajinci na Slovensku, p. 73. functional domains of the rusyn language 95 (5) maintenance of historical records; and (6) designation of the names of streets and other local natural and public sites. On the basis of our own research and findings,11 as well as on the basis of the results of sociological research conducted in 2001 by the Social Science Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Košice,12 the official or public administrative context is, among all the functional contexts studied, the one in which Rusyn is employed the least. This situation has continued in spite of Slovak state legislation13 corresponding to the larger European regulations, which guarantee a wider use of the minority language in administrative settings, and in spite of a growing number of villages with the requisite minimum of 20 percent Rusyn representation. According to the 2001 popula- tion census in Slovakia, there are 91 such villages, representing an increase of 23 villages since the census of 1991.14 Perhaps the single and most explicit initiative which the Carpatho- Rusyns undertook in the struggle to introduce their language into the administrative sphere was in the form of a protest petition submit- ted after ratification of the 1994 “Law of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 191” about displaying village names according to the language of each village’s national minority alongside the stan- dard Slovak name. As a result of this law, villages with the 20 per- cent minimum received official bilingual signs. These signs, however, were not in Slovak and Rusyn, as they should have been, but in Slovak and literary Ukrainian. The second half of the village name was sup- posed to signal the ethnic composition of the local population, but to this day the signs imply that 20 percent of the population is Ukrainian. 11 Anna Plishkova, “Spysovnŷi iazŷk karpat’skŷkh Rusyniv: problemŷ stano- vlinia, kodifikatsiï, aktseptatsiï i sfer funtsionovania” (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Slavistics, 2006), pp. 68-71. 12 Gajdoš, Rusíni/Ukrajinci na Slovensku. 13 See “Legislatívny rámec pre jazyky menšín v  Slovenskej republike,” at http://www.culture.gov.sk/umenie/ttny-jazyk/archv. 14 Marián Gajdoš and Stanislav Konečný, “Rusínska a  ukrajinská menšina v národnostnej politike Slovenska po roku 1989,” in Štefan Šutaj, ed., Národnost- ná politika na Slovensku po roku 1989 (Prešov, 2005), pp. 109-120; and Ondrej Dostál, “Národnostné menšiny,” in Miroslav Kollár and Grigorii Mesežnikov, eds., Slovensko 2003: súhrnná správa o stave spoločnosti (Bratislava, 2003), pp. 159-160. 96 language and national identity An explanation for this situation is that the Party of the Democratic Left, in whose ranks were adherents and even official representatives of the Ukrainophile orientation in Slovakia, both supported the law and influenced its practical application in 1994. No doubt, the absence of a literary Rusyn language at that time was one of the strong argu- ments which worked against providing signs in Rusyn in the 68 vil- lages with a 20 percent minimum of Rusyn inhabitants according to the 1991 census. This situation changed radically, however, barely a year later. Fol- lowing the January 1995 codification of literary Rusyn, the argument against using Rusyn on the signs based on the absence of a Rusyn literary language no longer applied. Subsequently, spokespersons of Rusyn civic and cultural organizations adamantly demanded a change in the second part of the bilingual signs from Ukrainian to Rusyn with the changes to be based on the codified laws of Rusyn orthography. Up to this day, however, no action has been taken to fulfill the Rusyns’ legal right for accurate bilingual signs in accordance with the official law in Slovakia and according to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The most probable reason for the Slovak govern- ment’s failure to abide by the legislation is economic. Nevertheless, we believe that a stronger role should be played by Rusyn civic and cultural organizations in Slovakia, as well as on the part of the vil- lagers themselves, in order to insure a consistent resolution of this problem. An analogous situation concerns the use of Rusyn in the designation of streets, geographical sites, and public buildings and institutions. For instance, not one of the eight schools in Slovakia in which Rusyn has been taught as a subject since 1997 uses a bilingual sign near its entrance which would include Rusyn. On the contrary—and this is a paradoxical situation—schools that still have bilingual signs in Slo- vak and Ukrainian have not taught Ukrainian for a long time, and the number of self-declared Ukrainians in villages where the schools in question are located does not reach the 20 percent threshold. Similar to this situation are signs on stores, restaurants, post offices, and else- where, which still display bilingual Slovak and Ukrainian names or, in the case of new signs, only Slovak names. We have observed a small change only in sporadic instances connected with the identification of local government buildings or the public state administration build- ings, specifically in Medzilaborce and Čabiny where, as a result of functional domains of the rusyn language 97 the initiative of mayors and heads of district offices, bilingual Slovak and Rusyn signs have been set up to denote these various institutions. A more positive situation for the application of Rusyn in the sphere of public administration in Slovakia can be seen in connection with its spoken, rather than written, form. It is used on a community level as the basic means of communication during meetings of the local government, particularly in villages with a dominant Rusyn-speaking population and with a preponderance of Rusyn-speaking representa- tives in the local governmental bodies. The written records from these meetings, however, are kept only in Slovak which is most probably determined by the fact that those responsible for keeping minutes and records do not have a mastery of the rules of Rusyn orthography or perhaps cannot even write in Cyrillic. Beginning in 2005, local governmental offices in the Prešov Region, where most Rusyns live, began publishing administrative information in minority languages, among them Rusyn, which carried announce- ments about the time and place to vote in elections. In the absence of official government translators, translations into Rusyn have been provided by certain civic organizations (the Rusyn Renaissance Soci- ety, the editorial staff of the Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishing House), or by specialists in Rusyn from state public institutions, such as the Institute of Rusyn Language and Culture at Prešov University. Certain state offices also publish information in Rusyn before events that are of significance to the society at large. For instance, prior to the 2001 population census, the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic published, in accordance with the law, various instructions, proclama- tions, and other important information and notices in several national minority languages, including Rusyn. The Rusyn language in Slovakia may also be used in written com- munication with the Office for the Public Defender of Rights, which likewise publishes its forms in minority languages, including Rusyn. Carpatho-Rusyns make use of the right to verbal communication in court cases in mixed language territories, which can be done without summoning an interpreter thanks to the proximity and mutual compre- hensibility of Rusyn and Slovak. Recently, a more frequent use of Rusyn in an administrative func- tion has been evident during religious rituals, such as weddings, bap- tisms, and burials, largely in Greek Catholic parishes in northeastern Slovakia. This use of Rusyn has depended directly on the willingness 98 language and national identity of a segment of Carpatho-Rusyn priests in the Prešov Greek Catholic Eparchy to use the language in their pastoral activity. The Rusyn language enjoys its strongest position in administrative contacts among the fifteen Rusyn civic and cultural organizations— including the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Slovakia; the Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishing House; the Association of Rusyn Intel- lectuals in Slovakia; the Union of Rusyn Writers; the Russian Club– 1923; the Aleksander Dukhnovych Cultural and Educational Society; the St. John the Baptist Society; the Union of Rusyn Youth; and oth- ers—as well as with certain state institutions connected with minor- ity issues in Slovakia (the Institute of Rusyn Language and Culture at Prešov University; the Museum of Rusyn Culture [affiliate of the Slovak National Museum], the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater, and the Department of Rusyn Language in the Methodological and Peda- gogical Center—all in Prešov; and the Rusyn Broadcasting Team of Slovak Radio in Košice). Rusyn is also used in an international context by the member orga- nizations of the World Congress of Rusyns which, besides Slovakia, operates in the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Russia, the United States, and Canada. Meetings and the written records of all these organizations are in liter- ary variants of Rusyn which differ slightly from each other depending on the countries in which the speakers reside. At social events of these organizations in the international context, certain literary variants of Rusyn or a particular form of mixed dialects are used. Written records at this pan-Rusyn level are produced according to the origin of the in- dividual assigned to write about a particular event; in practice this has largely been done in the literary language of the Rusyns of Slovakia. Although after 1989, and specifically after the formal codification in Slovakia in 1995, Rusyn language use in the administrative sphere has increased, a thorough and systematic scrutiny of this use on the part of leaders of Rusyn civic and cultural organizations might help to broaden further the spheres of the language’s activity and applica- tion in accordance with the relevant legislation. This is a crucial mo- ment not only for encouraging Carpatho-Rusyns to use their native language, but also for nurturing a positive outlook toward it within various segments of the Carpatho-Rusyn population itself, as well as vis-à-vis members of other national minorities. A wider introduction of Rusyn into the administrative functional domain likewise plays a functional domains of the rusyn language 99 very significant psycholinguistic role in demonstrating to Carpatho- Rusyns that their literary language possesses a degree of dignity suf- ficient to function in the most exacting areas of life, as well as for ordinary communication. The theater Use of the Rusyn language in the theater has traditionally been re- lated to amateur village folklore and theatrical groups and profes- sional ensembles which emerged in the 1950s, including the Ukrai- nian National Theater in Prešov (est. 1945), which from 1990 is called the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater in Prešov, and the Ensemble of Song and Dance in Medzilaborce (est. 1953), later becoming the over 100-member Dukl’a Ukrainian Folk Ensemble (est. 1956) in Prešov, which since 1990 uses its former Slovak acronym, as its new name— PULS. The building of a network of amateur folklore and theatrical groups in villages with a substantial Rusyn population has a long tradition. In the past these groups were supported largely by local teachers and Rusyn national organizations. Depending on a given group’s linguis- tic orientation, it employed either Russian, Ukrainian, or local Rusyn vernacular. The most significant development in this sphere was con- nected with the extensive activity, especially between the 1960s and 1980s, of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers—KSUT (est. 1954) based in Prešov. The scope of KSUT’s activity was defined by the degree of state support it received, which was quite sufficient at a time when it was the only national organization representing Slova- kia’s Carpatho-Rusyn population. KSUT was established specifically to uphold the state’s nationality policy vis-à-vis its Carpatho-Rusyns. Associated with KSUT there were up to 170 folk groups of differ- ent kinds, predominantly village ensembles established at the union’s initiative and shaped according to its official ideology.15 Thanks to generous state contributions, KSUT was able to support these various ensembles materially, as well as professionally, and to provide venues for performances locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Performances usually took place at folklore festivals. The most impor- 15 Fedir Kovach, Kraieznavchyi slovnyk rusyniv-ukraïntsiv Priashivshchyny (Prešov, 1999), p. 189. 100 language and national identity tant of these are organized still today by the successor to KSUT, al- though since 1989 the term Ukrainian has been replaced with the new ethnonym Rusyn-Ukrainian in accordance with the change of the own organization’s name to the Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic—SRUS (est. 1990). Its mission, however, is still directed to the same ethnic group as before 1989, which since then has identified itself overwhelmingly as Rusyn, not Ukrainian. Among the significant events of KSUT before 1989 were the fol- lowing: the Svidník Folk Festival of Czechoslovakia’s Ukrainians (since 1955); the Festival of Culture and Sports in Medzilaborce (since 1962); the Folklore Festival of Slovakia’s Ukrainians in Kamienka (since 1965); the Makovyts’ka Struna Folksong Revue in Bardejov (since 1973); and others. Among other popular events were the com- petitive review of amateur theatrical groups, of artistic performances, and original artistic productions during the Dukhnovych Festival of Drama and Literary Recitation in Snina and later Medzilaborce (since 1961). To oversee such a broad spectrum of events, the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers (KSUT) had within its structure a special Division of Folk Artistic Creativity whose staff helped to establish ensembles in villages and towns and to support their technical needs. Moreover, directors and actors from the professional Ukrainian National Theater in Prešov offered expert help to the village or school theater groups. In the city of Prešov a school of drama was established in the mid-1950s in which members and leaders of amateur theater ensembles could develop and perfect their talent. Thanks to such work, the amateur theatrical sphere of Carpatho-Rusyns in the former Czechoslovakia was strong in terms of the number of ensembles and the competence of their leaders, as well as in nurturing opportunities for talented mem- bers. All of this activity, however, was conditional on participants hav- ing at least a partial mastery of Ukrainian. This was feasible, because in the 1970s up to 58 elementary schools in northeastern Slovakia used Ukrainian as the language of instruction. KSUT also sponsored activities among the adult Carpatho-Rusyn population in the form of around 200 Ukrainian-language circles.16 Aside from KSUT’s activi- ties, there were also groups whose members practiced their theatrical repertory in the local Rusyn vernacular, for instance, the theatrical 16 Ibid. functional domains of the rusyn language 101 circle in the village of Ňagov in the Medzilaborce district. This situation was altered considerably in the 1990s, as a result of change in the political situation of the country, the national emanci- pation process among Carpatho- Rusyns, and the liquidation of the monopolistic position of the Cultural Union of Ukrainian Workers (KSUT) as the sole state-supported nationality organization for the Carpatho-Rusyn population of northeastern Slovakia. The pre-1989 period had already witnessed a dramatic decline in the number of schools using Ukrainian as the language of instruction, and there was a decrease in the number of schools (regardless of language) in Rusyn villages. The subsequent decline in the amount of state financial sup- port for the development of “Ukrainian” culture meant the demise of many groups traditionally sponsored by KSUT, as well as the rise of new groups initiated by local governments with an intent to interpret local folklore through the prism of the Rusyn vernacular. With the emergence in 1990 of the first post-Communist-era Rusyn organization in Slovakia, the Rusyn Renaissance Society, the new di- rection developed even further. Despite the initial proposals and at- tempts by some members of the Rusyn Renaissance Society to take under its wing and to transform the various festivals traditionally sponsored by KSUT—festivals, moreover, which all along had pre- sented the folkloric wealth of Carpatho-Rusyns and were directed pri- marily at that group—its efforts were unsuccessful with perhaps one exception, the Festival of Culture and Sport in Medzilaborce. Finally, in the interest of calming intraethnic tensions, the Rusyn Renaissance Society decided to establish its own folk groups and festivals. Among these were ensembles, such as Zaruba (Barricade) in Ňagov, Dubrav- ka (Oak Forest) in Snina, Kalinets (Guelder-Rose) in Svidník, and Rusyn’ske bratstvo (the Rusyn Brotherhood) in Prešov, among oth- ers, and their own cultural events, including the Festival of Rusyn and Sharysh Folklore in Bardejovské Kúpele (since 1993), the Beth- lehem Evening in Svidník (since 1992), the Rusyn Folklore Festival in Pčolín (since 1993), and the Days of Rusyn Traditions in selected villages (since 2004). The Renaissance Society has also sponsored competitions throughout Slovakia that are geared to discovering tal- ented new singers (for instance, the “Songs of my People” in Prešov, Medzilaborce, Snina, and Humenné, since 2002), to promoting pop- ular songs (the “Festival of Popular Song in Svidník,” since 1993), and to encouraging composers of popular music (“Rus’ Pop Music” in 102 language and national identity Svidník, since 2006). The society has also sponsored recitation con- tests aimed at the performance of artistic creative work in the Rusyn language (“Dukhnovych’s Prešov,” since 2001), theater festivals (the “Days of Rusyn Theater” in Bratislava, 1999), and others. Within a year of its establishment, the Rusyn Renaissance Soci- ety became proficient in organizing events, so that between 1991 and 1994, thanks to government support, it was able to employ experts in specific spheres of activity and to sponsor approximately 50 activities in various settings. At present, the Rusyn Renaissance Society has fo- cused on sponsoring less elaborate folklore performances. The reason for this stems, in part, from a change in the Slovakia’s Ministry of Culture criteria with regard to financial support of national minority civic organizations.17 In particular, the ministry no longer provides funds to pay the salaries of staff in the organizations. In the Prešov area, however, new civic organizations intent on developing Rusyn theater have come into being, including Diva and Friends of the Alek- sander Dukhnovych Theater in Prešov. Local, city, and regional cul- tural and educational centers from 1997 have helped the theater and drama life hold fast to using the Rusyn language, especially in mixed nationality areas, as have elementary schools that teach Rusyn in the context of their school programs or in village cultural circles. The stable and consistent use of the Rusyn language in professional theater life in Slovakia is guaranteed by one professional theater in Slovakia—the only theater of its kind in the world18—the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater in Prešov. Until 2008 the theater also included within its structure a music and dance ensemble, PULS. What is now called the Dukhnovych Theater is quite renowned, because its pre- decessor was the first “Ukrainian” cultural institution which arose in the Prešov Region after World War II. It is ironic that precisely the Ukrainian National Theater became, in the mid-1990s, the first institu- tion to employ the Rusyn vernacular in its everyday activity. The new language orientation is easy to understand because the theater is, after all, an institution intended to serve the public living in northeast Slo- 17 See the Výnos Ministerstva kultúry Slovenskej republiky z 29. apríla 2004 č. MK-480/2004-1 o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti Ministerstva kultúry Sloven- skej republiky at www.culture.gov.sk. 18 Another Rusyn theater, Diadia, located in Novi Sad in the Vojvodina of Ser- bia, has recently (2005) become professional, as well. functional domains of the rusyn language 103 vakia, where a significant percentage of the population is Carpatho- Rusyn. In a very practical sense, then, the theater wanted to maintain the loyalty of its public and was well aware that the demand for a change in its language from Ukrainian to Rusyn had actually come much earlier. The revolutionary events of 1989, however, made the official change in the language easier to negotiate, so that in October 1990 the theater’s leadership decided to demonstrate its transforma- tion by changing its name. By then, the original name, the Ukrainian National Theater, was an anachronism in the new social and political conditions of post-Communist Czechoslovakia. In spite of the language change, the theater’s leadership initially de- cided to present its repertory in both Rusyn and Ukrainian. It first at- tempted to do half of its performances in Rusyn and half in Ukrainian, although in response to public demand it gave preference to the Rusyn vernacular. Since the Carpatho-Rusyn public consistently boycotted dramatic productions in Ukrainian, whenever the theater performed in the villages, the theater’s leadership—despite opposition from rep- resentatives of the Ukrainophile orientation—went one step further and made the definitive transition to Rusyn only.19 For this reason, the theater has had to devote a great deal of time to the translation, prepa- ration, and dramaticization of texts not only by local authors (Ivan Hrytš-Duda, Mykolai Kseniak, Karol Horák, Miloš Karásek, Jozef Mokosh), but also authors of world classics (Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Schiller’s Parasite, Chekhov’s Uncle Vania, Steinbeck’s Tortilla Flat, Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Dostoevsky’s Idiot, Gogol’s Inspector Gen- eral, and many others). The modern approach to theater practiced by guest directors, largely Slovaks (Matúš Oľha, Miloš Karásek, Ras- tislav Ballek, Blaho Uhlár), together with a thorough understanding of the Rusyn language by local audiences and, most importantly, the work of consistently good actors during the past fifteen years, have all 19 After fourteen years with no performances in Ukrainian, the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater is expected to perform at least one play in Ukrainian yearly beginning in the 2008-2009 season. This decision resulted from the settlement of grievances voiced by the pro-Ukrainian organization, the Union of Rusyn- Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic, which was addressed to the management of the Dukhnovych Theater and the Prešov Regional Governing Authority. The Em- bassy of Ukraine in Slovakia was also interested in a resolution of this issue. For more about this matter, see Zuzana Ulichianska, “Teater sia verne k ukraïn’skomu iazŷku,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVIII,17-20 (Prešov, 2008), pp. 3-4. 104 language and national identity brought success both on the domestic and international stages. More- over, the work of the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater has garnered very positive reviews from Slovak theater critics who have assessed it for several years as one of the best professional theaters in the coun- try.20 Another mark of its quality is the current nomination of the thea­ ter’s actors in the prestigious all-Slovakia poll, the “Divadelné ocen- enie sezóny” (Theater Evaluation of the Season) or DOSKY.21 The Media The use of the Rusyn language in the media in Slovakia is currently represented by three published secular periodicals: Rusyn, Narodnŷ novynkŷ, and InfoRusyn; two ecclesiastical periodals: Blahovîstnyk (Messenger of The Good News) and Artos (Holy Bread); and two state broadcasting media: Slovak Radio and Slovak Television. Each of these organs plays a significant role in the dissemination of infor- mation about Carpatho-Rusyns to others, but most significantly they have played an irreplaceable role in the process of the Rusyns’ own national self-identification. The most important among these media sources has been the Christian cultural journal Rusyn,22 published every two months, and 20 Ján Jaborník, “Divadlo medzi troma hranicami: Divadlo Alexandra Duchnoviča,” Javisko, No. 1 (2003), at http://www.stoka.sk/uhlar/jabordad.html; Katarína Dučarová, “Do tretice všetko dobré,” Teatro, VII, 3-4 (2002), at http:// www.divadelniflora.cz; Dagmar Podmaková, “Kde bolo, tam bolo,” Slovo (in- ternet publication), No. 15 (2001); Juraj Kušnierik, “Divadelné divy,” at http:// www.tyzden.sk/fenomen; Juraj Kušnierik, “Rusínsky titanic,” at http://www. tyzden.sk/archiv; Peter Káša, “Originálne a  ambiciózne projekty: poznámky k dvom premiéram v Divadle A. Duchnoviča v Prešove,” and Katarína Dučaro- vá, “Dni rusínskeho divadla v Bratislave,” supplement in Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 10-13 (Prešov, 2006). 21 See http://www.theatre.sk about nominations for the Theater Award of the Season which have been announced since 1995 by the Association of Contem- porary Theater and the Nitra Theater Association in cooperation with the Andrej Bagar Theater in Nitra. 22 The initial issue of the “Christian cultural magazine” Rusyn, which appeared in 1990, was published by the Society of Andy Warhol in Medzilaborce; and the first numbered issue, which appeared in 1991, was published by the Municipal Educational Center in Medzilaborce. Beginning with the second issue of 1991 and until the end of 2003, Rusyn was published by the Rusyn Renaissance Soci- functional domains of the rusyn language 105 the weekly newspaper, Narodnŷ novynkŷ.23 From the start these two publications played a dominant role in the process of standardizing a Rusyn literary language before the official announcement of the Rusyn codification on 27 January 1995, as well as later in its efforts to introduce the language into the various spheres of use. Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ also attempted to compensate for the absence of specialized Rusyn-language periodicals (publications for children and young people, and pedagogical, historical, literary journals) by includ- ing information and supplements covering these areas. An example is the special quarterly literary supplement in Narodnŷ novynkŷ, entitled “Pozdravlinia Rusyniv” (Rusyn Greetings, 1995-present) and a young people’s supplement entitled “Rusalka” (2000-present). Despite a long period of financial instability brought on by a change in Slovakia’s nationality policy, especially after 1994, the editors of these publications have continued publishing even when conditions have made their consistent appearance difficult. This is because the editors are committed to supporting the broadest possible Carpatho- Rusyn national and cultural movement in Slovakia and helping in the formation of a nationally-conscious young generation by means of the written form of the literary language. Narodnŷ novynkŷ always was and to today remains the central Rusyn-language periodical. On its pages are discussions about nationality, religion, education, literature, and language issues to which readers, both experts and laypeople in these fields, may freely respond. While Narodnŷ novynkŷ is read throughout Slovakia, it concentrates its focus mainly on the northeastern part of the country where the majority of Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia reside. The magazine Rusyn is intended more for an interregional and in- ternational readership as it reports on a wide spectrum of issues con- cerning Carpatho-Rusyns who live in the entire Carpathian region ety in Slovakia at its headquarters in Prešov. Since then it has been published in Prešov by the civic organization Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishers (2002- 2005); the World Congress of Rusyns (2006); and again the civic organization Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishers (from 2007). Since 1995, Rusyn has appeared erratically, between two and six times a year. 23 From 1991-2003, Narodnŷ novynkŷ was published by the Rusyn Renais- sance Society in Slovakia and from 2004 by Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Pub- lishers. Until 1994, the newspaper was a weekly; from 1995 the regularity of its publication depended on state support, and thus it came out twice a month, then sometimes monthly. 106 language and national identity (Slovakia, Ukraine, Poland, Romania), as well as those who live else- where (Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Rus- sia, the United States, and Canada). Its articles deal with nationality issues, along with sociopolitical and church matters. Judging from the character of published material, it is apparent that the editors are in- tent on producing a mixed popular-scholarly publication and that they hope thereby to compensate for the lack of specialized journals on Rusyn history, literature, and sociolinguistic issues in the homeland as well as throughout the world. The Rusyn magazine has been published every two months since its founding, except for the years 1995-98 and 2004, and continues as a bimonthly. Despite significant achievements in promoting the Rusyn national- ity, the editors of Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ since 1995 have had to weather several changes of a regressive nature. Narodnŷ novynkŷ originated as a weekly, but during several long periods of its exis- tence, the editors were not able to adhere to this schedule nor were they able to hold together as a working collective. During its sixteen- year existence, the newspaper came out as a weekly consistently for only three years—from 1992 through 1994. Ten years later, however, its fate was completely different. Until the end of 1994, the editorial personnel comprised four or five professional editors24 and two tech- nical-administrative staff;25 but in order to survive, from 199526 and especially after 2004, the editor has been forced to publish periodi- 24 From 1991-1994, four individuals worked full time: chief editor Aleksander Zozuliak, assistant to the chief editor Anna Plishkova, and the journalists Mariia Mal’tsovs‘ka, and Anna Kuzmiakova, who were joined part-time by Kvetoslava Koporova. 25 In the position of personnel and salary accountant at the editorial office was Iryna Pitukhova; and Jozef Hal’ko worked as a technical and economic advisor, as well as a driver. 26 The advent of the third government headed by Prime Minister Vladimír Me- čiar, which resulted from early parlimentary elections in 1994, meant a substan- tial change in the position of governing organs and institutions toward ethnic minorities in Slovakia. The new government took a confrontational stance mainly toward the Hungarian minority while ignoring the existence and problems of other ethnic groups. About this, see Gajdoš and Konečný, “Rusínska a ukrajin- ská menšina,” pp. 109-120; Dostál, “Menšiny,” in Martin Bútora, ed., Slovensko 1996: Súhrnná správa o stave spoločnosti a trendoch na rok 1997 (Bratislava, 1997), pp. 253-256. functional domains of the rusyn language 107 cal and non-periodical material without an assistant editor or editorial team.27 As a result of a change in the method of the Slovak govern- ment’s financing of national minority cultural activities—in effect, an unpredictable amount of state support—Narodnŷ novynkŷ, which was the sole Rusyn-language newspaper in Slovakia at that time, began to appear inconsistently, at times every two weeks and finally as a monthly.28 Former members of the editorial team work on the news- paper either as volunteers or for a symbolic honorarium, while cor- respondents frequently contribute their honoraria toward the costs of the publication’s overhead. In the interest of maintaining both Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ, the editorial leadership had to search for alternative sources of fund- ing through sponsorships, mainly publishing advertisements for vari- ous firms in the region, particularly those owned by Carpatho-Rusyns. This situation has led to a change in what was initially the newspa- per’s exclusive cultural and nationality focus toward one in which more space devoted to the economic sphere (advertisements and ar- ticles about Rusyn-run businesses). This change has meant not only a source of support for the publications which come out less frequently, but also at times support for the very survival of its editors. The editorial leadership was most successful in terms of finding alternative funding between 1996 and 1998, when there was a higher economic level in the Prešov Region of northeastern Slovakia. With subsequent economic decline also came diminished possibilities for alternative funding sources, and it was especially clear that without basic help from the state, even in light of no increases in the state’s support of the national minorities, Rusyn-language periodic literature in the generally economically weak Prešov Region could not continue to be published. It is important to note that the Narodnŷ novynkŷ and Rusyn periodicals in this crisis time were maintained only thanks to the self-sacrifice of several enthusiastic individuals surrounding the editor-in-chief, Aleksander Zozuliak. 27 See Výnos Ministerstva kultúry. 28 While Carpatho-Rusyn organizations were given a total sum of 6 million crowns in 1994, that figure dropped to only 1.6 million in 1995. About this, see Gajdoš and Konečný, „Rusínska a ukrajinská menšina,“ p. 112; M. Kollár and Zuzana Mrvová, Národná správa o kultúrnej politike Slovenskej republiky: sprá- va skupiny európskych expertov (Bratislava, 2003), p. 341. 108 language and national identity A marked change in policy toward national minorities occurred after Slovakia’s elections of 1998, when the Party of the Hungarian Coalition became part of a broader ruling coalition headed by Prime Minister Mikuláš Dzurinda. In the period 1998-2002, his govern- ment became more determined, at least in part, about correcting the problems which arose during the preceding difficult period. Conse- quently, beginning in 1999, subsidies to the national minorities rose by 30 percent and for Carpatho-Rusyns finally 100 percent. Despite this, the new government, according to the opinion of politicians and historians, in general “did not find sufficient courage to go be- yond the shadow which the national aspect of the Slovak Republic had cast over minority politics. Although the new Slovak govern- ment showed a certain political potential, it did not have the power to broaden the landscape for the activity of the ethnic minorities and thereby to strengthen their loyalty.”29 Although percentage-wise sup- port for minority cultures grew and the amount of financial support gradually stabilized, from 2002 the state significantly reduced support for specific items which could have benefited from state funding. For example, in 2004, the Slovak Ministry of Culture predicated its own support of national minorities by taking into consideration the contri- butions that each national minority received from “its” mother coun- try—Hungary, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, etc. The problem for the Carpatho-Rusyns of Slovakia was that they naturally considered the Slovak Republic itself their homeland, and thus had no source of fund- ing from outside Slovakia. In the determination of each yearly budget, the Ministry of Culture for some time ignored the Rusyns’ particular situation vis-à-vis the “mother-country” phenomenon. In essence, the Ministry of Culture’s policy completely eliminat- ed the possibility of professional work in Rusyn-language periodical publications in Slovakia.30 Thus, the editors of Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ were forced to function exclusively with non-paid volunteer workers. In addition, as a consequence of interpersonal misunderstand- ings among the leaders of certain Rusyn civic organizations, there was a change of publisher for Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ from the Rusyn Gajdoš and Konečný, „Rusínska a ukrajinská menšina,“ p. 115. 29 Anna Plišková, “Jazyk a školstvo Rusínov v transformujúcej sa spoločnosti,” 30 in Štefan Šutaj, ed., Národ a  národnosti na Slovensku v transformujúcej sa spoločnosti (Prešov, 2005) p. 225; Plišková, “Rusíni na Slovensku,” p. 130. functional domains of the rusyn language 109 Renaissance Society to a newly registered civic organization, Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishers, and the subsequent establishment by the Rusyn Renaissance Society of a new Rusyn periodical, the monthly InfoRusyn (2004). After funding Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ for fourteen years, the Slovak Ministry of Culture in 2005 refused out- right to finance the latter and began supporting InfoRusyn.31 The min- istry explained its action as being in accord with the principle of sup- porting minimally one periodical publication for each national minor- ity and also as a decision by its special commission on the Rusyn na- tional minority. After its 14-year existence as the first Rusyn-language periodical in the post-1989 revolutionary era at which time it played so influential a role in the national revival, the prospects for Narodnŷ novynkŷ were quite bleak in spite of support from Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia and from abroad—readers, subscribers, writers, editors, and sponsors—all of whom protested the hostile position of the state both in the form of a collective petition and individually.32 American Rusyns even submitted a resolution through diplomatic means.33 Time showed that all of this support and solidarity was significant, because in 2006 Narodnŷ novynkŷ again obtained state subsidies, even if not in the amount requested.34 As noted above, from 2004 a new periodical, InfoRusyn, en- tered into the Rusyn media landscape as the monthly publication of the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Slovakia with its headquarters in Prešov. Although each new periodical in the Rusyn language should have been considered a mark of success of the post-1989 Rusyn revi- talization process, InfoRusyn unexpectedly did something that was in 31 See “Hanebnŷi ‘dar’ k 10 vŷrochu kodifikatsii abo: tendentsiia likvidatsii rusyn’skŷkh vŷdan’ prodovzhuie,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 5-8 (Prešov, 2005), p. 1; Aleksander Zozuliak, “Komplot trekh chleniv KV Rusyn’skoї obrodŷ prodov- zhuie, abo: sobi maksimum, druhŷm minimum, abo nich,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 9-12 (Prešov, 2005), p. 2. 32 Aleksander Zozuliak, “Pys’movŷ proiavŷ pidporŷ,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 13-16 (Prešov, 2005), p. 2. 33 See “Predseda Svitovoho kongresu Rusyniv sia strichat’ z diplomatamy,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 47-52 (Prešov, 2005), pp. 1-2. 34 Aleksander Zozuliak, “S’me nespokiinŷ iz nespravedlyvŷm rozdïlïnëm shtatnŷkh finantsi,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVI, 18-21 (Prešov, 2006), p. 2; Zozuliak, “Pozitivna odpovid’ z Ministerstva kulturŷ SR,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVI, 27-30 (Prešov, 2005), p. 4. 110 language and national identity conflict with the fundamental mission of the Rusyn Renaissance Soci- ety as outlined in its bylaws: that all publications should attempt to re- vive Rusyns by means of the mother tongue. Instead, in certain issues, InfoRusyn published up to 40 percent of its articles in Slovak. Also surprising was that the publication ignored the now normative rules of Rusyn orthography and insisted on using its own internal orthograph- ic norms, even though its publisher, the Rusyn Renaissance Society, had been an initiator of the codification of the Rusyn language before 1995. In effect, the first Carpatho-Rusyn organization in Slovakia, the Rusyn Renaissance Society, began deviating from the goals and prin- ciples of its own revitalization program, formulated in the beginning of the Rusyn revival movement in 1990 in Medzilaborce. It is not by chance that some Rusyn Renaissance Society members from the end of 2005 again began speaking about “the program” and “the leader” of the movement, concepts that are more typical for the beginning stages of national movements.35 In the absence of a solution of these issues, it will be difficult to preserve continuity of the basic goals and principles of the Rusyn Renaissance Society and to expect that it can remain loyal to the dominant principles of Carpathgo-Rusyn national life in Slovakia. Following the 1995 codification, the publication of two ecclesiasti- cal periodicals expanded further the function of the Rusyn language in the media. These publications which still appear are Blahovîstnyk: A Monthly Publication for the Supporters of the Basilians in Slovakia36 and Artos: A Journal of the St. John the Bapist Society.37 Both publish articles mostly of a theological, liturgical, and historical character. Blahovîstnyk uses a non-standard form of Rusyn (in both the Cyrillic and Latin script) and publishes some articles in Slovak; Artos uses standard Rusyn in both graphic systems, but largely in Latin script. The Rusyn-language media world in Slovakia is gradually being broadened by two public broadcast media, Slovak Television and Slo- vak Radio, each of which according to law is obligated to serve citi- 35 Ian Kaliniak, “Rusynam na Sloven’sku khŷbuie program i lider,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 35-41 (Prešov, 2005), p. 3. 36 The newspaper, Blahovîstnyk, was founded in 1946; its publisher is the Mo- nastery of the Descent of the Holy Spirit in Krásny Brod. 37 The quarterly journal, Artos, was founded in 2005 and is published by the St. John the Baptist Society whose editorial office is located in the village of Čabiny. functional domains of the rusyn language 111 zens of Slovakia belonging to national minorities. With regard to the Carpatho-Rusyn national minority, Slovak Radio initially transmitted its “Nationality and Ethnicity Program” on Station 5 (Rádio Patria), which was produced by the main editorial office of Slovak Radio’s Nationality and Ethnic Broadcasting Service in Košice.38 An indepen- dent Rusyn-language broadcast on Slovak Radio began transmission 1 April 2002. Until then, the management of Slovak Radio violated the law39 in failing to respect the results of the population census after 1989 in connection with the Rusyn national minority and not creating the conditions and space specifically for the production of Rusyn-lan- guage programs on an equal footing with broadcasts for other national minorities.40 There was a similar situation with the “Rusyn Nationality Magazine,” a journalism program reporting on the life of the Car- patho-Rusyn national minority for a Rusyn audience and broadcast on public Slovak Television. This program, which followed the example set by Slovak Radio until the end of the 1990s, broadcast only the “Rusyn-Ukrainian Nationality Magazine,” in which the Rusyn lan- guage occupied a peripheral position. The main editorial department of Nationality and Ethnic Broadcast- ing Service at Slovak Television in Košice began in 1999 to heed the relevant legislation, but only after repeated demands by cultural and social organizations and protests by individual Carpatho-Rusyns. As a result, separate programs were established, the “Rusyn National- ity Magazine” and the “Ukrainian Nationality Magazine,” although in practice, with the exception of a short time in 1998, Slovak Radio did 38 The main editorial office of the Nationality and Ethnic Broadcasting Service of Slovak Radio in Košice evolved from the original Ukrainian Studio of Czecho- slovakia Radio, and operated in Prešov until the end of August 2003. 39 Law on Slovak Radio, No. 308/2000 Zb. z. and No. 255/1991 Zb. z., in Ústava SR, ústavný zákon z 9. januára 1991, implemented in accordance with the Listina základných práv a slobôd (Decree on Basic Rights and Freedom). 40 Anna Plishkova, “Kompetentsiia na zminu vnutornoi shtruktyrŷ vŷsŷlania je v rukakh shefredaktora Priashivskoho shtudiia—interviu z tsentralnŷm direk- torom Sloven’skoho rozhlasu v Bratislavi, PhDr. Iaroslavom Reznikom”; and “Profesionalita na pershim misti—interviu z shefredaktorom Hlavnoi redaktsiï narodnostno-etnichnoho vŷsŷlania Sloven’skoho rozhlasu v Priashovi, PhDr. Voitekhom Bachom,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XI, 11-14 (Prešov, 2001), p. 5-6; Anna Plishkova, “Samostatne rusyn’ske vŷsŷlania zas’ na dosiah rukŷ?,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XI, 16-17 (Prešov, 2001), pp. 1-2. 112 language and national identity not change in favor of the Rusyn language until 2002. This delay oc- curred in spite of the existence of the main editorial department of the Nationality and Ethnic Broadcasting Service in Prešov, which accord- ing to Slovak Radio’s own statute was obligated to guarantee a pro- portional representation for all national minorities and their mother tongues on the territory of eastern Slovakia. It should be remembered that the percentage of citizens claiming Rusyn nationality was already at that time higher than those claiming Ukrainian nationality. The central management of Slovak Radio based in Bratislava clear- ly adopted a paradoxical position toward this issue. Despite the re- sults of the population census, as well as protests by Carpatho-Rusyns against the violation of their human and nationality rights by a public institution, Slovak Radio insisted that it was in fact “abiding by all the laws” and had appraised the production of the so-called “Rusyn- Ukrainian” broadcast as “fully in line with the genuine nationality situation.”41 The actual situation, however, was obviously something other than what the radio’s management insisted at that time. When Carpatho-Rusyns agreed to withdraw their demands for a separate Rusyn-language broadcast, the radio’s management made concrete changes and agreed to host a broadcast for Rusyns and Ukrainians beginning 1 September 1998. This broadcast, however, lapsed sev- eral months after the country’s parliamentary elections, and only after new protests did the radio’s management agreed to a new solution: the establishment of an independent Rusyn-language broadcasting team. A definitive resolution, however, came only afterward, when in 2001 the Rusyn Renaissance Society filed an official grievance with Radio Europe in Strasbourg, arguing that Slovak Radio acted in violation of Rusyn nationality rights in Slovakia. The Strasbourg grievance was supported by signed petitions demanding the establishment of sepa- rate Rusyn radio programming. The results of the population census in May 2001, which turned out favorably for the Rusyns, put pressure on the relevant media institu- tions and led to a change in organizational structure which Slovak Ra- dio implemented at the beginning of 2002. The editorial office of the news service in Prešov officially was divided into separate parts; one of them was officially called the “Rusyn broadcasting team.” From 1 September 2003, the headquarters for the Nationality and Ethnic 41 Plishkova, “Kompetentsiia na zminu vnutornoi shtruktyrŷ,” pp. 5-6. functional domains of the rusyn language 113 Broadcasting Service, and thus for the Rusyn broadcasting team, was transferred to Slovak Radio in Košice. Currently, Slovak Radio (Rádio Patria) transmits its Nationality and Ethnic Broadcasting Service in Rusyn on Station 5 for fourteen hours of programming weekly. The program is intended for listeners of all ages. On workdays it concentrates on news and current issues, while on weekends radio journalism and artistic and literary programs domi- nate. Also represented are religious programs for both the Orthodox and Greek Catholic faithful. Besides this, once a month the radio pro- gram broadcasts throughout Slovakia a 30-minute “Rusyn Nationality Magazine,” monitoring Rusyn life and society for the previous month. Even after the formation of an independent Rusyn broadcasting team, the listening public was still not content with the programs. As- sessments of these broadcasts on the part of the Media Council of the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Slovakia revealed that the reason for dissatisfaction was the decision of Slovak Radio’s management to move the editorial office of the Nationality and Ethnic Broadcast- ing Service from Prešov to Košice (2003), as well as the content of the broadcasts themselves. The assessment pointed to the absence of information on the life of the Rusyn minority in all its regions, to the absence of live journalism, and also to the change in broadcast time which according to the most recent broadcast structure (2006) was shifted on weekdays from afternoon to morning. Besides this, the Media Council renewed a demand that the live broadcast for Car- patho-Rusyns occur every weekend instead of every other weekend; it focused on the need for improving the linguistic presentation of moderators and strengthening the group of editors and co-workers in the Rusyn team; and, not least, it demanded the return of the editorial office from Košice to Prešov.42 These demands became the basis for a new citizens’ petition in the interest of improving the broadcast on the part of a committee headed by Fedor Vitso (Vico) and initiated on 15 November 2007.43 On Slovak Television (STV), broadcasts for national minorities and ethnic groups are concentrated on Channel 2. Despite the fact 42 Fedor Vico [Vitso], “Výhrady k  obsahovej náplni rusínskeho vysielania Slovenského rozhlasu,” at http://www.rusynacademy.sk/slovak.sl_rozhlas.html. 43 Ibid., and “Petícia občanov,” at http://www.rusynacademy.sk/slovak.sl_roz- hlas.html. 114 language and national identity that the volume of broadcasting for the national minorities is in gen- eral increasing, the frequency of production of the “Rusyn Nation- ality Magazine” is declining.44 In 2003, Slovak Television aired the broadcast for thirty minutes once a month; in 2005 the program aired once every two months; and in 2006, only once every four months. Furthermore, the Forum Institute for Minority Research in Šamorín, Slovakia, has noted that the volume of broadcasts is actually based on repeated airings of the “Magazine” programs.45 The “Rusyn National- ity Magazine” is prepared largely by external collaborators who often do not possess a sufficiently broad understanding of the nationality is- sue or the priorities of the Carpatho-Rusyn revitalization movement in the context of the minority’s future, or even a mastery of the standard Rusyn language. The last is something that Slovak Television simply ignores. The cultivation of the linguistic culture of standardized Rusyn in general is a problem in both Slovak Radio and Slovak Television, which either have not been able to finance better its employees or perhaps are simply not interested in an improvement in the linguistic competence of its full-time editors and external employees. For these reasons the quality of their linguistic expression is often the focus of critical attention on the part of Rusyn linguists.46 Literature Only in the literary sphere have the Rusyns of Slovakia maintained continuity from the past to the present.47 The appearance of literature 44 L’uba Kol’ová, “Národnostné etnické vysielanie Slovenskej televízie,” in Gábor Lelkes and Károly Tóth, eds., Národnostné a etnické menšiny na Sloven- sku 2006 (Šamorín, 2007), pp. 145-146. 45 Ibid., p. 145. In 2006, Slovak Television prepared four premier “Rusyn Nati- onality Magazines” totalling about 103 minutes, which were broadcast repeatedly in 14 reruns of about 25 minutes each for a total of approximately 6 hours of air time. 46 Aleksander Zozuliak, “Iubiluiuchii vŷznamnŷi rusyn’skŷi lingvista,” Narod- nŷ novynkŷ, XVI, 41-43 (Prešov, 1996), pp. 1-2. 47 Nataliia Dudash, ed., Rusinski/ruski pisnї (Rusyn Poems) (Novi Sad, 1997), pp. 59-68; Anna Plishkova, ed., Muza spid Karpat: zbornyk poeziï Rusyniv na Sloven’sku (Muse Under the Carpathians: A Collection of Rusyn Poetry from Slovakia) (Prešov, 1996), pp. 5-20. functional domains of the rusyn language 115 in Rusyn has a long tradition in spite of the fact that literary efforts were hindered at times by few active writers or by the pressures of assimilation. A particularly difficult situation existed, for example, during the period from the beginning of the twentieth century to the end of World War I, but even then the role of literature as a “national awakener” did not completely fade away. That tradition was then re- vived in the more positive social, political, and cultural conditions of the First Czechoslovak Republic, to which both the Prešov Region and Subcarpathian Rus’ belonged during the interwar years (1919-1938). At that time new opportunities in the development of literature for the Prešov Region Rusyns were created and were realized regardless of linguistic orientation, so that “Carpatho-Russian” [karpatorusskii] meant literature written either in Rusyn, Russian, or Ukrainian. In the 1920s a vernacular-Rusyn orientation was popular in poetry and other literary genres, and then in the 1930s literature in Russian began to thrive and together with literature in the vernacular dominated in the Prešov Region until the decade after World War II. Meanwhile, in Subcarpathian Rus’ during the interwar years literary works in Ukrai- nian emerged, which had an influence on writers also in the Prešov Region. Post-World War II politics created new conditions for cultural de- velopment in which most previous literary works, especially folklore and religious writings, were considered reactionary. Literature in Rus- sian and Ukrainian experienced a qualitative decline succumbing to Soviet-inspired ideological influences and dogmatism. Meanwhile, literature in Rusyn and about Rusyn themes was completely ignored as part of Soviet politics which also affected the Prešov Region. Changes in favor of the Rusyn linguistic orientation in the Prešov Region took place only in the late 1960s, even though the literary production of individual so-called folk authors of the time, published in book form by the Union of Ukrainian Workers in Prešov, fell under the strong influence of Ukrainian and was published in ukrainianized versions. Literature in Rusyn of all genres (poetry, prose, drama), though, ulti- mately survived because of state support after 1989, and this was linked with the beginning of the general revival of Carpatho-Rusyn culture. With the revival came the growth of the possibility of publishing in new Rusyn periodicals (Rusyn, Narodnŷ novynkŷ) and using Rusyn on the radio, and all this thanks to the establishment of publishing houses and civic organizations intent on promoting culture and literature in Rusyn 116 language and national identity (the Rusyn Renaissance Society, World Congress of Rusyns, Society of Rusyn Writers of Slovakia, Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishers). The history of Rusyn literature in the Prešov Region demonstrates that this creative literary work “always had characteristics which sometimes with more and sometimes with less power entered onto the literary scene—depending on the socio-political situation and the potential of individual writers.”48 Rusyn literature arose at a time when all Carpatho-Rusyns lived in one state (the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy). They had no problem identifying themselves as Rusyns; that is, in the eighteenth century, when Aleksander Padal’s’kyi, Ivan Vyslots’kyi, Arsenii Kotsak, and Andrii Val’kovs’kyi were active as writers. In the nineteenth century Rusyn literature was represented by Ivan Ripa, Petro Lodii, Mefodii Andreikovych, Aleksander Labants’, Tereza Podhaiets’ka, Anna Kriger-Dobrian’ska, Mariia Nevyts’ka, Aleksander Duchnovych, Petro Kuzmiak, and Aleksander Pavlov- ych who provided inspiration to the émigré literature of Rusyns in North America, including Emilii Kubek, Stefan Varzaly, and Ivan Ladizhyn’skŷi. The late twentieth century witnessed yet another group of enterprising writers, such as Ivan Zhak, Ivan Novak, An­ drii Tsaptsara, Anna Halgashova, Nykolai Hvozda, Anna Halchakova, Iustyna Matiashovska, Shtefan Smolej, Mariia Pol’tsova, Emil Tsap­ tsara, Anna Vladykova, and Iosyf (Osyf) Kudzei, all of whom wrote in the vernacular. The year 1989 brought with it Rusyn-language writers who before that time wrote in literary Ukrainian, among them Shtefan Sukhŷi, Mariia Mal’tsovska, Iurii Kharytun, Mykolai Kseniak. Positive trends in the development of Rusyn-language literature continued even after the emergence of the independent Slovak Re- public in 1993. Shortly after the codification of Rusyn in 1995 and its introduction into the school system in 1997, the middle and older generations of Rusyns who had published on a regular basis, espe- cially in the quarterly literary supplement of the newspaper Narodnŷ novynkŷ, “Pozdravlinia Rusyniv” (Greetings of the Rusyns), and in the magazine Rusyn, were gradually joined by a younger generation of writers, especially students of Rusyn language in institutions of 48 Vasyl’ Khoma, Rozvytok rusyns’koï poeziï v Slovachchyni vid 20-x do 90-x rokiv XX. Stolittia: Narys istorii z portretamy poetiv (A Bouquet of Rusyn Poetry from Slovakia from the 1920s to 1990s: An Outline of the History with Portraits of the Poets) (Bratislava, 2000), p. 10. functional domains of the rusyn language 117 higher learning. The editors of Narodnŷ novynkŷ, inspired by their initiative, began to publish a quarterly supplement for Rusyn children and young people called Rusalka (since 2000). Besides journalistic works, Rusalka has included poetry and prose by young writers, as well as translations, particularly of contemporary Slovak literature. There is little doubt that contemporary Rusyn literature in Slovakia would be able to boast a much larger number of writers and definitely a higher artistic level if it were not for the conflicting linguistic ori- entations resulting from political influences of neighboring countries. The literary process which was moving forward in the 1920s and later during the period of liberalization in the 1960s was followed by an aggressive political policy which suppressed attempts at the revital- ization of Rusyn ethnicity, culture, and language. Yet Rusyn literature survived despite the difficult situation and stagnation in its develop- ment. It was natural, therefore, that the first so-called “folk” writers of the period after the 1960s—Ivan Zhak in the Spysh Region, Ivan Novak in Makovytsia, Mariia Dufantsova in Prešov, Iurii Kolynchak in Starina, Mykola Horniak in Medzilaborce, and others—all contin- ued in this tradition, some of them even managing to publish separate collections. While not every one of them succeeded in publishing their work in book form, together they planted a seed which blossomed in the postwar period and from the 1960s on. Their poetry was collected and published in compilations such as Zelenyi vinochok—chervoni kvitochky (Little Green Wreath, Little Red Blossoms, 1965)49 and later a volume of poetry and prose, entitled Karpaty pisneiu vcharovani (The Carpathians Charmed by a Song, 1974).50 Other writers mentioned here proceeded from the Rusyn literature of the older generation of writers in the post-war period. In their work, the writers demonstrated a clearer ambition to distinguish themselves artistically among their contemporaries, as well as making noticeable 49 Olena Rudlovchak, ed., Zelenyi vinochok—chervoni kvitochky (Little Green Wreath, Little Red Blossoms) (Prešov, 1965). Poetry by the following writers appeared in this volume: Ivana Kindiu, Ivan Novak, Ivan Zhak, Mykola Toman, Ivan Mel’nyk, Mariia Dufantsova, Iurii Kolynchak, Vasyl’ Iurtyn, Il’ko Bodnar, Andrii Tsaptsara, and Nykolai Hvozda. 50 Myroslav Nemet, ed., Karpaty pisneiu vcharovni (The Carpathians Charmed by Song) (Prešov, 1974). The following poets are represented in this collection: Anna Halchakova, Andrii Tsaptsara, Ivan Zhak, Nykolai Hvozda, Iurii Kolyn- chak, Iustyna Matiashovs‘ka, Il’ko Bodnar, and Mykhailo Slyvka. 118 language and national identity attempts at mastering theories of literary genres resulting from their education and from their interest in literature. From such literary work there was already at least a step toward the Rusyn literature which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s on a professional level.51 Although literature in Ukrainian predominated during this period (1960s- 1970s), literary activity and publishing on the part of those writing in Rusyn intensified in the more liberal political atmosphere of the 1960s. At the same time, though, publishers continued systematical- ly to adapt Rusyn writings to Ukrainian orthography. Of note during this period are the following writers and their collections: Ivan Zhak, Makovyts’ki nuti (Makovytsia Melodies, 1960); Ivan Rodak, Dashto za dashto (Something for Something, 1968), Iustyna Matiashovs’ka, Oriabyns’kyi vinok (Oriabyna Wreath, 1975); Nykolai Hvozda, Makovyts’ki dzvinochky (Little Bells of Makovytsia, 1976); Iurii Kolynchak, Pidvihorlats’ka bystryna (The Mountain Stream below the Vihorlat Range, 1977); Anna Halchakova, Okryleni mriï (Winged Dreams, 1978) and Baladŷ (Ballads, 1984). While already in the 1980s several discontented Rusyn poets, writ- ers, and critics demanded a return to the traditions of the 1960s with its greater freedom of artistic expression, Rusyn-language literature came into its own only at the beginning of the 1990s.52 Czechoslovakia’s “Velvet Revolution” of 1989 signalled the resumption of a plurality of views on literature and tolerance toward the writing in Rusyn. Thanks to the government’s financial support for publication, Rusyn literature began its revival with the appearance of poetry and prose works by sev- eral generations of older writers, including Anna Halgashova, Shtefan Smolei, and Nykolai Hvozda, the first two debuting with their works in Rusyn.53 There were as well new writers who switched from writing in Ukrainian or Russian or Slovak to Rusyn. Most writers considered this a natural transformation in the development of Carpatho-Rusyn culture and the formation of a Rusyn identity, and by 2001 they had established a professional organization, the Society of Rusyn Writ- 51 Khoma, Rozvytok, p. 309. 52 Ibid., p. 368. 53 Anna Halgashova, Struzhnyts’kyma pishnŷkami (Along Struzhnytsia’s Paths), Mykhailo Hyriak, comp. (Prešov, 1993); Shtefan Smolei, He han’b sia, Rusyne! (Rusyn, Don’t Be Ashamed!) (Prešov, 2005); Nykolai Hvozda, Kvitkŷ z moëi zahorodkŷ (Flowers from My Garden) (Prešov, 2002); Nykolai Hvozda, Spovid’ Rusyna (Confession of a Rusyn) (Prešov, 2006). functional domains of the rusyn language 119 ers. Among the leading poets and writers are Shtefan Sukhŷi,54 Iurii Kharytun,55 the prose writer Mariia Mal’tsovs’ka,56 and the short story writer Mykolai Kseniak.57 All are mature writers whose work is on a professional level comparable to that of other world literatures. Their work is often presented at various competitions featuring Rusyn po- etry and prose (“Dukhnovych’s Prešov,” the “Alexander Dukhnovych Festival of Drama and the Artistic Word,” “Heartstrings,” etc.), on the Nationality and Ethnicity Service of Slovak Radio in Košice, on Slo- vak Radio in Bratislava, and to a degree dramatized in the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater in Prešov. Central to the interest of contemporary Rusyn writers are the ordi- nary problems of people, daily life in the villages, issues of national identification, nature, traditions, religious life, and others. Thanks to the use of a language that people can understand, these writers have attracted the sympathy of readers, and thanks to the artistic level of the writing their work has been translated into other languages. A sig- nificant motivation for the production of high quality artistic work in 54 Sukhŷi is the author of six books in Rusyn: the poetry collections Rusyn’skŷi spivnyk (Rusyn Songbook) (Prešov 1994); Endi sidat’ na mashŷnu vichnosty (Andy Takes a Seat on the Train of Eternity) (Prešov, 1995); Aspirin (Aspirin) (Prešov, 2005); a book of poetry along with melodies, Azbukarnia (Alphabet Book in Verse) (Prešov, 2004); a poetry collection for children, Slon na Kŷcharï (An Elephant on Kychera) (Prešov, 2007); and a collection of humorous tales, Iak Rusnakŷ relaksuiut‘ (How Rusyns Relax) (Prešov, 1997). In addition, he has writ- ten many dramatic plays for radio, several plays for the theater, and has translated literary works, especially from Slovak. 55 Iurii Kharytun, Husli z iavora (Maplewood Violins) (Prešov,1995). 56 Mariia Mal’tsovs’ka is the author of prose works in Rusyn: Manna i os- komyna (Heavenly Sweetness and Bitterness) (Prešov, 1994); Pid rusyn’skŷm nebom (Under the Rusyn Sky) (1998); Rusyn’skŷ arabeskŷ (Rusyn Arabesques) (Prešov, 2002); Zelena fatamorgana (Green Fata Morgana) (Uzhhorod, 2007); and a story book for children entitled Prypovidkova luchka (Fairytale Meadow) (Prešov, 1995). Stories from this last collection were produced under the same name in 2000 in audio cassette form with Mal’tsovs’ka as the narrator. 57 Nykolai Kseniak is the author of a prose book in poetry in Rusyn, O kamiun’ skŷkh maistrakh (About the Masters of Kamiunka) (Prešov, 1994); a collection of short stories and skits, Bida Rusyniv z domu vŷhaniala (Need Drove the Rusyns from their Home) (Prešov, 2002); and two books of stories—Vŷbranŷ baikŷ (Se- lected Tales) (Prešov, 2002) and Metamorfozŷ, novŷ baikŷ i perekladŷ (Metamor- phoses: New Tales and Translations) (Prešov, 2006). 120 language and national identity Rusyn is the prestigious Aleksander Dukhnovych Prize for Literature, established by the Steven Chepa Fund at the University of Toronto under the auspices of the Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center in the United States. The fact that already three Rusyn writers from Slova- kia—Mal’tsovs’ka (1999), Sukhŷi (2000), and Kseniak (2003)—have received this honor demonstrates the high quality of local Rusyn ar- tistic creation. Religious Life Comprehension of the present position of Rusyn language usage in the religious domain requires at least a basic knowledge of Сarpatho- Rusyn history. For several centuries, Rusyn culture in the Subcarpath- ian region was characterized by adherence to the Eastern Rite and the Church Slavonic liturgical language of the Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches.58 In actual usage, Church Slavonic was naturally influenced by and mixed with elements of the local Rusyn vernacu- lar, and in this form it was used as the literary language in religious and secular education in the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. During the interwar period, however, Russian was the pre- ferred language in higher education and was also used in the teaching of technical subjects. While such a solution seemed appropriate at the time because it resonated with the traditional spirit of “Rus’-ness” [ruskosti] among the local population, it did not completely satisfy everyone. Nor did it resolve the need for a standard language based on the people’s living speech, but rather postponed a genuine resolution of this problem until several decades later. While the rise of the First Czechoslovak Republic after World War I, which included the incorporation of Subcarpathian Rus’, provid- ed hope for the national life of Carpatho-Rusyns, later events within that state dashed these hopes, especially its dissolution during World War II, the advent of Communism in the late 1940s, the annexation of Subcarpathian Rus’ to Soviet Ukraine in 1945, ukrainianization in the 1950s, and the expansion of the Orthodox Church. The abolition of the Greek Catholic Church between 1950 and 1968 negatively af- fected Rusyn national consciousness, since a few individuals within 58 See VladimíRus de juxta Hornad (Jozafát Timkovič [Iosafat Tymkovych]), Dejiny gréckokatolíkov Podkarpatska (9.-18. storočie) (Kosiče, 2004). functional domains of the rusyn language 121 the church had been strong supporters of the Carpatho-Rusyn national efforts in the past.59 The revival of the Greek Catholic Church in 1968 gave Rusyns some hope, although at the same time it was a disap- pointment because already by that time church leaders were beginning to replace the traditional Church Slavonic liturgical language with Slovak. This happened first in Slovak parishes, and then gradually in villages where the majority of the population spoke Rusyn. Although most Carpatho-Rusyn faithful did not welcome this development, they were helpless in the face of priests who were supported by the church hierarchy. As for pastoral activities such as Bible reading, teaching theology, and administering the sacraments, these soon succumbed to slovakization, since these kinds of activities in particular needed to be undertaken in a language more comprehensible than Church Slavonic. Thus, it is not at all surprising that slovakization proceeded rapidly and that the people’s opposition to it weakened when other factors char- acterizing the general political environment and nationality question are considered. For instance, declaring one’s Rusyn nationality was forbidden; there was no codified form of Rusyn; the policy of forced ukrainianization, along with the slovakization of Rusyn schools con- sequently emasculated Carpatho-Rusyn national consciousness. Yet, in spite of this strong pressure, the Rusyn faithful in the majority of Greek Catholic parishes managed to save at least the Church Slavonic liturgy. Although with some Slovak admixture, the basic Church Sla- vonic liturgy has been preserved in approximately 140 Greek Catholic parishes.60 Efforts to introduce Rusyn into pastoral practice in the Greek Cath- olic Church have been supported thanks in large measure to the work of the Reverend Frantishek Krainiak who for over twenty years (1985- 2006) served in the Greek Catholic parish of Medzilaborce.61 On his initiative already at the beginning of the 1980s, a translation team was formed with theologians and laypeople who began translating the 59 Ibid. See also Paul Robert Magocsi, “Greek Catholic Eparchy of Prešov,” in Paul Robert Magocsi and Ivan Pop, eds., Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture, 2nd revised and expanded ed. (Toronto, 2005), pp. 149-150. 60 Jozafát Timkovič, Rusíni na Slovensku v  cirkevných dokumentoch, Vol. I (Uzhhorod, 2006), pp. 16-17. 61 Paul Robert Magocsi, “Krainiak, Frantishek,” in Magocsi and Pop, Encyclo- pedia, p. 254; and Anna Plishkova, “Sproba rozlozhŷty Rusyniv, abo … ,” Rusyn, IX, 3-4 (Prešov, 1999), pp. 2-3. 122 language and national identity catechism, Bible, and epistles into Rusyn. Since the language had not yet been codified, the team established basic grammatical rules and adopted a principle of employing words from all Rusyn dialectal regions of north- eastern Slovakia, while selecting the dialect of Medzilaborce as its base. The team’s first efforts resulted in the following samizdat publica- tions: Malŷi grekokatolits’kŷi katekhizm pro rusyns’kŷ dity (A Small Greek Catholic Catechism for Rusyn Children, 1982); Apostolŷ (Book of Acts of the Apostles, 1985); and Ievanhelyia na nedili i sviata tsi- loho roku (The Gospels for Sundays and Holidays Throughout the Year, 1989), which those priests supporting pastoral care in the Rusyn language began using immediately.62 All of this met with an extremely positive response from the faithful and served as a motivation for fur- ther translation work.63 Unlike the Rusyn faithful, however, the Greek Catholic Church hi- erarchy initially responded by holding back written permission for the official use of these translations. The bishopric extended the official imprimatur for use of The Book of Acts and the Gospels in Rusyn only in 1997; that is, eleven years after the translations were completed.64 One reason for the postponement might have been fear that if these works were used officially in the liturgy, the Rusyn language would be raised to the level of a liturgical language and that this would open the way for new demands that Rusyn be used in pastoral care, especially in catechetical and liturgical areas. This, in fact, is exactly what hap- pened, and under pressure from priests and the faithful, the Church hierarchy was forced to take some steps.65 Positive changes in the stance of the Greek Catholic Church hier- archy toward pastoral care in the Rusyn language were noted after 1989, when some of the more complex issues of the Rusyns in secular 62 Timkovič, Rusíni na Slovensku, pp. 9-10. 63 With the Church’s approval (imprimatur), these translations gradu- ally appeared in print and served the practical needs of the faithful: Malŷi grekokatolyts’kŷi katekhizm pro rusyns’kŷ dity (A Small Greek Catholic Cathe- cism for Rusyn Children) (1992), Molitvenyk sv. ruzhantsia (Prayerbook of the Holy Rosary) (1992), Ievanheliia i Apostolŷ na nedili i sviata tsiloho roku (Gos- pels and Book of Acts of the Apostles for Sunday and Holy Days for the Entire Year) (1999), Ievanheliie od sviatoho Ioana (The Gospel of St. John) (2003). 64 Timkovič, Rusíni na Slovensku, p. 11. 65 In 1992, the Molitvennyk sv. ruzhanitsia was granted the imprimatur, as was a catechism which had already been introduced unofficially in certain parishes. functional domains of the rusyn language 123 society began to be resolved. This was particularly the case after the codification of standard Rusyn in 1995 and its gradual introduction into various spheres of public life. By 2002, the bishop of the Prešov Greek Catholic Eparchy, Ján Babjak, S.J., declared a willingness to respond to at least some of the Rusyn demands. In 2003 he appointed a vicar for specifically the Rusyn Greek Catholics,66 he established a Rusyn section in the bishop’s liturgical commission, and he agreed to the revival of the Rusyn religious and cultural organization, the St. John the Baptist Society, to promote the Rusyn language in pastoral practice and publications.67 The Society’s members also participate on the translation team which has completed work on a further eight translations.68 These works are subject to a ratification process by the bishop’s liturgical commission and by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches in Rome, a very lengthy process which, according to experts and considering the fate of previous translations, could take no fewer than another ten years. And, according to some Carpatho-Rusyn priests, until the translation of the Gospels is completed and approved, the bishopric has decided to impose definite limitations on the use of Rusyn in pastoral practice. The use of the Gospels in Rusyn has been permitted as an experi- ment only in selected parishes and for a probationary period. And until the ratification of official liturgical texts by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, the bishop of Prešov has forbidden the use of a 66 The post of vicar for Rusyn Greek Catholics was set up instead of the long- demanded appointment of a bishop for the Rusyns. On 24 April 2003 Peter Pavol Hal’ko, OSBM, was named to this post. For a facsimile of the relevant decree, see Timkovič, Rusíni na Slovensku, p. 250. 67 From the last quarter of 2004, the St. John the Baptist Society has been pu- blishing the quarterly newspaper Artos and an annual almanac, the Gréckoka- tolícky rusínsky kalendár (Greek Catholic Rusyn Calendar), in Rusyn. 68 The following have been translated from Church Slavonic to the Rusyn literary language: Malŷi trebnyk (The Small Trebnik); Akafist ku sviashchenom uchitelëvi Pavlovy Petrovy Goidichovy (Akathist to the Blessed Teacher Pavel Peter Goidych); Moleben’ ku sviashchenom uchitelëvy Vasylëvy Hopkovy (Mole- ben for the Blessed Teacher Vasyl’ Hopko); Krestna doroha (Way of the Cross); Molytvennyk: Raduite sia v Hospodi (Prayerbook: Rejoice in the Lord); Vŷbranŷ liturgichŷ chastkŷ (Selected Liturgical Excerpts); Ievanheliie od sv. Lukŷ i sv. Marka (Gospel of St. Luke and St. Mark); Ievanheliie od sv. Matfeia (Gospel of St. Matthew). 124 language and national identity working copy of the Rusyn translation of the Trebnyk (The Book of Needs or The Small Euchologion) and has ordered the administer- ing of the sacraments (baptism, anointing with oil, marriage, and last rites) in Church Slavonic, not Rusyn.69 This last episcopal decree had led the clergy to question the legitimacy of administering the sacra- ments in Rusyn, and the faithful and their clergy, especially from the Circle of Rusyn Greek Catholic Priests of the Prešov Eparchy, have openly protested, demanding from the bishop an immediate repeal of this “anti-missionary decree … [which is] severely damaging the pas- toral and missionary work of Greek Catholic Rusyn priests and the faithful.”70 Subsequently, they demanded the dismissal71 of the vicar for Rusyns who had held his appointment for only half a year and who was accused of ignoring the spiritual needs of Rusyns.72 The Carpatho-Rusyn faithful and clergy from the Circle of Rusyn Greek Catholic Priests perceive the functioning of the Rusyn language in pastoral practice not only as a religious issue, but also as a ques- tion of national survival, and have done so from the very beginning. At the same time, they have pointed to the ease and speed with which Slovak translations were adopted in place of Church Slavonic texts in the Greek Catholic Church after 1968. In accordance with a decision from Vatican II, these Slovak translations needed approval only by the bishop and not the entire Congregation for the Eastern Churches. 69 See the Obežník Gréckokatolíckeho biskupstva v Prešove, č. 4 (November 2003)—facsimile in Timkovič, Rusíni na Slovensku, p. 338. 70 Timkovič, Rusíni na Slovensku, p. 339. 71 Ibid., p. 337; Plïshkova, “Poslïdnia nedïl’na liturgiia o. Frantïshka Krainiaka v Midzhilabirtsiakh,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVI, 27-30 (Prešov, 2006), p. 2. 72 After the Greek Catholic Church in Slovakia underwent a new canonical restructuring at the beginning of 2008, Pope Benedict XVI decided to establish a Greek Catholic Metropolia centered in Prešov. At this point, the post of vicar for Rusyns within the Greek Catholic bishopric in Prešov was liquidated. The new canonical organization ignored the hoped-for post of a bishop and an eparchy spe- cifically for the Carpatho-Rusyn faithful. Dissatisfied signatories of the “Charter of Greek Catholic Faithful, 2007,” responded with a “Public Pronouncement.” See Petro Krainiak, “Nova kanonichna organizatsiia Grekokatolits’koï tser‘kvy v Slovakiï,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVIII, 5-8 (Prešov, 2008), p. 1, and “Verejné vy­ hlásenie signatárov Charty rusínskych gréckokatolíckych veriacich na Slovensku k  novému kánonickému usporiadaniu Gréckokatolíckej cirkvi na Slovensku,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVIII, 5-8 (Prešov, 2008), p. 1. functional domains of the rusyn language 125 The Rusyn faithful and their Rusyn Greek Catholic clerical support- ers have proposed that the same steps be taken in connection with the Rusyn translations. They know full well that a ten-year delay in approving Rusyn translations will lead to further slovakization of the Eastern Rite and thus further de-nationalization of the Rusyns. At the present time, approximately twenty priests in the Prešov Greek Catholic Eparchy use Rusyn translations in their pastoral care, and most of them are members of the Circle of Rusyn Greek Catholic Priests.73 Given the right administrative conditions there could be as many as for- ty. The answer to why so few priests use the translated texts is perhaps that seminary graduates possess a low level of awareness regarding na- tional minorities, and that they were not prepared in the course of their education to undertake pastoral care in nationally-diverse regions or in regions with a dominant Rusyn minority. The Greek Catholic Church hierarchy’s reluctance to allow the use of Rusyn in pastoral care also plays a role since they see this as “harmful secularization”74 for the Greek Catholic Church. In general, the adoption of Rusyn does not look hopeful. Wherever Slovak has been introduced into pastoral practice, it seems already impossible to return to Rusyn. Under these conditions, it is difficult to nurture a Rusyn national consciousness, and in such parishes where the use of Slovak has been established, a much more dynamic assimilation process has been observed. Nevertheless, it must be said that pastoral practice conducted in Rusyn already has a Church-related and social foundation in Slovakia. Its future prospects, however, depend on the tolerance of the Church hierarchy. According to the Circle of Rusyn Greek Catholic priests, dependence on the will of others could be circumvented if a Rusyn Greek Catholic Church sui juris could be established on the territory of Slovakia and that Carpatho-Rusyns be given their own bishop and eparchy. The Circle of Rusyn Greek Catholic priests, in fact, worked out an organizational plan for this structure in 2003 and proposed it to Pope John Paul II,75 stating specifically that this could be initiated with at least the establishment of a vicariate.76 The definitive language preparation of future priests to serve nationally-diverse regions would 73 Plišková, “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku,” pp. 201-202. 74 Timkovič, Rusíni na Slovensku, p. 36. 75 Ibid., pp. 263-270. 76 Ibid., pp. 302-303. 126 language and national identity have a significant place in this process. As for the structure of the proposed eparchy of a Rusyn Greek Catholic Church sui juris, the Circle of Rusyn Greek Catholic priests has pointed to the latest population census (2001) which showed that 35,000 Greek Catholics in Slovakia identify Rusyn as their mother tongue, and that over 50 percent of the population in 103 villages claims Rusyn as its mother tongue. It is precisely in these villages, the priests conclude, that suitable conditions exist for creating a vicari- ate which would be capable of developing pastoral practice in Rusyn in its parishes and training its own priests. In numerical terms, if a Rusyn Greek Catholic Church were to be financially supported ac- cording to the number of parishioners, there could be approximately 500-600 parishioners to one priest, which means the current 35,000 Rusyn Greek Catholics could support up to 50-60 priests. This could contribute significantly to the preservation of Carpatho-Rusyn culture, language, education, and national consciousness in Slovakia, as well as enhancing the Rusyn element within the Church and strengthening the Rusyn Greek Catholic Church sui juris, just as it existed officially and was recognized by Roman Catholic popes in the past, or at least until 1963.77 In the training of future Greek Catholic priests capable of accepting and dealing with the national and linguistic identity of their Carpatho- Rusyn parishioners, Rusyn language study should not only be a re- quired subject at the Greek Catholic Theological Faculty in Prešov, but also instructors should be appointed to the seminary with the respon- sibility for shaping future priests specifically for Rusyn parishes and nationally-mixed parishes where there is a majority of Rusyn speak- ers. Seminarians of Carpatho-Rusyn background have demanded the use of theological books in Rusyn at least since 1997,78 as well as the study of Rusyn from 1999. The Department of Rusyn Language and Culture within Prešov University’s Institute of Nationality Studies and Foreign Languages is the only venue for the study of Rusyn language and literature, and despite the fact that Bishop Babjak approved in writing an offer from the Institute to train students in intensive Rusyn as part of their theological studies, the plan has yet to be realized up 77 Ibid., p. 264. 78 Ibid., p. 8, with a facsimile of the Rusyn theologians’ demand. functional domains of the rusyn language 127 to the present time.79 The other Eastern-rite church in Slovakia is that of the Orthodox, and its parishioners are also largely Carpatho-Rusyn. In accordance with its historical roots, the Orthodox Church to the present has re- tained the use of Church Slavonic in its liturgy, as well as in the ad- ministration of the sacraments. The only exception is the Eparchy of Michalovce where Slovak is used. Some Orthodox are of the opinion that implementing Rusyn in church life and pastoral practice is a po- litical act. Past history shows that Slovakia’s Orthodox Church was once connected with the Ukrainian orientation. The church’s present position with regard to the Rusyn national minority is not entirely clear and is complicated by the fact that in its teaching of theology and in its publications it prefers to use Slovak. Despite this, several of its Carpatho-Rusyn priests, especially in their sermons, take into consideration the language of their parishioners and use their native language along with Church Slavonic. The fact remains, however, that representatives of the Orthodox Church have never officially intro- duced Rusyn into the pastoral care of their Rusyn parishioners to the degree that some Greek Catholic priests have. On the basis of this history, it is possible that if the Orthodox Church in Slovakia does not take the logical step and adopt Rusyn in its pastoral and liturgical practice for the majority of its faithful who are Rusyns, its use of the moribund Church Slavonic language—al- ready poorly understood by the faithful, especially among the young generation—may not continue for long. Sooner or later Slovak will be used in pastoral care just as it is already used in Orthodox church publications. In spite of the fact that the Orthodox Church in its past was linked with the Ukrainophile orientation, future pastoral practice among Rusyns and Slovaks will certainly not be carried on in Ukrai- nian. In conclusion, Carpatho-Rusyns have called on the highest rep- resentatives of their Eastern-rite churches, subsidized by the Slovak government (which officially recognizes the Rusyn national minority and its mother tongue), to begin to accept the latest developments in 79 The response of the bishop of the Prešov Eparchy, Ján Babjak, was addres- sed to Dr. Jarmila Bernasovská, head of Prešov University’s Institute for Natio- nality Studies and Foreign Languages, dated 30 January 2004. Archív: Institute of Nationality Studies and Foreign Languages at Prešov University. 128 language and national identity terms of the national identity claimed by most of their believers. And together with their theological faculties, the two Churches should be- gin to think rationally not only about their own future as institutions, but also about the future of Carpatho-Rusyns who for centuries they have been called to serve. After all, the denationalization of the Rusyn population will lead also to national and spiritual apathy. Education The Rusyn language was introduced into the public school system during the academic year 1997-1998, when it began to be taught in the first grade in several elementary schools in the Prešov Region of north- eastern Slovakia. Until then there was no form of Rusyn-language instruction for pupils. The Rusyn system of schools (with instruction in Russian) collapsed in 1953, not through any fault of the Rusyns themselves, but as a result of the policy of forced ukrainianization implemented by the Communist government of Czechoslovakia. At that time, Ukrainian schools replaced traditional “Russian” schools, and the number of these schools was gradually reduced significantly. According to Ivan Vanat, while during the academic year 1966-1967 there were 58 Ukrainian schools with 5154 pupils, in the academic year 1985-1986 there were 19 schools with 1343 pupils, and in 1996- 1997, there were only 10 schools with 700 pupils.80 The reason for such a sharp decline in the number of Ukrainian schools was because the majority of Carpatho-Rusyns had rejected the Ukrainian language as their mother tongue and gradually turned to schools in which the language of instruction was Slovak. Forbidden to declare a Rusyn national identity, a large segment of the Carpatho- Rusyns preferred to adopt a Slovak national orientation. In an attempt to stop the slovakization of Carpatho-Rusyns in the Prešov Region, the Rusyn revival movement in the former Czechoslovakia after 1989 defined as its priority goal the revival of Rusyn national schools be- cause only in this could activists find a guarantee for the preservation and development of the group’s national and linguistic identity.81 80 Ivan Vanat, Mykhailo Rychalka, and Andrii Chuma, “Do pytan’ pisliavoien- noho rozvytku, suchasnoho stanu ta perspektyv ukraïns’koho shkil’nyts’tva v Slovachchyni,” Nove zhyttia, No. 40 (Prešov, 1992), p. 13. 81 Paul Robert Magocsi, The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey (New functional domains of the rusyn language 129 Since 1989, representatives of the Rusyn movement in Slovakia have succeeded in taking some basic steps which have again provided Rusyn children with the opportunity to study their mother tongue in school. From the beginning of its existence in 1990, the Rusyn Renais- sance Society has demanded that Rusyn, as the mother tongue, and not Ukrainian, be used in preschools and in the first through fourth grades. In an attempt to resolve this important issue, Rusyn activists initially spoke of a coordinated effort with the pro-Ukrainian organization, the Cultural Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians because in the higher classes of the elementary schools at that time a transition to the study of Ukrai- nian or Russian was being considered.82 But the initial proposals were modified as the Rusyn movement in Slovakia and in the pan-European context gained momentum and demanded recognition of Carpatho- Rusyns as a distinct nationality, as well as the creation of a Rusyn literary language. The 1995 codification of Rusyn in Slovakia became the fundamental precondition finally making possible the implementa- tion of that language in the educational system of Slovakia. The introduction of the Rusyn literary language into the school sys- tem was preceded by the appearance of two basic documents: (1) “Proposal for Teaching Rusyn as the First Language in El- ementary Schools” (1996), written by Dr. Vasyl’ Iabur and au- thorized by the State Pedagogical Institute in Bratislava (with a branch in Prešov); and (2) “Proposal for Educating Children of Citizens of the Slovak Republic of Rusyn Nationality” (1996) authorized by the Slovak Ministry of Education. Other related significant documents emerged, linked with and shaped by various needs within the educational process and approved by the Slovak Ministry of Education. For Rusyn these included the following: a language curriculum for grades 1-4 (1997); a language and literature curriculum for grades 5-9 (2000); a language and litera- ture curriculum for the first year of the four-year gymnasium and an alternative Rusyn language curriculum for gymnasium studies (2001); a language and literature curriculum for instruction in Rusyn along York, 1993), pp. 119-123. 82 See “Stanovisko k národnostnému školstvu” (sent by the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Medzilaborce to the government of the Slovak Republic, 15.8.1990), Archív ROS. 130 language and national identity with the teaching of the Rusyn language (2002, 2004); the “Content for and Process of Teaching Rusyn Culture in Rusyn” for students in elementary and secondary schools along with teaching the Rusyn language (2003); a language and literature curriculum for middle level pedagogical school with instruction in Rusyn along with the teaching of Rusyn (2006). Both of the major proposals in the documents noted above were significant principally in introducing the Rusyn language into the Slo- vak school system, but the most important was the first: the “Proposal for Teaching Rusyn as the First Language in Elementary Schools.” Af- ter forty years of totalitarian rule, this signaled the first time that Car- patho-Rusyns themselves could freely formulate a fundamental pro- gram of study of their mother tongue in elementary schools. Moreover, this proposal specified the essentials for mastery of the Rusyn language, the principles, aims, and content of study, the stages in the process of lan- guage mastery, and the number of lessons required for this purpose. The major thrust of this proposal lay “in the orientation of the content of study on communicative and practical goals with the result of this education be- ing the mastery of the Rusyn language for active communication.”83 Such an approach implies that “the goal of education is not knowledge per se, but action on the basis of acquired knowledge.”84 The proposal for Rusyn language study was based on the commu- nicative method, the most popular method in the study of languages at the present time, rather than the usual analytic-synthetic or heuristic method for the study of first languages. This means that the academic fundamentals for instruction must agree conceptually with the com- municative principle and be appropriate for the age of the students. Thus, in grades 1-4, the inductive approach and oral expression are favored over writing, and in grades 5-9, the inductive and deduc- tive approaches and oral and written expression are to be employed about equally. Based on principles of the communicative method of language instruction, Iabur’s proposal for teaching Rusyn does not separate the study of grammar, reading, and writing, from speaking in the language. The main goal in the study of Rusyn in elementary school is precisely to have the pupils master the literary form of their 83 Vasil’ Jabur, Koncepcia vyučovania rusínskeho jazyka ako materinského na základných školách s vyučovaním rusínskeho jazyka (Prešov, 1996), p. 3. 84 Ibid. functional domains of the rusyn language 131 native language while they develop conversational skills. This main goal should then spawn secondary goals which students should reach not just at certain grade levels, but in general in terms of individual communicative skills, such as listening comprehension, conversation, reading, and writing. The content of Rusyn language study in elementary school is first and foremost the systematic practice of active and passive commu- nicative activities in oral and written form and the formation of lan- guage habits on the basis of mastered linguistic skills—pronunciation, orthography, lexicon, grammar, and stylistics. In agreement with the specifications of the training in conversational activity, the proposal for Rusyn language study at the first level is divided into three stages: (1) the purely oral stage (first grade and the beginning of second grade), with the development of oral speech; (2) the writing stage (second grade and beginning of third grade), with the goal of developing initial skills connected with reading and writing, along with a further growth of the oral speech acquired in the first stage; and (3) the post-writing stage (third and fourth grades), in which the development of language skills (pronunciation, lexicon, grammar), as well as the ability for coherent speech (monologues and dialogues, oral and written) are realized. As for the number of class hours to be devoted to the Rusyn language, the report suggested that teaching might be pursued: for two hours in first grade and for three hours from second through ninth grades weekly; or for two hours weekly begin- ning only in the second grade. In actual practice from the very beginning, the second variant (two hours weekly from the second grade) has been used in order to avoid overwork for the youngest children and any psychological barrier that might arise in the challenge of learning both the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets at the same time in the first grade. The existence of two al- phabets is one of the specific features in the study of Rusyn. Another factor is the application of a comparative Slovak-Rusyn perspective. Customarily, children master another language from the viewpoint of their first language, and thus that first language must be taken into consideration. In the teaching of Rusyn this process is somewhat spe- cial because the children are so strongly influenced by Slovak simul- taneously, something which has both a positive and negative impact on their study of the literary form of their first language. The fact that 132 language and national identity from the beginning children must master Rusyn from the perspective of Slovak is paradoxical, but this is the actual situation and must be respected. In the course of teaching the language, instructors need to look for both the positive and negative influences of Slovak (trans- position and interference). Thus, Rusyn-language teachers must meet the highest professional criteria. They must have a clear grasp of the points of contact between Slovak and Rusyn and must use them pro- ductively in practice. They may vary the amount of Slovak they use in teaching Rusyn, but, as Dr. Iabur says, the use of Slovak “need not be too often, better as rarely as possible, and carefully.”85 The “Proposal for Teaching Rusyn as the First Language in Ele- mentary Schools” has laid the foundation for teaching Rusyn in Slo- vak schools. Its application should help not only preserve and nurture Rusyn national identity and culture, but also lead to what, in the words of Vasyl’ Iabur, will be the preservation and development of the ancestral language, the use of which in its literary form in schools will make possible the eventual ex- pansion of the functions of Rusyn and the renewal and eventual expan- sion of spoken Rusyn into various spheres of community life, stimulate a natural yearning to return to what is a more frequent use of the Rusyn mother tongue in daily, especially family, life, a yearning to return to Rusyn family traditions which contribute to the revival of language, and to the creation of examples of cultural, educated communication by means of an increasingly refined normative literary language. In appro- priate circumstances this process could halt the gradual dying away of the basic source for the literary language—the natural, lively Rusyn dialects, the pure, noble, intact living speech.86 The formulation and implementation of this first proposal was one of the fundamental goals of the entire Carpatho-Rusyn revival move- ment after 1989 which placed its greatest hopes for the success of the national identity process on the teaching of the Rusyn language as the mother tongue at all levels of the educational system. This hope con- tinues despite the proposed rather “humble” position of Rusyn in the schools not as a language of instruction for most subjects subjects, but only as one subject of study and, moreover, only for elementary and middle schools where otherwise the language of instruction is Slovak. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. functional domains of the rusyn language 133 The introduction of Rusyn into the school system after 1989 has been regulated by the second document—the “Proposal for Educat- ing Children of Citizens of the Slovak Republic of Rusyn National- ity,” which drew its guidelines from the basic principles of alternative education and the Slovak Republic’s legal requirement for pupils to receive education in their mother tongue.87 This proposal states that Rusyn should be introduced into the educational system from nursery school and kindergarten as the language of instruction, but that the parents must request that this be done. The preconditions for imple- menting the use of Rusyn at this educational level have existed and ex- ist, because in many villages with a majority of Rusyn speakers Rusyn is used along with Slovak as a language of instruction. Officially in Slovakia up to today, however, there is only one nursery school/kin- dergarten with Rusyn as the language of instruction, and that is in Čabiny in the Medzilaborce district. Blame for the fact that this second proposal has not been imple- mented can be assigned both to the parents and the institutions in question, neither of which have paid sufficient attention to the issue or considered the importance of establishing new kindergartens or trans- forming existing ones that can teach children in Rusyn. As a result of this, Rusyn children at the present just as before 1989 attend nursery schools and kindergartens in which the official language of instruction is Slovak or even Ukrainian, although even before 1989 Ukrainian was the language of instruction in only one nursery school, and this was in the city of Prešov. In villages where Carpatho-Rusyhns are in the ma- jority, village councils, which are responsible for establishing nursery schools and kindergartens, should take up this issue. How the issue is handled at the grassroots level clearly affects the status of teacher training for nursery school and kindergarten instructors, and the ap- plication of this second proposal ultimately rests on the preparation The “Proposal for Educating Children of Citizens of the Slovak Republic of 87 Rusyn Nationality” was ratified by the Slovak Ministry of Education in August 1996. It proceeded from the enforcement of the right of national minorities to acquire education in their mother tongue based on the Constitution of the Slo- vak Republic, čl. 34, odst. 2 písm. a), law č. 29/1984 Zb., about the structure of primary and secondary schools (the education law) in a version of later changes and additions (complete version 350/1994) Zb. z.) §3, reflecting the “Framework Convention of the European Council for the Protection of Minorities” (1997) which the National Council of the Slovak Republic ratified in 1998. 134 language and national identity of teachers at one of the pedagogical schools in the Prešov Region. In 2006 the Slovak Ministry of Education ratified the “Curriculum for Rusyn Language and Literature for Secondary Pedagogical Schools with Instruction in Rusyn and the Teaching of Rusyn,” but thus far this aspect of the plan has not moved forward. Where the “Proposal for Educating Children of Citizens of the Slovak Republic of Rusyn Nationality” has been realized up to now most consistently is in the elementary schools. The proposal recommends creating classes with the teaching of Rusyn conducted in Rusyn and the instruction in other subjects in Slovak in accordance with both of the above-mentioned proposed plans. Before Rusyn language instruction was introduced into the Slo- vak school system, two surveys were conducted to gauge the interest among parents. The first survey, conducted in 1994 by representatives of the Rusyn Renaissance Society, sought to determine whether par- ents were interested in having the Rusyn language and culture taught from the second grade. At that time, interest was expressed in three districts and covered 251 second-graders. The second and more de- tailed survey was conducted at the beginning of 1996 by the school boards of eastern Slovakia precisely where, according to the most re- cent population census (1991), the greatest concentration of Carpatho- Rusyns resided, that is, in the regions of Bardejov, Humenné, Svidník, Prešov, Stará Ľubovňa, and Vranov nad Topl’ou. The 1996 survey was divided into two parts: the first part sought to ascertain the interest of parents in registering pupils for first grade where they could already have the possibility of beginning a study of the Rusyn language; the second part sought to ascertain the interest of parents with school- age children for Rusyn-language instruction from the second through eighth grades. The survey’s results are summarized in Table 1 which shows the total number of schools polled in each district, and of those how many were village schools, and finally how many pupils there were whose parents were interested in having Rusyn taught at the vari- ous grade levels: functional domains of the rusyn language 135 TABLE 1: Interest of parents in having their children study Rusyn, 1996 Districts Total Schools Number of number of located in pupils to primary villages study Rusyn schools Svidník District Grade 1 8 4 19 Grades 2-4 7 9 49 Grades 5-8 8 6 48 Total 15 12 116 Stará Ľubovňa District Grade 1 7 5 27 Grades 2-4 10 8 67 Grades 5-8 10 8 50 Total 12 10 144 Humenné District Grade 1 6 5 10 Grades 2-4 24 15 129 Grades 5-8 13 8 153 Total 25 20 292 Bardejov District Grade 1 0 0 0 Grades 2-4 2 2 5 Grades 5-8 2 2 12 Total 4 4 17 Vranov nad Topl’ou District Grade 1 1 1 2 Grades 2-4 1 1 3 Grades 5-8 1 1 9 Total 1 1 13 136 language and national identity Prešov District Grade 1 0 0 0 Grades 2-4 0 0 0 Grades 5-8 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 Final Total 57 47 582 The 1996 survey results demonstrated that among the 57 elemen- tary schools polled throughout the 47 villages in these districts, there was interest in Rusyn language instruction on the part of parents of 582 pupils. These numbers demonstrated that close cooperation be- tween the Slovak Ministry of Education and the local school boards would be crucial in order to find a way to realize the introduction of Rusyn-language teaching. Thus, on 12 June 1996, a working confer- ence was held in Bardejov to discuss the organizational and pedagogi- cal issues linked with the introduction of Rusyn language and litera- ture into elementary schools. Because interest of pupils in the villages and schools was uneven, the following criteria were established: (1) to introduce Rusyn language and literature only at the first stage of elementary school (grades 1-4), especially since the edu- cation offices had textbooks prepared only for this level88; (2) to establish one class within the framework of a single grade or an integrated class consisting of pupils from grades 1-4 with a minimum of six pupils; and (3) to organize a professional seminar on methodology for teach- ers interested in teaching Rusyn language and literature at the end of August or the beginning of September 1996. On the basis of these criteria and the survey results, as well as docu- ments from the elementary schools, it would have been possible in the school year 1997-1998 to begin Rusyn language and literature instruc- 88 The following textbooks were published in 1994 by the Rusyn Renaissance Society in Prešov: Bukvar’ rusyn’skoho iazŷka pro 2. klasu osnovnŷkh shkol (by Ian Hryb); Chitanka v rusyn’skim iazŷku pro 2. klasu osnovnŷkh shkol (Ian Hryb); Pravyla rusyn’skoho pravopysu (Vasyl’ Iabur); Orfografichnŷi slovnyk rusyn’skoho iazŷka (Iurii Pan’ko et al.); and Slovnyk lingvistichnŷkh terminiv (Iu- rii Pan’ko). functional domains of the rusyn language 137 tion at 12 elementary schools in five districts of northeastern Slovakia as indicated in Table 2: TABLE 2: Schools where Rusyn could potentially be taught, 1996 Humenné Medzilaborce Svidník Stará Vranov n. District District District Ľubovňa Topľou District District School in Schools on Schools on Schools on School in the village of Komenský and May 8th and Komenský, village of Zboj Duchnovič Komenský Levočská, Ruská Poruba streets in streets in and Štúr Medzilaborce Svidník streets Schools Schools in in the vil- the villages lages of of Šarišské Ladomírová Dravce and and Havaj Čirč The practical implementation of Rusyn language and literature teaching was, in reality, not as successful as the surveys from 1996 had suggested it might be. Language instruction in 1997-1998 began not in twelve, but only in four elementary schools, specifically in the towns of Medzilaborce and Svidník, where the community educa- tion work of Rusyn Renaissance Society was most effective.89 The involvement of the society’s individual members has been decisive in implementing the teaching of Rusyn language in an additional six elementary schools and at one gymnasium (in Medzilaborce), as well as at an institution of higher learning, the Institute of National Minor- ity Studies and Foreign Languages of Prešov University and within it, the Department of Rusyn Language and Culture (1999). Thanks to the efforts and achievements of all these parties, during the academic year 2004-2005, Rusyn language and literature was taught as an op- In Medzilaborce the teaching of Rusyn began at the elementary schools on 89 Komenský and Duchnovič streets; in Svidník at the St. Juraj primary school (pa- rochial) on Cirkevná Street and at primary school #2 on Army General L. Svo- boda Street. 138 language and national identity tional subject in nine elementary schools and in one gymnasium, as a required subject in one elementary school (in Šarisšký Štiavnik), and was as a major area of study at Prešov University. As Shtefan Sukhŷi reported in a survey commissioned by the Methodological and Pedagogical Center in Prešov, there were in 2003 altogether “approxi- mately half a thousand [students]” studying Rusyn.90 Table 3 indicates the districts in which the Rusyn language or both the language and literature were taught, the level of the educational institution, and the name or village location of the schools: TABLE 3: Schools with classes in Rusyn, 2004-2005 Medzilaborce Snina Dis- Svidník Stropkov Prešov District trict District District District Primary Primary Primary Primary University schools on schools on schools in school in the in Prešov Duchnovič May 1st Svidník village of and Komen- Street in (Saint Juraj) Kolbovce ský streets in Snina and in and School Medzilaborce the villages #2 in the and in the of Pčoliné village of village of and Stakčín Šarišský Radvaň nad Štiavnik Laborcom. Gymnasium in Medzilaborce It appears that at the present time there is a period of stagnation in the growth of schools with Rusyn-language instruction or, at worst, a reduction in the number of elementary schools offering the lan- guage. In 2006-2007, there were only eight elementary schools offer- ing Rusyn, and this indicates a significant decrease in the number of pupils studying Rusyn whether on a voluntary basis in class or in an outside interest group. This situation is extremely risky with regard Štefan Suchý [Shtefan Sukhŷi], Stav učebného predmetu rusínsky jazyk a lit- 90 eratúra v školách s vyučovaním rusínskeho jazyka k termínu 31.12.2003, Archív MPC (Prešov, 2003). functional domains of the rusyn language 139 to maintaining even the current count of pupils. Most recently, the teaching of Rusyn ceased at the elementary school located on the First of May Street in Snina and at School #2 in Svidník for technical reasons (the closing of the schools or a reduction in the number of teachers for economic reasons), as well as in one high school—the gymnasium in Medzilaborce—where the problem was allegedly the lack of a qualified teacher. In the academic year 2007-2008, how- ever, the Medzilaborce gymnasium resumed its teaching of Rusyn in the form of an interest group, or Circle of Rusyn Culture,91 whose Internet page notes that among the subjects of study it has begun to introduce, alongside Rusyn language, is one on Rusyn folk tradi- tions. 92 Table 4 describes the status of Rusyn-language teaching in 2006- 2007, providing the name and/or location of the elementary schools, the name of the instructors, the number of pupils, whether or not in- struction is required, or if instruction takes place in the context of an interest group. A comparison of these statistics with the survey by the Methodological and Pedagogical Center in Prešov from 2003 reveals a marked decline, by at least 50 percent, in the number of pupils study- ing Rusyn during the 2006-2007 school year. This situation raises many questions not only about the future of nationality schools for Rusyns in Slovakia, but also about the prospects of the preservation of Carpatho-Rusyns as a national minority. A solution to this dilemma might be sought in the cooperation of the Slovak Ministry of Educa- tion with Carpatho-Rusyn civic organizations of which there are pres- ently fifteen registered in Slovakia. Judging from the projects formu- lated by these organizations and their submissions to the grant system of the Slovak Ministry of Culture, it appears that there is little if any grasp how crucial Rusyn language instruction is for preserving and promoting group identity.93 For a long time these organizations have preferred to request funds for folklore activities which, as the above statistics prove, have had an insignificant impact on the process of 91 The Circle of Rusyn Culture in the Medzilaborce high school, presently at- tended by twelve students, is led by teacher Anna Onakhilova. See the website: http://gymlab.edupage.org/kruzky/? 92 See the website: http://gymlab.edupage.org/about/?subpage=5&. 93 See the website: http://registerkultury.gov.sk/granty2007/statistiky_verejne. php. 140 language and national identity TABLE 4: Elementary Schools with classes in Rusyn, 2006-2007 School Teacher Number Type of of Pupils Instruction Stakčín Kamilia Level 1: 6 Not required Hudáková Level 2: 8 Not required Radvaň nad Marek Gaj Level 1: 20 Not required Laborcom Level 2: 18 Interest group Pčoliné Vlasta Level 1: 8 Interest group Morochovičová Kolbovce Helena Antošová Level 2: 15 Not required Svidník (Saint Miloš Stronček Level 1: 10 Not required Juraj) Medzilaborce Anna Mihaľovová Level 1: 9 Not required (Duchnovič Street) Medzilaborce Iveta Level 1: 33 Not required (Komenský Melničaková Street) Level 2: 13 Not required Šarišský Mária Baková Level 1: 23 Required Štiavnik Monika Sakarová Level 2: 35 Interest group TOTALS 8 9 198 Rusyn national consciousness. A group of Greek Catholic clergy have seen one opportunity for the education of a nationally-conscious generation in the revival of a Rusyn Greek Catholic Church sui juris. For that reason, priests played a major role in the establishment of the first elementary school (along with a nursery school) in Slovakia in which Rusyn is the language of instruction and not simply one subject of study. The school opened in functional domains of the rusyn language 141 September 2008 in the town of Čabiny in the Medzilaborce district.94 Like these clergy, we are also aware that without the existence of a functioning Rusyn-language educational system, the national revival cannot be successful. The most frequent problem in connection with the teaching of Rusyn language and literature in Slovakia from the very beginning has been the small number of qualified teachers. The first graduates of Prešov University certified to teach Rusyn began their teaching careers only in 2003-2004. These were graduates who had completed their study as elementary school instructors for grades 1-4 in the Pedagogical Fac- ulty of Prešov University. This program of study was offered at the university from the academic year 1999-2000 to 2006-2007 when the last student completed her studies with the state board examination. At that same time, in 2006-2007, Prešov University initiated a bachelor’s degree in a newly accredited program combining the study of Rusyn language and literature with twelve other disciplines within the framework of a specialization called the Teaching of Academic Subjects.95 It is anticipated that even under favorable conditions, the first teachers qualified to teach Rusyn language and literature on the second level of elementary education (grades 5-8) and in high schools (gymnasia) will be prepared only by the academic year 2011-2012. 94 The school was named after the well-known Čabiny native, Anatolii Kra- lyts’kyi, a Greek Catholic priest in the Basilian Order, as well as a teacher, wri- ter, ethnographer, and student and follower of the nineteenth-century “national awakener,” Aleksander Dukhnovych. The celebratory opening of the school took place on 2 September 2008, with the participation of Carpatho-Rusyn clergy from the St. John the Baptist Society and members of the Čabiny village government, as well as representatives of the World Congress of Rusyns and Canadian-Rusyn philanthropist Steven Chepa. For a photograph and more detail about this event, see Aleksander Zozuliak, “Chekaly s’me na to 55 rokiv,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVIII, 33-36 (Prešov, 2008), pp. 1-2. 95 At Prešov University it is now possible to study for a Bachelor’s Degree (ŠP) in Rusyn language and literature in combination with either Russian language and literature, German language and literature, or history toward an inter-depart- mental degree within the Philosophical Faculty; with either English language and literature, biology, geography, music, or arts toward an inter-departmental degree within the Faculty of Human and Natural Sciences; with physical education to- ward an inter-departmental degree within the Faculty of Sports; and with religi- ous studies toward an interdepartmental degree within the Greek Catholic or the Orthodox theological faculties. 142 language and national identity At that time current students with bachelor degrees will complete the master’s degree program under a plan authorized at the beginning of 2008 by the Institute of Regional and Nationality Studies of Prešov University and which the university has proposed for accreditation. In response to the lack of qualified instructors, courses in Rusyn language and literature have been organized during the summer break for teachers in elementary schools and gymnasia largely by the State Pedagogical Institute in Bratislava and the Methodological and Peda- gogical Center in Prešov. Perhaps even better would be for Rusyn- language teachers to enhance their present qualifications as external students at Prešov University and thus work toward a Bachelor’s or later a Master’s degree in Rusyn language and literature. It is clear that in comparison with other subjects in the humanities, the Rusyn language occupies only a peripheral position in Slovakia’s education system. For the survival of this minority language it is cru- cial that Rusyn be made a required, not optional, subject in schools in villages where minimally 20 percent of the population identifies as Rusyn. This goal can be reached, however, only with resolute and sys- tematic cultural and educational activity undertaken among the parents of pupils on the part of Carpatho-Rusyn community organizations. This is because it is only parents who can initiate such classes in Rusyn (re- quired or optional) as spelled out in the 1996 “Proposal for Educating Children of Citizens of the Slovak Republic of Rusyn Nationality.” For various reasons, however, it is parents who are standing in the way of their childrens’ study of foreign languages. A possible reason for this is the absence of a tradition of teaching Rusyn which is the result of politi- cal policies during four decades of totalitarian Communist rule which forbade the recognition of Carpatho-Rusyns as a distinct nationality and their mother tongue as a distinct language. Assimilation with Slovaks during this same period achieved such great proportions that it is pos- sible that even a united effort on the part of all fifteen of Slovakia’s Rusyn civic organizations will not be able to halt this process. Perhaps it is possible that an increase in the number of peole iden- tifyhing their nationality as Rusyn, especially among those whose mother tongue is Rusyn, can be a hope and motivation for Rusyns to preserve their identity and language. This is possible, however, only with the cooperation and support of the Slovak government.96 A fun- 96 On 26 October 2006, the Council for National Minority Education was es- functional domains of the rusyn language 143 damental change in the area of education is needed, and this can come only with a change in thinking on the part of the leaders of Carpatho- Rusyn organizations. Leaders who do not understand or recognize the present unfavorable situation or who do not contribute to changing it should be replaced with leaders who do. If this could happen, then the question would no longer arise, as it did in the Rusyn press in 2005, about who should be a “leader” of the Carpatho-Rusyn movement and what the “program” for that movement should be. What is relevant for the future of Carpatho-Rusyns are first and foremost the results of res- olute decisions and their positive implications in the area of education. The introduction of Rusyn language and literature into Slovakia’s school system ten years ago resulted from the urgent necessity to halt the process of denationalization, as well as a response to the request for the teaching of these subjects on the part of parents. The future of Carpatho-Rusyns as a national minority in large measure now depends on the level and effectiveness of the cultural and educational activities of Rusyn civic organizations which from 2004 have been operating exclusively on a voluntary basis. This is because the Carpatho-Rusyns in Slovakia do not have elsewhere a “mother country” to help finance items in the annual expenditures for Rusyn culture which the Slovak Ministry of Culture will not subsidize.97 The most important of these items is the hiring of professional workers whose major responsibility would be the development of Carpatho-Rusyn culture, and who could apply their skills consistently and effectively in the sphere of educa- tion. It is already evident today that such a simplified approach to Car- patho-Rusyn minority culture on the part of the Ministry of Culture tablished in the Slovak Ministry of Education as a consultative organ for the pro­ mulgation of legislation in the area of regional or minority education as announced in the Programmatic Declaration of the Government of the Slovak Republic of 2006-2007. Marek Gai, a teacher of Rusyn in the elementary school in Radvaň nad Laborcom, and Vladymir Tarkha, director of the Medzilaborce gymnasium, became members of this organ on behalf of schools teaching Rusyn. For more details, see Anna Plishkova, “Rykhtuie sia Kontseptsiia osvity narodnostnŷkh menshyn v SR,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVII, 1-4 (Prešov, 2007), p. 3. For a full list of the members on the Council for National Minority Education, see http:///www. minedu.sk/index.php?lang=&rootld=228. 97 See Výnos Ministerstva kultúry Slovenskej republiky of 29. apríla 2004 č. MK-480/2004-1 regarding the offer of support to aid the work of the Slovak Mi- nistry of Culture, at www.culture.gov.sk. 144 language and national identity is crippling the realization of the “Proposal for Educating Children of Citizens of the Slovak Republic of Rusyn Nationality.” It is absolutely essential that individual ministries work together in a cooperative and systematic way in order to secure the rights of national minorities in Slovakia, while taking into consideration the priorities and specific features of each of the minority groups. In summation, the following are the priorities of the Carpatho- Rusyn national minority within Slovakia’s educational system as de- fined by the First Working Conference of Rusyn Teachers which con- vened on 12 December 2006 in Radvaň nad Laborcom98: (1) It is crucial to accept and implement the “Proposal for Educat- ing Children of Citizens of the Slovak Republic of Rusyn Nation- ality” ratified in 1996. (2) In accordance with this proposal, it is important to begin the educational process in the Rusyn mother tongue already from nursery school and kindergarten, and to initiate the process of in- struction in the Rusyn language in villages and towns with a ma- jority Rusyn-speaking population. (3) In order to realize the objective in point 2, it is important to start training teachers for nursery schools and kindergartens that offer instruction in Rusyn. According to the “Proposal” noted in point 1, the teaching of Rusyn should be offered in pedagogical schools in the Prešov Region. (4) It is essential that elementary and secondary schools that teach Rusyn as a subject should be transformed into schools in which Rusyn is the language of instruction. (5) In the interest of preserving the Rusyn language and improv- ing the quality of its instruction, it is important that the study of Rusyn be changed from an optional to required subject in schools in towns and villages where Rusyns form a minimum of twenty percent of the inhabitants. (6) Considering that Rusyn is taught largely by teachers not certi- fied in this subject, it would be useful for the newspaper, Narodnŷ 98 On the first working conference of Rusyn teachers, whose aim was to for- mulate the basic issues involved in Rusyn education for the Slovak Ministry of Education in connection with preparations for the Proposal for the Education of National Minorities in the Slovak Republic, see Plishkova, “Rykhtuie sia Kon­ tseptsiia,” p. 3. functional domains of the rusyn language 145 novynkŷ, to publish a methodological supplement for teachers in the interest of improving the quality of their work.99 (7) In the interest of nurturing within Rusyn children in Slova- kia a positive tie to their mother tongue, and to supplement their education, a magazine for children and young people should be published in Rusyn.100 (8) In the interest of preserving and developing the mother tongue of Rusyns in Slovakia, it is important to increase the number of schools that teach Rusyn as a subject or whose language of in- struction is Rusyn; this, however, requires personal and financial support of organizational work and cultural and educational work among parents. (9) At the university level it is important that bachelor’s and mas- ter’s degree programs be established that combine Rusyn language and literature with other subjects in order to nurture qualified teachers in this specialization for both elementary and second- ary schools that teach Rusyn and whose language of instruction is Rusyn. (10) Coordinated and systematic work on the part of Slovakia’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Culture is absolutely es- sential and required, in order that they work together to ensure the rights of members of the Rusyn national minority in Slovakia, with full consideration of the priorities and distinct features of Rusyns as a nation 99 The plan for the methodological supplement, proposed by the Slovak Minis- try of Education in 2003, was never ratified. 100 The project for a children’s newspaper, entitled Rusalka, was first proposed by the Slovakia’s Ministry of Education in 1999, then by its Ministry of Culture in 2001, but was never subsidized by either ministry. Conclusion T his study has examined the attempts at resolving the question of a literary language among Rusyns south of the Carpathians, with an emphasis on those living in the Prešov Region of northeastern Slovakia. The aim has been to analyze how the language question evolved in the past and how language issues are being dealt with at the present, especially since 1989. The problem of the formation of a literary language for Carpatho-Rusyns has been characterized by a complexity that still resonates today. Although the “search” for an adequate literary language has an over 300-hundred-year history, the implications of that search remain alive and strong among the urban population even now at the beginning of the twenty-first century. A key to resolving the question of an appropriate literary lan- guage was found in the attempt to resolve a basic dilemma concern- ing ethnic identity: Do Carpatho-Rusyns belong to the Russian or the Ukrainian nationality, or do they constitute a distinct Slavic na- tionality? The question of Rusyn self-identity has also been depen- dent on the degree of democracy in the societies in which they have lived, on power, conviction, and the stance of their own intelligen- tsia which unfortunately vacilliated—particularly in the absence of their own ethnic and linguistic dignity—among different ethnicities and linguistic orientations with which the intelligentsia identified when advantageous. A free and unfettered resolution of the Rusyn ethnic and linguistic problem became possible only toward the end of the twentieth century thanks to the establishment of a new plu- ralistic policy in most of the post-Communist countries in which Rusyns live throughout the Carpathian area and after the acceptance 146 conclusion 147 by those states of new legislation concerning the rights of national minorities, including the “Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,” the “European Charter for Regional and Mi- nority Languages,” and others. The 1995 codification of the Rusyn literary language in Slovakia on the basis of local dialects as spoken in the late twentieth cen- tury is the natural consequence and culmination of lengthy attempts by Carpatho-Rusyns—unfortunately not successful in the past—to resolve the language question in the context of frequent political changes. Even in the new socio-political conditions after 1989, Car- patho-Rusyn steps toward self-identification have provoked a series of questions and discussions, particularly on the part of the ukraino­ phile intelligentsia and their institutions. The resultant polemical discussions have shifted the language question in a political direc- tion rather than toward a concrete resolution and they have not been of benefit to the Carpatho-Rusyn national identity process. On the other hand, unbiased and impartial linguists have assessed the newly codified Rusyn literary language as an objective fact, and most con- sider a literary language something which everything ethnic group has the right to possess. The 1995 codification initiated a lengthy process conducive to the further development of the Rusyns’ native language. Rusyn is now functioning in different spheres of life where its vitality is being con- firmed and its weaknesses revealed. Among the latter are issues in- volving terminology and the need for the compilation of dictionaries, tasks which demand the intense and constant attention of linguists. In the first ten years, orthographic corrections have been inevitable, and the need to formulate terminology for particular functional spheres, mainly in the areas of education and administration, has become evi- dent. Up to now, the Rusyn language in Slovakia has codified only lin- guistic terminology, and even this will need readjustment in the course of use. The codification of other terms will be completed and stabi- lized after another ten-year assessment, when the Rusyn Language Commission will evaluate terms already introduced into the various spheres with respect to local dialects as well as other regional variants of Rusyn (in Poland, Ukraine, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary). Back in 1995, the language codifiers forewarned of this situation, stating that codification is only the beginning of a prolonged development of the language and that all literary languages, as living organisms, 148 language and national identity experience continuous change.1 Publications about the Rusyn language, its functional domains, and its future in the form of regional and super-regional variants are relatively new, considering that it was only the new political situation in Europe after the 1989 revolution which permitted the language to return to life. In connection with this, the Rusyn language as a dis- tinct scholarly discipline has now emerged, and specialized institu- tions and a growing number of scholars both in Slovakia and abroad are occupied with this study. This scholarly discipline is replete with a whole complex of issues linked to the process of Carpatho-Rusyn self-identification, and the language issue is just one of an entire range of issues which await more detailed study. The present publication most definitely does not claim to cover everything, but is rather only a modest attempt at tracing the past development of the Rusyn language question and presenting the results of its resolution in the late twenti- eth and early twenty-first century. 1 Myron Sysak, “Codification—What Next?,” in Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia (New York, 1996), pp. 75-79. Bibliography Bacha, Iurii. “‘Politychne rusynstvo’—politichna provokatsiia,” Vsesvit, LXXII, 4 (Kiev, 1996), pp. 152-155. Bajcura, Ivan. “KSČ a  ukrajinská otázka.” In Z mynuloho i suchasno- ho ukraïntsiv Chekhoslovachchyny/Pedahohychnyi zbirnyk, No. 3. Bratislava: SPV, 1973, pp. 7-33. ———. Ukrajinská otázka v  ČSSR. Košice: Východoslovenské vyda­ vateľstvo, 1967. Berezhanin, Ivan [Ivan Fogarashii]. “Pis’mo-stat’ia: v obshche o ra- zlichii slavianskikh nariechii, sobstvenno zhe o malo i karpato ili Ugrorusskikh.” In Ivan S. Svientsitskii, ed. Materialy po istorii vozro- zhdeniia Karpatskoi Rusi, Vol. I. L’viv: Izd. Galitsko-russkoi matitsy, 1905-06, pp. 46-56. Beskid, Nikolai A. Karpatskaia Rus’. Prešov, 1920. Birčák, Ján, ed. Slovo episkopa Gojdiča. Prešov, 2004. Bonkáló, Aleksandr. Rus’kii literaturnyji iazyk. Literaturno-naukova bib- lioteka, No. 4. Uzhhorod, 1941. ———. The Rusyns. New York: Columbia University Press/East Euro- pean Monographs, 1990. Chuma, Andrii, and Andrii Bondar. Ukraïns’ka shkola na Zakarpatti ta Skhidnii Slovachchyni. Prešov: Kul’turnyi soiuz ukraïns’kykh trud­ iashchykh ChSSR, 1967. Csopei, László/Chopei, Laslov. Rutén-magyar szótár/Rus’ko madiarskyi slovar’. Budapest: Madiarska korol’ska akademyia nauk, 1883. Czambel, Samuel. Slovenská reč a  jej miesto v  rodine slovanských ja- zykov. Turčiansky sv. Martin, 1906. ———. “Uhorskí Rusi,” Slovenské pohľady, XXVI, 9 (Martin, 1906), 149 150 language and national identity pp. 542-555. Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (Copenhagen 1990), pp. 40-41. Doruľa, Ján. “Slovensko-rusínsko-ukrajinské vzťahy na úrovni nárečí a spisovných jazykov.” In Ján Doruľa, ed. Slovensko-rusínsko-ukrajin- ské vzťahy od obrodenia po súčasnosť. Bratislava: Slavistický kabinet SAV, 2000, pp. 152-160. Dostál, Ondrej. “Národnostné menšiny.” In Miroslav Kollár and Grigorij Mesežnikov, eds. Slovensko 2003: Súhrnná správa o stave spoločnosti. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky, 2003, pp. 150-167. Dudáš, Andrej. Rusínska otázka a jej úzadie. Buenos Aires, 1971. Dudash, Nataliia, ed. Rusinski/ruski pisnї. Novi Sad: Ruske slovo/Orga- nizatsiia Rusyniv u Madiarsku, 1997. Dulichenko, Aleksandr D. “Iazyki malykh etnicheskikh grup: status, raz- vitie, problemy vyzhivaniia.” In Aleksandr D. Dulichenko, ed. Iazyki malye i bol’shie: in memoriam acad. Nikita I. Tolstoi/Slavica Tartuen- sia, IV (Tartu, 1998), pp. 26-36. ———. [Duličenko, Alexander D]. “Carpatho-Rusyn in the Context of Regional Literary Languages of the Contemporary Slavic World/ Karpatorusínsky jazyk v  kontexte regionálnych spisovných jazykov súčasných Slovanov.” In Paul Robert Magocsi, ed. A New Slavic Lan- guage is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia/Zrodil sa nový slovanský jazyk: Rusínsky spisovný jazyk na Slovensku. New York: Columbia University Press/East European Monographs, 1996, pp. 1- 17/1-14. ———. Slavianske literaturnye mikroiazyki. Tallinn, 1981. Durnovo, Nikolai. Vvedenie v istoriiu russkogo iazyka. Brno, 1927. Dzendzelivs’kyi, Iosif O., and Zuzana Hanudel’. “Hramatyka Arseniia Kotsaka.” In Naukovyi zbirnyk Muzeiu ukraïns’koï kul’tury u Svyd- nyku, XV, 2 (Bratislava and Prešov, 1990), pp. 5-71. Follrikh, Mariia. “Fakty z istoriï ukraïns’koï zhurnalistyky v Chekhoslo- vachchyni.” In Naukovyi zbirnyk KSUT, No. 11. Prešov: Kul’turnyi soiuz ukraïns’kykh trudiashchykh ChSSR, 1985, pp. 117-131. Fontan’skii, Henryk. “Lemkovskii iazyk kak odin iz literaturnykh vari- antov rusinskogo iazyka,” Mundo Eslavo, No. 1 (Granada, 2002), pp. 12-16. Frantsev, Vladimir A. Iz istorii bor’by za russkii literaturnyi iazyk v Pod- karpatskoi Rusi v polovinie XIX st. Prague: Obshchestvo “Edinstvo,” 1931. bibliography 151 Gajdoš, Marián. “Rusíni a Ukrajinci na Slovensku v procese transformá- cie spoločnosti (stav výskumu).” In Štefan Šutaj, ed. Národ a národ- nosti: stav výskumu po roku 1989 a jeho perspektívy. Prešov: Univer- sum, 2004, pp. 147-159. ———. “Rusíni (Ukrajinci) na Slovensku v podmienkach transformácie spoločnosti.” In Marián Gajdoš and Pavol Matula, eds. Niektoré otázky vývoja národnostných menšín na Slovensku. Košice: Spoločenskovedný ústav Slovenskej akademie vied, 1997, pp. 180-192. Gajdoš, Marián, et al. Rusíni/Ukrajinci na Slovensku na konci 20. storočia: k  vybraným výsledkom historicko-sociologického výskumu v roku 2000. Prešov: Universum, 2001. Gajdoš, Marián, and Stanislav Konečný. Rusíni a Ukrajinci na Slovensku v  procesoch transformácie (1989-1995)/výber z  dokumentov, Vol. I. Prešov: Universum, 2005. Gerovskii, Georgii. Iazyk Podkarpatskoi Rusi. Moscow, 1995. ———. “Istoricheskoe proshloe, narodnaia rech’ i narodnaia kul’tura Pria­shevshchiny.” In Ivan S. Shlepetskii, ed. Priashevshchina: istor- iko-literaturnyi sbornik. Prague: Khutor, 1948, pp. 57-93. ———. [Gerovskij, Georgij]. “Jazyk Podkarpatské Rusi.” In Česko­ slovenská vlastivěda, Vol. III: Jazyk. Prešov: Sfinx Bohumil Janda, 1934, pp. 460-517. ———. “Narodnaia rech’ Priashevshchiny.” In Ivan S. Shlepetskii, ed. Priashevshchina: istoriko-literaturnyi sbornik. Prague: Khutor, 1948, pp. 94-144. Gustavsson, Sven. “Slovians’kŷ literaturnŷ iazŷkŷ,” Rusyn, II, 5-6 (Prešov, 1992), pp. 56- 57. Haraida, Ivan. Hrammatyka rus’koho iazŷka. Uzhhorod: Podkarpatskoe obshchestvo nauk, 1941. Haraksim, Ľudovít. K  sociálnym a  kultúrnym dejinám Ukrajincov na Slovensku po r. 1867. Bratislava: Slovenská académia vied, 1961. ———. “Obrodenie Rusínov.” In Fedor Barna, ed. Rusíni: otázky dejín a kultúry/Rusynŷ: voprosŷ istorii i kulturŷ/zborník referátov z vedeckej konferencie “Rusíni v dobe slovanského obrodenia.” Prešov: Rusínska obroda, 1994, pp. 79-94. ———. “Rusofilstvo a  ukrajinofilstvo Rusínov východného Slovenska a Zakarpatska na rozhraní 19. a 20. storočia.” In Michal Kaľavský and Martin Priečko, eds. Súčasné prezentácie rusínskej identity (od akcep- tácie po emancipáciu)/Ethnologia Actualis Slovaca, No. 5 (Trnava, 2004), pp. 26-40. 152 language and national identity ———. “‘Zlatý vek’ biskupa A. Bačinského a  obrodenské obdobie A. Duchnoviča—dve epochy dejín Rusínov.” In Ján Doruľa, ed. Slovens- ko-rusínsko-ukrajinské vzťahy od obrodenia po súčasnosť. Bratislava: Slavistický kabinet SAV, 2000, pp. 10- 36. Hartl, Antonín. “K jazykovým sporům na Podkarpatské Rusi.” In Slovo a slovesnost: list pražského linguistického kroužku, IV (Prague, 1938), pp. 160-173. Hnatiuk, Volodymyr. “Rusyny Priashivs’koï eparkhiï i ikh hovory,” Za- pysky Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka, XXXV (L’viv, 1900), pp. 1-70. Hodinka, Antonii [Tonii Romanuv]. Hlaholnytsia: sbyrka vsîkh hlaholov pudkarpats’ko- rusyns’koho iazŷka. Uzhhorod: Iulii Feldeshii, 1922— reprinted in Antal Hodinka/Antonii Hodynka. Ruszin-magyar igetár/ Rusyns’ko-madiars’kŷi slovar’ hlaholuv. Nyíregyháza: Görögkatoli- kus Hittudományi Főiskola, 1991. ———. [Sokŷrnyts’kŷi syrokhman] Uttsiuznyna, hazdustvo y proshlost’ iuzhno-karpats’kykh rusynuv. Budapest, 1923—reprinted: Nyíregyhá- za: Nyíregyházi Főiskola, Ukrán és Ruszin Filológiai Tanszéke, 2000. Hostyniak, Stepan. Pro chetvertyi skhidnoslov’ians’kyi narod ta pro placheni vyhadky i nisenitnytsi kupky komediantiv. Dodatok do hazety “Nove zhyttia,” No. 33. Prešov, 1992. Hus’nai, Ihor. Iazykovyi vopros v Podkarpatskoi Rusi. Prešov: Knihope- chatnia “Sv. Nikolaia,” 1921. Húsek, Ján. “O národnom povedomí podkarpatských Rusov,” Prúdy, IX (Bratislava, 1925), pp. 81-101. Hyriak, Mykola. “Z dyskusii do nashoï literatury i zhurnaliv,” Druzhno vpered, VII, 24 (Prešov, 1957), p. 20. Iabur, Vasyl’. “Dakotrŷ znakŷ rusyn’skŷkh dialektiv Sloven’ska v poriv- naniu z rus’kŷma i ukraïn’skŷma dialektamy,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, IV, 32-33 (Prešov, 1994), pp. 5-6. ———. [Jabur, Vasil’]. “K  niektorým otázkam charakteristiky noriem rusínskeho jazyka na Slovensku.” In Paul Robert Magocsi, ed. A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia/ Zrodil sa nový slovanský jazyk. Rusínsky spisovný jazyk na Slovensku. New York: Columbia University Press/East European Monographs, 1996), pp. 42-53. ———. [Jabur, Vasil’]. Koncepcia vyučovania rusínskeho jazyka ako materinského na základných školách s vyučovaním rusínskeho jazyka. Prešov: Štátny pedagogický ústav Bratislava, detašované pracovisko bibliography 153 v Prešove, 1996. ———. [Jabur, Vasil’]. “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku (stav po kodifiká- cii a  perspektívy rozvoja).” In Ján Doruľa, ed. Slovensko-rusínsko- ukrajinské vzťahy od obrodenia po súčasnosť. Bratislava: Slavistický kabinet SAV, 2000, pp. 190-205. ———. [Jabur, Vasil’]. “Systém slovesných tvarov v rusínskom jazyku v porovnaní s ukrajinským.” In Aleksandr D. Dulichenko. Iazyki malye i bol’shie. In memoriam Acad. Nikita I. Tolstoj. Tartu, 1998, pp. 149- 156. ———. and Iurii Pan’ko. Pravyla rusyn’skoho pravopysu. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 1994. ———. and Anna Plishkova. “Literaturnŷi iazŷk: Priashivska Rus’.” In Paul Robert Magocsi, ed. Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk. Opole: Uniwersytet Opol- ski—Instytut Filologii Polskiej, 2004, pp. 147-209; revised and ex- panded edition, 2007, pp. 147-209. ———. and Anna Plishkova. Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v zerkalï novŷkh pravyl pro osnovnŷ i serednï shkolŷ z navchanem rusyn’skoho iazŷka. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2005. Kalyniak, Ian. “Rusynam na Sloven’sku khŷbuie program i lider,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 35-41 (Prešov, 2005), p. 3. Kapral’, Mikhai. “Izdaniia Ioanna Kutki v istorii rusinskogo literaturnogo iazyka,” Studia Russica, XVII (Budapest, 1999), pp. 284-290. Kercha, Igor’, and Vasyl’ Sochka-Borzhavyn. Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk: ocherk kompleksnoï praktichnoï hramatyky. Uzhhorod, 1992. Khoma, Vasyl’. “Ku problemu rusyn’skoho spisovnoho iazyka v suchas- nosty i naslidstvo A. Hodynkŷ v iazykovii i literaturnii oblasty.” In Vasyl’ Khoma and Mariia Khomova. Obrodzhinia Rusyniv: zbornyk statei i shtudii o rusyn’skii literature, kulturi i diiatel’stvi rusyn’skŷkh organizatsii po roku 1989. Prešov: Spolok rusyn’skŷkh pysateliv Sloven’ska, 2005, pp. 106-113. ———. Rozvytok rusyn’skoï poeziï v Slovachchyni vid 20-kh do 90-kh rokiv XX. stolittia: narys istorii z portretamy poetiv. Bratislava: Spilka slovats’kykh pys’mennykiv, 2000. Konečný, Stanislav. “Rusíni na Slovensku a ich národné vedomie v ob- dobí socializmu.” In Marián Gajdoš and Stanislav Konečný, eds. Et- nické minority na Slovensku: história, súčasnosť, súvislosti. Košice: SvÚ SAV, 1997, pp. 69-81. ———. “Rusíni na Slovensku a  vývoj otázky ich spisovného jazyka.” In Človek a  spoločnosť: štúdie a  články. www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000/ 154 language and national identity konecny2.html ———. “Rusíni/Ukrajinci ako fenomén slovenskej politiky.” In Ján Doruľa, ed. Slovensko- rusínsko-ukrajinské vzťahy od obrodenia po súčasnosť. Bratislava: Slavistický kabinet SAV, 2000, pp. 132-148. Kovach, Andrii. “Natsional’na polityka Slovats’koï respubliky po vid- noshenniu do rusyniv-ukraïntsiv (1939-1945 rr.).” In Mykhailo Rychalka, ed. Zhovten’ i ukraïns’ka kul’tura. Prešov, 1968, pp. 132- 144. Kovach, Fedir. Kraieznavchyi slovnyk rusyniv-ukraïntsiv: Priashivshchy- na. Prešov: Soiuz Rusyniv-Ukraïntsiv Slovats’koï respubliky, 1999. ———. “Nashi natsional’ni paradoksy,” Duklia, XXXIX, 2 (Prešov, 1991), pp. 20-30. Kubek, Emilii. Staroslavianskii-ougorskii-russkii-niemetskii slovar’/Ó- szláv-, magyar-, ruthén (orosz)-, német szótár. Uzhhorod: Unio, 1906. Kuznetzov, Petr S. U istokov russkoi grammaticheskoi mysli. Moscow, 1958. Latta, Vasyl’. “Studii.” In Naukovi zapysky KSUT, No. 8-9. Prešov: KSUT ChSSR, 1979- 81, pp. 18-163. Lelkes, Gábor, and Károly Tóth. Národnostné a etnické menšiny na Slo­ vensku 2006. Šamorín: Fórum inštitút pre výskum menšín, 2007. Letz, Róbert. “Postavenie gréckokatolíkov slovenskej národnosti v  ro- koch 1918-1950.” In Ján Doruľa, ed. Slovensko-rusínsko-ukrajinské vzťahy od obrodenia po súčasnosť. Bratislava: Slavistický kabinet SAV, 2000, pp. 101-118. Lipinský, Ján, ed. Sebareflexia postavenia a vývoja Rusínov na Sloven- sku. Niektoré výsledky etnosociologického výskumu na severovýchod- nom Slovensku v roku 2002. Prešov, 2002. Lutskay, Мichael. Grammatica Slavo-Ruthena. Buda, 1830—reprinted: Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1989. Magocsi, Paul Robert [Magochii, Pavlo Robert]. Formuvannia na­t­sio­ nal’noi samosvidomosti: Pidkarpats’ka Rus’, 1848-1948. Uzhhorod: Karpats’kii krai 1994. ———. The Language Question among the Subcarpathian Rusyns. Fair- view, New Jersey: Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center, 1979; revised edition 1987. ———. [Magochii, Pavlo R.]. “Natsionalni i kulturno-sotsiialni rozvoi Rusinokh- Ukraïntsokh Chekhoslovatskei,” Shvetlosts, XXVIII, 1 and 2 (Novi Sad, 1990), pp. 77- 96 and pp. 213-235. ———. The People From Nowhere: an Illustrated History of Carpatho- bibliography 155 Rusyns. Uzhhorod: V. Padiak Publishers, 2006. ———. “Rusínska jazyková otázka znova nastolená.” In Paul Robert Magocsi, ed. A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Lan- guage of Slovakia/Zrodil sa nový slovanský jazyk: Rusínsky spisovný jazyk na Slovensku. New York: Columbia University Press/East Euro- pean Monographs, 1996, pp. 15-40. ———. “The Rusyn Language: Recent Achievements and Present Chal- lenges,” at http://www.rusynacademy.sk/english/en_jazyk.html, 2005 ———. The Rusyns of Slovakia: An Historical Survey. New York: Co- lumbia University Press/East European Monographs, 1993. ———. [Magochi, Pavel Robert]. Rusynŷ na Slovens’ku/Rusíni na Slo­ vensku. Prešov: Rusyns’ka obroda, 1994. ———. The Shaping of a National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus’, 1848- 1948. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978. ———. “Vědecký seminář o  kodifikaci rusínskeho jazyka,” Slovanský přehled, LXXIX, 2 (Prague, 1993), pp. 232-233. ———, ed. A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Lan- guage of Slovakia/Zrodil sa nový slovanský jazyk: Rusínsky spisovný jazyk na Slovensku. New York: Columbia University Press/East Euro- pean Monographs, 1996. ———, ed. The Persistence of Regional Cultures: Rusyns and Ukrainians in their Carpathian Homeland and Abroad/Tryvalist’ rehional’nykh kul’tur: rusyny i ukraïntsi na ïkhnii karpats’kii batkivshchyni ta za kor- donom. New York: Columbia University Press/East European Mono- graphs, 1993. ———, ed. Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk. Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich, Vol. XIV. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, Instytut filologii Polskiej, 2004; revised and expanded edition, 2007. ———. and Joshua Fishman. “Scholarly Seminar on the Codification of the Rusyn Language,” International Journal of the Sociology of Lan- guage, No. 104 (Berlin and New York, 1993), pp. 119-125. ———. and Ivan Pop, eds. Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002; revised and expanded edi- tion, 2005. Makara, Mykola P., and Ivan I. Myhovych. Karpatamy poridneni: narys etnopolitychnoï istoriï suchasnoho stanu ukraïns’ko-slovats’kykh vzaiemyn. Uzhhorod, 1997; revised edition, 1999. Marina, Iulii. “Predislovie.” In Grammatika ugrorusskogo iazyka dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavednii. Uzhhorod: Izdanie Regentskogo Komis- 156 language and national identity sarskogo Upravleniia, 1940, pp. 3-8. Matsyns’kyi, Ivan. “Kontseptsiï, bezkontseptiinist’ i—de ty, kontseptiie nashoho kul’turnoho zhyttia,” Duklia, XIII, 2 (Prešov, 1965), pp. 37- 55. ———. “Mozhete dyskutuvaty, ale ne miniaty [shchyri slova prochytani po radio 17. bereznia 1968 roku],” Nove zhyttia, XVIII, 12 (Prešov, 1968), pp. 2-3. ———. “Normy redaktsiinoï praktyky narodnorozmovnoiu movoiu dlia Novoho zhyttia.” Prešov, 1969 (manuscript). ———. “Osnovy kontseptsiï rozhovnutoï diial’nosti TsK KSUT,” Nove zhyttia, XIX (Prešov, 1969), pp. 2-4. ———. “20 lit ukraïns’koï vydavnychoï spravy na skhodi respubliky,” Duklia, XII, 2 (Prešov, 1969), pp. 1-5. Mitrak, Aleksandr/Mitrák, Sándor. Russko-mad’iarskii slovar’/Orosz- magyar szótár. Uzhhorod: Izdanie sostavitelia, 1881. Murcko, Michal. “Postavenie Rusínov-Ukrajincov a osudy Židov v okrese Stará Ľubovňa v rokoch 1938-1945.” In Peter Švorc, ed. Spiš v kon- tinuite času. Prešov, Bratislava, and Vienna: FF UPJŠ v  Košiciach; Österreichisches Ost- und Südosteuropa Institut Wien, 1995, pp. 197- 205. Mushynka, Mykola. Rusynizm na antyukraïns’kii osnovi: persha knyzhka ‘Rusyns’koi obrody‘. Prešov, 1992. Padiak, Valerii. Uzhhorods’kyi tyzhnevyk “Novŷi svît” (1871-1872: ano- tovana bibliohrafiia materialiv ta istorychnyi narys. Uzhhorod: Vy- davnytstvo V. Padiaka, 2006. Paňkevič, Ivan. “Jazyková otázka v Podkarpatské Rusi.” In Josef Chmelař, Stanislav Klima, and Jaromír Nečas, eds. Podkarpatská Rus. Prague: Orbis, 1923, pp. 130- 150. ———. [Pan’kevych, Ivan]. Ukraïns’ki hovory Pidkarpats’koï Rusy i su- mezhnykh oblastei. Knihovna sboru pro výzkum Slovenska a Podkar- patské Rusi při Slovanském ústavu, Vol. 9. Prague: Orbis, 1938. ———. “Mii zhyttiepys.“Naukovyi zbirnyk Muzeiu ukraïns’koï kul’tury v Svydnyku, IV, pt. 1 (Bratislava and Prešov, 1969), pp. 17-43. Pan’ko, Iurii. “Do problemiv modernizatsiï slovnykovoho fondu rusyn’skoho iazŷka na Sloven’sku: vŷniatkŷ iz referatu na nauch- nii konferentsii ‘Modernizatsiia slovnykovoho fondu evropskŷkh regionalnŷkh i menshynovŷkh iazŷkiv’ v Kottbusi, 25.-28.9.1996,” Rusyn, VI, 5-6 (Prešov, 1996), pp. 8-9. ———. Rusyn’sko-rus’ko-ukraïn’sko-sloven’sko-pol’skŷi slovnyk lingvis­ bibliography 157 tichnŷkh terminiv. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 1994. ———. “Normy rusyn’skoho pravopysu,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, II, 17-21 (Prešov, 1992) (supplement). Pan’ko, Serhii. “Zhurnal Rusyn i pytannia rusyns’koï literaturnoï movy,” Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Nyíregyháziensis, XIII/C (Nyíregyhá- za, 1992), pp. 257-266. Pekar, Atanasii V. Narysy istoriï Tserkvy Zakarpattia, 2 vols. Rome and L’viv: Vydavnytstvo Ottsiv Vasyliian ‘Misioner’, 1997. Pereni, Iosif. Iz istorii zakarpatskikh ukraintsev (1849-1914). Budapest, 1957. Plishkova, Anna [Plišková, Anna]. “Aktuálna situácia v rozvoji školstva Rusínov na Slovensku.” In Helena Pataiová, ed. Perspektívy roz- voja vzdelávania a  kultúry národnostných menšín. Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre, Pedagogická fakulta, 2005, pp. 276-284. ———. [Plišková, Anna]. “Jazyk a školstvo Rusínov v transformujúcej sa spoločnosti.” In Štefan Šutaj, ed. Národ a národnosti na Slovensku v transformujúcej sa spoločnosti. Prešov: Universum, 2005, pp. 219- 226. ———. “K  niektorým aspektom používania rusínskeho spisovného ja- zyka vo vzdelávacom systéme Slovenskej republiky.” In Gábor Lelkes and Károly Tóth, eds. Národnostné a  etnické menšiny na Slovensku 2006. Šamorín: Fórum inštitút pre výskum menšín, 2007, pp. 99-111. ———. “Kompetentsiia na zminu vnutornoi shtrukturŷ vŷsŷlania ie v rukakh shefredaktora Priashivskoho shtudiia—interviu z tsentralnŷm direktorom Sloven’skoho rozhlasu v Bratislavi, PhDr. Iaroslavom Reznikom; Profesionalita na pershim misti— interviu zo shefre- daktorom Hlavnoi redaktsiï Narodnostno-etnichnoho Vŷsŷlania Sloven’skoho rozhlasu v Priashovi, PhDr. Voitekhom Bachom,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XI, 11-14 (Prešov, 2001), pp. 5-6. ———. “Konets 20. storicha—istorichnŷi zachatok pro rusyn’skŷ shkolŷ.” In Vasyl’ Khoma, ed. Rusyn’skŷi literaturnŷi almanakh: iubeleinŷi rik Aleksandra Dukhnovicha. Prešov: Spolok rusyn’skŷkh pysateliv Sloven’ska, 2003, pp. 126-131. ———. “Materyn’skŷi iazŷk Rusyniv v osvitnim sistemi v mynulosty i dnes’.” In Havryïl Beskyd and Aleksander Zozuliak, eds. Vŷznamnŷ pro Rusyniv: zbornyk referativ. Prešov: Svitovŷi kongres Rusyniv, 2005, pp. 37-44. ———. [A.P.]. “Obnovyly sia diskuziï o edynim pravopysi,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XV, 25-28 (Prešov, 2005), p. 3. 158 language and national identity ———. “Poetichna tvorchost’ Rusyniv Priashevskoho regionu.” In Na- taliia Dudash, ed. Rusinski/ruski pisnï. Novi Sad: Ruske slovo/Organi- zatsiia Rusyniv u Madiarsku, 1997, pp. 59-68. ———. “Poslïdnia nedïl’na liturgiia o. Frantïshka Krainiaka v Mid- zhilabirtsiakh,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVI, 27-30 (Prešov, 2006), p. 2. ———. “Rikhtuie sia Kontseptsiia osvitŷ narodnostnŷkh menshyn v SR,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVII, 1-4 (Prešov, 2007), p. 3. ———. “Rusíni na Slovensku po roku 1989.” In Štefan Šutaj, ed. Národ- nostná politika na Slovensku po roku 1989. Prešov: Universum, 2005, pp. 127-132. ———. “Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku po roku 1989.” In Štefan Šutaj, ed. Národy a národnosti: stav výskumu po roku 1989 a jeho perspe- ktívy. Prešov: Universum, 2004, pp. 198-203. ———. “Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk na Sloven’sku po 10 rokakh aktivnoho fungo- vania.” In Aleksander Zozuliak, ed. Rusyn’skŷi narodnŷi kalendar’ na rik 2002. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2001, pp. 35-46. ———. “Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v istorii i perspektivi.” In Ian Kalyniak, ed. Pamiatnŷi den’ Aleksandra Pavlovicha. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2002, pp. 48-53. ———. “Rusyn’skŷi literaturnŷi iazŷk zhŷe: interviu z dots. PhDr. Vasyl- ëm Iaburom, k.n. z nahodŷ iubeleiu sviatochnoho vŷholoshinia kodifi- katsiï rusyn’skoho iazŷka 27.1.1995 u Bratislavi).” In Aleksander Zo- zuliak, ed. Rusyn’skŷi narodnŷi kalendar’ na rik 2005. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2004, pp. 68-73. ———. “Samostatne rusyn’ske vŷsŷlania zas’ na dosiah rukŷ?” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XI, 16-17 (Prešov, 2001), pp. 1-2. ———. “Sotsiolingvistichnŷi aspekt: Priashivska Rus’.” In Paul Robert Magocsi, ed. Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk. Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich, Vol. XIV. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski—Instytut filolo- gii Polskiej, 2004, pp. 331-345; revised and expanded edition, 2007, pp. 331-348. ———. “Znama osobnost’ v narodnostnim zhŷvoti Rusyniv.” In Alek- sander Zozuliak, ed. Rusyn’skŷi narodnŷi kalendar’ na rik 2005. Prešov: Rusyn i Narodnŷ novynkŷ, 2004, pp. 62-66. ———, ed. Jazyková kultúra a  jazyková norma v  rusínskom jazyku/ Iazŷkova kultura i iazŷkova norma v rusyn’skim iazŷku. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita, Ústav regionálnych a  národnostných štúdií, 2007. ———, ed. Muza spid Karpat: zbornyk poeziї Rusyniv na Sloven’sku. bibliography 159 Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 1996. ———, ed. Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk medzhi dvoma kongresamy. Prešov: Svitovŷi kongres Rusyniv, Inshtitut rusyn’skoho iazŷka i kulturŷ Priashivskoï univerzitŷ, 2008. ———, ed. Rusínska kultúra a školstvo po roku 1989. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita, Ústav rusínskeho jazyka a kultúry, 2008. ———, ed. Ternëva ruzha: zbornyk rusyn’skoi narodnoi poeziï. Prešov: Rusyn’ska obroda, 2002. Pop, Ivan. Entsiklopediia Podkarpatskoi Rusi. Uzhhorod: Izdatel’svto V. Padiaka, 2001. Ramach, Iuliian. Gramatika ruskoho iazika za I, II, III y IV klasu gim- naziï. Belgrade: Zavod za udzbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2002. Ripka, Ivor. “Jazykové práva národnostných menšín na Slovensku,” Človek a spoločnosť, III (2000), 1, at www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000 Rotshtein, Robert A. “Vopros vŷtvorinia novoho literaturnoho iazŷka,” Rusyn, IX, 3-4 (Prešov, 1999), pp. 31-34. Rudlovchak, Olena. “Z istoriï nashykh bukvariv kintsia XVII-zachatku XX st.” In Olena Rudlovchak. Bilia dzherel suchasnosti. Bratislava and Prešov, 1981, pp. 237-260. ———, ed. Zelenyi vinochok—chervoni kvitochky. Prešov, 1965. Ruman, Ján. “K slovensko-rusínskemu problému,” Národnie noviny, 14 December 1935, p. 1. Sabov, Ievmenii [Sabov, Jevhenij]. “Literární jazyk Podkarpatské Rusi.” In Josef Chmelař, Stanislav Klíma, and Jaromír Nečas, eds. Podkar- patská Rus. Prague: Orbis, 1923, pp. 125-129. ———, ed. Khristomatiia tserkovno-slavianskikh i ugro-russkikh liter- aturnykh pamiatnikov s pribavleniem ugro-russkikh narodnykh skazok na podlinnykh nariechiiakh. Uzhhorod: Knigopechatnia “Kelet” V. Iegera, 1893. ———. Riech’ po povodu torzhestva otkrytiia pamiatnika Aleksandra V. Dukhnovicha v V. Sevliushie, 8/XI 1925. Uzhhorod, 1925. Sabov, Kiril. Grammatika pis’mennago russkago iazyka. Uzhhorod,1865. Sepyr, Edvard. “Kul’tura podlinnaia i mnimaia.” In Izbrannye trudy po iazykoznaniiu i kul’turologii. Moscow, 1993, pp. 465-493. Shelepets’, Iosyf. Slovo naroda. Prešov: Štátna vedecká knižnica, 2000. Shtets’, Mykola. “Borot’ba za literaturnu movu ukraïntsiv Skhidnoï Slo- vachchyny v 1919-1945 rr.” In Mykhailo Rychalka, ed. Zhovten’ i ukraïns’ka kul’tura. Prešov: KSUT, 1968, pp. 284-291. 160 language and national identity ———. [Štec, Mikuláš]. K  otázke “rusínskeho” spisovného jazyka. Prešov: Zväz Rusínov-Ukrajincov ČSFR, 1991. ———. Literaturna mova ukraïntsiv Zakarpattia i Skhidnoï Slo- vachchyny. Bratislava: Slovats’ke pedahohichne vydavnytstvo, 1969. ———. “Mova ‘Bukvaria’ ta inshykh posibnykiv O.V. Dukhnovycha.” In Mykhailo Rychalka, et al. Oleksandr Dukhnovych: zbirnyk mate- rialiv naukovoï konferentsiï prysviachenoï 100-richchiu z dnia smerti (1865-1965). Prešov: Kul’turna spilka ukraïns’kykh trudiashchykh, 1965, pp. 184-191. ———. “Za chystomu movy,” Duklia, XI, 2 (Prešov, 1963), pp. 65-67. Shtets’, Mykola, and Iurii Mulichak. “Analiz norm pravopysu t. zv. rusyns’koï movy.” Dodatok do hazety Nove zhyttia, No. 42. Prešov: Naukove tovarystvo Soiuzu rusyniv-ukraïntsiv ChSFR, 1992. Stanovisko k  národnostnému školstvu. Rusínska obroda, Medzilaborce. Zaslané úradu vlády SR (1990). Архів РОС. Strypskii, Iador N. Hdî dokumentŷ starshei ystoriy Podkarpatskoi Rusy?: o mezhevŷkh nazvaniiakh. Uzhhorod, 1924. ———. [Bilen’kii]. Starsha rus’ka pis’mennost’ na Uhorshchynî. Uzh- horod: Unio, 1907. Studyns’kyi, Kyrylo. “Aleksander Dukhnovych i Halychyna,” Naukovŷi zbornyk Tovarystva ‘Prosvita’, III (Uzhhorod, 1924), pp. 28-94. [Štúr, L’udovít]. “Prjehlad časopisou,” Slovenskje národňje novini, No. 63 (Bratislava, 1846), pp.1-2. Suško, Ladislav. “Politický vývoj Slovenska v  posledných rokoch buržoázneho Československa,” Historický časopis, XXVII, 27 (Bratislava, 1979), pp. 585-595. Šutaj, Štefan, ed. Národ a národnosti na Slovensku v transformujúcej sa spoločnosti: vzťahy a konflikty. Prešov: Universum, 2005. ———, ed. Národ a národnosti: stav výskumu po roku 1989 a jeho per­ spektívy. Prešov: Universum, 2004. ———, ed. Národnostná politika na Slovensku po roku 1989. Prešov: Universum, 2005. Svientsitskii, Ivan, ed. Materialy po istorii vozrozhdeniia Karpatskoi Rusi, 2 vols. L’viv: Galitsko-russkaia matitsia, 1906-09. Sydor, Dymytrii. Hramatyka rusyns’koho iazŷka yz Evanheliem od Mat- feia dlia rusynov Ukraiynŷ, tsentral’noi Evropŷ y Amerikŷ/Grammar of the Rusyn Language for the Rusyns of Ukraine, Central Europe and America. Uzhhorod, 1996-2005. Teutsch, Alexander. Das Rusinische der Ostslowakei im Kontext seiner bibliography 161 Nachbarsprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Europäischer Verlag der Wis- senschaften, 2001. Timkovič, Jozafát V., OSBM. Rusíni na Slovensku v  cirkevných doku- mentoch, Vol. I. Uzhhorod: Vydavateľstvo V. Padiaka, 2006. Tichý, František. Vývoj současného spisovného jazyka na Podkarpatské Rusi. Prague: Orbis, 1938. ———. [Tykhii, Frantsysk], ed. V pamiat’ Aleksandra Dukhnovycha, 1803-1923. Knyzhkŷ Rusyna, No.8. Uzhhorod, 1923. Tkachev, Sergei. “Status literaturnoho iazyka Rusinov na Ukraine” Slavi- ca Tarnopolensia, No. 2 (Тernopol’, 1995), pp. 21-29. Tolstoi, Nikita I. “Introduction.” In Paul Robert Magocsi, ed.: A New Slavic Language is Born: The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia/ Zrodil sa nový slovanský jazyk. Rusínsky spisovný jazyk na Slovensku. New York: Columbia University Press/ East European Monographs, 1996, pp. xiii-xv. Turok, Vasyl’. “Rusyns’ki paradoksy,” Nove zhyttia, XVIII, 1 (Prešov, 1968), p. 7. Udvari, István [Udvari, Ishtvan]. Obrazchykŷ z istoriï pud­ karpats’kŷkh Rusynuv XVIII. stolïtiie: yzhliadovania z istoriï kul’turŷ y iazŷka. Uzhhorod: Ud-vo V. Padiaka, 2000. ———. “Aleksandr Dukhnovich—prodolzhatel’ traditsii rusinskogo lit- eraturnogo iazyka,” Studia Russica, XX (Budapest, 2003), pp. 456- 461. ———. “Karpatrusyns’ki bukvari z XVIII stolittia.” In Zoltán András. Nyelv, stílu, irodalom: köszöntő könyv Péter Mihály 70. születés- napjára. Budapest, 1998, pp. 579-587. ———. [Udvari, Ishtvan]. “Materialy k istorii zakarpatskoi ukrainskoi (rusinskoi) delovoi pis’mennosti XVIII v.” Studia Slavica Hungaricae, XXXVI (Budapest, 1991- 92), pp. 219-234. ———. “Rusinskaia ofitsial’naia pis’mennost’ v Vengrii XVIII veka.” Studia Slavica Hungaricae, XLII (Budapest, 1997), pp. 53-67. Uram, Pavlo A. “Hovorymo pro konstitutsiinyi zakon,” Nove zhyttia, XVIII, 23 (Prešov, 1968), pp. 2-3. Vanat, Ivan. Narysy novitn’oï istoriï ukraïntsiv Skhidnoï Slovachchyny, Vol. I: 1918- 1938. Prešov: SPV VUL, 1979—revised edition, 1990. ———. Narysy novitn’oï istoriï ukraïntsiv Skhidnoï Slovachchyny, Vol. II: 1938-1948. Prešov: SPV VUL, 1985. ———. “Shkil’ne pytannia na Priashivshchyni pid chas domiunkhens’koï respubliky,” Duklia, XIV, 5 (Prešov, 1966), pp. 60-68. ———. “Shkil’na sprava na Priashivshchyni v period domiunkhens’koï 162 language and national identity Chekhoslovachchyny.” In Z mynuloho i suchasnoho ukraïntsiv Chek- hoslovachchyny/Pedahohichnyi zbirnyk, No. 3. Bratislava: SPV, 1973, pp. 159-195. Vanat, Ivan, Mikhailo Rychalka, and Andrii Chuma. Do pytan’ pislia- voiennoho rozvytku, suchasnoho stanu ta perspektyv ukraïns’koho shkil’nys’tva v Slovachchyni. Dodatok do hazety Nove zhyttia, No. 40. Prešov: Naukove tovarystvo Soiuzu rusyniv-ukraïntsiv ChSFR, 1992. Vaňko, Juraj. The Language of Slovakia’s Rusyns/Jazyk slovenských Ru- sínov. New York: Columbia University Press/East European Mono- graphs, 2000. VladimíRus de juxta Hornad [Jozafát V. Timkovič]. Dejiny gréckoka- tolíkov Podkarpatska (9-18. storočie). Košice, 2004. Voloshyn, Avhustyn. O pys’mennom jazŷtsî Podkarpatskykh Rusynov. Uzhhorod: Unio, 1921. Vozniak, Mykhailo. Stare ukraïn’ske pysmens’tvo. L’viv, 1922. Žeňuch, Peter. “Cirkevná slovančina vo východoslovenskom kultúrno- historickom a  jazykovom priestore,” Historický časopis, XLVI, 4 (Bratislava, 1998), pp. 649- 662. ———. Medzi východom a  západom (byzantsko-slovanská tradícia, kultúra a jazyk na východnom Slovensku). Bratislava: Veda, 2002. Zorkii, Nikolai. Spor o iazykie v Podkarpatskoi Rusi i cheshskaia Aka- demiia Nauk; Kak osviedomliaet d-r Ivan Pan’kevich cheshskuiu pub- liku o nashikh iazykovykh dielakh. Uzhhorod: Izdanie avtora, 1926. Zozuliak, Aleksander. “Chekaly s’me na to 55 rokiv,” Narodnŷ novynkŷ, XVIII, 33-36 (Prešov, 2008), pp. 1-2. ———. [Zozuliak, Oleksandr]. “Pershyi krok Initsiiativnoï hrupy,” Nove zhyttia, XXXVIII, 48 (Prešov, 1989), p. 2. Illustrations 164 language and national identity 1. Title page of Lavrentii Zizanii’s Grammatika slovenska (Slavic Grammar), published in Vilnius in 1596. illustrations 165 2. A page of Arsenii Kotsak’s Grammatika russkaia (Rus’ Grammar, 1772-78) from a manuscript of the Máriapócs variant of the grammar, published for the first time in 1990 in the Naukovyi zbirnyk Muzeiu ukraïns’koï kultury u Svydnyku, Vol. V, pt. 2. 166 language and national identity 3. The Niagovskaia postilla (Compilation of Sermons from Niagov, 1757-58) attests to the usage of the vernacular Rusyn language of the time as a literary language. The work was published in St. Petersburg as a result of the efforts of Aleksei Petrov in 1921. illustrations 167 4. This excerpt from the Niagovskaia postilla is from the facsimile edition pre- pared by Zoltán András and published in 2006 in Hungary. 168 language and national identity 5. Tsyrkuliar’ episkopa Andriia Bachyn’skoho (A Circular of Bishop Andrii Bachyns’kyi), taken from Ievmenii Sabov’s Khristomatiia tserkovno-slavian- skikh literaturnykh pamiatnikov (1893). Written materials from the Greek Cath- olic Eparchy of Mukachevo attest to a concerted effort on the part of Bishop Bachyn’skyi to codify a Carpatho-Rusyn language. illustrations 169 6. The Bukvar’ iazyka ruskago (A Primer of the Rusyn Language, 1797, and sub- sequent editions) of Ioann Kutka exhibits the three distinct styles in the literary language at that time. 170 language and national identity 7. First page of Kutka’s Bukvar’ (1797). illustrations 171 8. Title page of Mykhail Luchkai’s Grammatica Slavo-Ruthena (A Slavic-Rusyn Grammar), published in Latin in Budapest in 1830. Luchkai formulated a Car- patho-Rusyn variant of Church Slavonic which was to be used as a literary lan- guage. 172 language and national identity 9. Title page of Ioann Fogarashii’s Rus’ko uhorska ili madiarska grammatika (Rus’-Hungarian or Rus’-Magyar Grammar), published in Vienna in 1833. illustrations 173 10. Title page of the first edition of Aleksander Dukhnovych’s Knyzhytsia chytal- naia dlia nachynaiushchykh (A Little Reading Book for Beginners). Published in Budapest in 1843, it is the first textbook written in Rusyn vernacular. 174 language and national identity 11. Title page of the first issue (June 1867) of the newspaper Svît (The Light, 1867-71), published by the St. Basil the Great Society. As the first Cyrillic news- paper published in Uzhhorod and intended primarily for Subcarpathian Rusyns, it employed the so-called common Russian (obshcherusskii) literary language which prompted discontent among most readers and subscribers. illustrations 175 12. A page from the weekly Novŷi svît (The New Light, 1871-72), which emerged from Svît as a reaction to the latter’s Russophile orientation. Although Novŷi svît was short lived, its content signaled a new stage in the Rusyn national and cul- tural revival on the basis of a local vernacular language. 176 language and national identity 13. Title page of Laslov Chopei’s Rus’ko madiarskyi slovar’ (A Rusyn-Hungar- ian Dictionary, 1883). Published in Budapest, it was the first dictionary of ver- nacular Rusyn and was awarded the Fekésházy Prize by the Hungarian Royal Academy of Sciences. illustrations 177 14. Front cover of Avhustyn Voloshyn’s Metodicheskaia grammatika ugro-russ- kogo literaturnogo iazyka dlia narodnykh shkol (Methodological Grammar of the Hungarian-Rusyn Literary Language for Elementary Schools, 1901). This work‘s six editions made it the most frequently used grammar text in the first half of the twentieth century. 178 language and national identity 15. Title page of Hiiador Stryps‘kyi‘s brochure Starsha rus’ka pys’mennost’ na Uhorshchynî (Old Rusyn Literature in Hungary, 1907). In this work the author defends the distinctiveness of the Rusyn language and the need to develop a Rusyn literary tradition on the basis of the vernacular. illustrations 179 16. Title page of Aleksander Sedlak‘s grammar of the Carpatho-Rusyn lan- guage, Grammatika russkago iazyka dlia narodnykh shkol eparkhii Priashevskoi (Grammar of the Russian Language for Elementary Schools in the Prešov Epar- chy, 1920). This textbook was based on pre-Revolution Russian grammars and employed the old etymological orthography. 180 language and national identity 17. Along with the arrival of Galician-Ukrainian émigrés to Czechoslovakia‘s province of Subcarpathian Rus’ and subsequently to the Prešov Region at the beginning of the twentieth century came the “Galician language wars.” In 1921, a sharp linguistic polemic emerged publicly in the “brochure duel” between Avhus- tyn Voloshyn and Ihor Hus’nai, who published a brochure, Iazykovyi vopros v Podkarpatskoi Rusi (The Language Question in Subcarpathian Rus’). A support- er of the “common Russian” language, Hus’nai defended the “traditional” literary language of Carpatho-Rusyn writers, and he considered the Ukrainian language orientation to be “linguistic separatism in the service of anti-Rusyns.” illustrations 181 18. Voloshyn responded to Hus’nai’s brochure with his own publication, O pys’mennom iazŷtsî Podkarpatskykh Rusynov (On the Literary Language of Sub- carpathian Rusyns, 1921). Voloshyn dismissed Hus’nai’s thesis about a single literary language called “common Russian,” and he pointed out that alongside Russian, with its status as a world language, it was possible to develop and to nurture a Rusyn literary language. 182 language and national identity 19. Title page of Ivan Pan’kevych’s Hramatyka rus’koho iazŷka dlia molodshykh klias skôl serednykh y horozhan’skykh (A Grammar of the Rusyn Language for the Lower Grades of Middle and Junior-High Schools, 1922). This grammar used traditional etymological Cyrillic script, but drew heavily from the Verkhovyna dialect which was closest to the Ukrainian language used in Galicia. illustrations 183 20. Several textbooks for elementary school were published by local authors on the basis of Pan’kevych’s grammar, among them the two-part Rôdne slovo: uchebnyk rus’koho iazŷka dlia narodnŷkh shkôl (Native Word: A Rusyn Lan- guage Textbook for National Schools, 1923) by Aleksander Markush, Severyn Bochek, and H. Shutka. 184 language and national identity 21. Juxtaposed to the Ukrainophile orientation was the Russophile orientation with its traditional Carpatho-Rusyn language as represented by the Aleksander Dukhnovych Society and its patriarchal leader, Ievmenii Sabov. In this context Sabov published an extended essay, Russkii literaturnyi iazyk Podkarpatskoi Rusi i novaia grammatika russkago iazyka dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii Podkar- patskoi Rusi (The Russian Literary Language of Subcarpathian Rus’ and the New Grammar of the Russian Language for Middle Level Schools of Subcarpathian Rus’). illustrations 185 22. Title page of Nikolai Zorkii’s Spor o iazykie v Podkarpatskoi Rusi i Cheshs- kaia akadimiia nauk; kak osviedomliaet d-r Ivan Pan’kevich cheshskuiu publiku o nashikh iazykovykh dielakh (A Polemic About Language in Subcarpathian Rus’ and the Czech Academy of Sciences; How Dr. Ivan Pan’kevych Explains Our Language Situation to the Czech Public, 1926). The language situation in Sub- carpathian Rus’ in the 1920s and 1930s, characterized by a struggle among three national and linguistic orientations, led to numerous public arguments about lan- guage. Typical among the polemics is this work, in which Zorkii defends Russian as the preferred literary language for Subcarpathian Rus’. 186 language and national identity 23. Title page of the newspaper Dushpastyr’ (Pastor of the Soul), published in Uzhhorod. At first intended only for the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo, from 1924 to 1933 this newspaper also became the official organ of the Prešov Eparchy and was recommended reading for its priests. illustrations 187 24. Title page of the weekly Russkoe slovo (Russian Word), published in Prešov from 1924 to 1939. This unofficial organ of the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Prešov was supported by Bishop Pavel Petro Goidych and used the traditional Carpatho- Rusyn language. 188 language and national identity 25. The Arkhipastyr’skyi list o. Pavla Goidicha (Archpastoral Letter of the Rev- erend Pavel Goidych, 1930), addressed to his eparchy’s priests, is an example of the Carpatho-Rusyn language of the time used in the religious functional domain. The author urges priests to love and help the Rusyn people and to adopt responsi- bility for their spiritual as well as national future before God, people, and history (from Ján Birčák, Slovo episkopa Gojdiča, Prešov, 2004, pp. 48-49.) illustrations 189 26. Title page of the third edition of Ivan Pan’kevych’s Hramatyka rus’koho iazŷka dlia molodshykh klias shkôl serednykh y horozhan’skykh (Grammar of the Rusyn Language for the Lower Grades of Middle and Junior-High Schools), pub- lished in Prague in 1936. This edition introduced the Galician variant of Ukrai- nian into Subcarpathian schools. 190 language and national identity 27. Title page of Grammatika ugrorusskogo iazyka dlia serednikh uchebnykh zavedenii (Grammar of the Hungarian-Russian Language for Middle Level Schools, 1940). After the Hungarian occupation in 1939, “Hungarian Rusynism” was interpreted as a return to local tradition. The first step in this direction was the publication in Uzhhorod of textbooks for elementary schools, as well as gram- mars of the “Hungarian-Rusyn” language for middle schools, with the goal of putting an end to the language polemic up to that time. illustrations 191 28. Title page to Ivan Haraida’s Hrammatyka rus’koho iazŷka (Grammar of the Rusyn Language, 1941). Based on the vernacular, this textbook was introduced in Hungarian-ruled Subcarpathian Rus’. Some scholars insist that this grammar fulfilled a codification function at that time. 192 language and national identity 29a. Front cover of the initial issue of the Christian cultural magazine Rusyn, the first post-1989-revolution Rusyn-language periodical in Slovakia, initially pub- lished by the Andy Warhol Society in Medzilaborce in 1990. illustrations 193 29b. First page of the initial issue of the Christian cultural magazine Rusyn. The Rusyn national and cultural revival after 1989 was finally discussed in the pages of the local press which began to cultivate the Rusyn vernacular and the status of Rusyns as a distinct nationality. This process was apparent from the initial issue of Rusyn, published in Medzilaborce, Slovakia in 1990. 194 language and national identity 30. The editorial office of the Ukrainian weekly Nove zhyttia (New Life) in Prešov responded to readers’ demands and beginning in February 1990 it revived the two-page supplement in vernacular Rusyn, entitled Holos rusyniv (Voice of the Rusyns) which appeared until May 1991. illustrations 195 31. Title page of the first issue of the weekly newspaper Narodnŷ novynkŷ (The People’s News) which began publication on the highly symbolic date of 21 Au- gust 1991; that is, the anniversary of the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslo- vakia. The editorial office of Narodnŷ novynkŷ was established in June 1991 by Rusyn’ska obroda (Rusyn Renaissance Society) in Prešov. From the start, the newspaper was published in Rusyn vernacular and from 1995 in the newly-codi- fied Rusyn literary language. 196 language and national identity 32. Title page of the brochure, Pravyla rusyn’skoho pravopysu (Rule-Book of Rusyn Orthography), containing the first part of a proposal for a Rusyn orthogra- phy, published by the Rusyn Renaissance Society’s Institute of Rusyn Language and Culture in Prešov in 1994. The first proposal for orthographic rules appeared even earlier, in 1992, as a supplement to the newspaper Narodnŷ novynkŷ. illustrations 197 33. Title page of Pravyla rusyn’skoho pravopysu (Rule-Book of Rusyn Orthogra- phy) by Vasyl’ Iabur and Iurii Pan’ko, published in Prešov with financial support from the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic in 1994. This volume, along with an orthographical dictionary, a dictionary of linguistic terms, a primer, a reader, and literary, scholarly, and publicistic writings, all served as a basis for the codification of the Rusyn literary language in Slovakia in 1995. 198 language and national identity 34. Title page of the Orfografichnŷi slovnyk rusyn’skoho iazŷka (Orthographical Dictionary of the Rusyn Language, 1994), which contains approximately 42,000 words illustrations 199 35. Front cover of the Rusyn’sko-rus’ko-ukraïn’sko-sloven’sko-pol’skŷi slovnyk lingvistichnŷkh terminiv (Rusyn-Russian-Ukrainian-Slovak-Polish Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, 1994), compiled by Iurii Pan’ko. 200 language and national identity 36. Front cover of the first post-1989 Revolution Rusyn-language textbook: Ian Hryb, Bukvar’ pro rusyn’skŷ dity (A Primer for Rusyn Children, 1994), intended for use in Rusyn schools in Slovakia. illustrations 201 37. Copy of the official document announcing the codification of the Rusyn lan- guage in Slovakia in 1995, “Deklaratsiia zo sviatochnoho vŷholoshinia kodifi- katsiï rusyn’skoho iazŷka na Sloven’sku” (Declaration of the Ceremonial An- nouncement of the Codification of the Rusyn Language in Slovakia, Bratislava, 27 January 1995), signed by members of the Coordinating Committee of the Rusyn Renaissance Society. 202 language and national identity 38. Front cover of the revised rules of Rusyn orthography, Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v zerkali novŷkh pravyl pro osnovnŷ i seredni shkolŷ z navchanem rusyn’skoho iazŷka (The Rusyn Language and its New Rules: For Elementary and Middle Schools Teaching the Rusyn Language, 2005) by Vasyl’ Iabur and Anna Plish- kova, published by Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishers. illustrations 203 39. Title page of the new orthographical dictionary by Vasyl’ Iabur, Anna Plish- kova, and Kvetoslava Koporova, published by Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishers: Rusyn’ska leksika na osnovi zmin y pravylakh rusyn’skoho iazŷka pro osnovnŷ i seredni shkolŷ z navchalnŷm rusyn’skŷm iazŷkom i z navchanem rusyn’skoho iazŷka: Pravopysnŷi i gramatichnŷi slovnyk (A Rusyn Lexicon Based on Changes in Rusyn Language Rules for Elementary and Middle Schools with Instruction in Rusyn and for Those Teaching the Rusyn Language: Ortho- graphical and Grammatical Dictionary, 2007). 204 language and national identity 40. Front cover of a textbook by Vasyl’ Iabur and Anna Plishkova, Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk pro 1.-4. klasu serednikh shkol iz navchalnŷm rusyn’skŷm iazŷkom i z navchanem rusyn’skoho iazŷka (The Rusyn Language for Grades 1-4 in Middle Schools Teaching Rusyn and with Rusyn as the Language of Instruction, 2007), published by Rusyn Narodnŷ novynkŷ Publishers. illustrations 205 41. In 2004 an international committee of Slavists in Opole, Poland, completed a multi-year research project leading to the most up-to-date history of the Slavic languages in a series, entitled Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich (The New- est History of the Slavic Languages). Volume 14 in the series is a multi-authored monograph edited by Paul Robert Magocsi, Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk (The Rusyn Lan- guage, 2004; second and revised edition, 2007). This work’s appearance reflects the fact that scholars accept the Rusyn language as one of the 14 contemporary Slavic languages. 206 language and national identity 42. Copy of an official letter to members of the World Council of Rusyns. Codi- fied in 1995, the Rusyn language has been employed in Slovakia in a number of functional domains, including official and administrative matters. The most consistent example of this usage can be seen in communications between Rusyn national organizations and several state institutions dealing with minority issues within the Slovak Republic, as well as in the international context. As a rule, the latter consist mainly of official communications by member organizations of the World Congress of Rusyns. illustrations 207 43. Excerpt of an official document, Rezolutsiia delegativ 9. Svitovoho kongresu Rusyniv, 23.6.2007, Maramorosh-Siget, Rumuniia (Resolution of the Delegates of the 9th World Congress of Rusyns, 23 June 2007, Maramorosh-Sighet, Ro- mania), as an example of the Rusyn language used in the official administration functional domain on an international level. 208 language and national identity 44. Invitation from the editorial office of the Rusyn and Narodnŷ novynkŷ Pub- lishing House to a cultural event as an example of the use of Rusyn in an official capacity in Slovakia. illustrations 209 45. The Rusyn language in Slovakia in the administrative sphere is also used in written communications from the Office of the Public Defender of Human Rights (Ombudsman) which publishes its decrees and informational material in each of the languages of Slovakia’s national minorities, including Rusyn. 210 language and national identity 46. Invitation to a press conference of the Institute of Regional and Nationality Studies of Prešov University. State institutions in Slovakia dealing with nationali- ty issues employ the state and minority languages bilingually in accordance with relevant legislation. illustrations 211 47. Bilingual invitation to the opening of new accommodations for the Museum of Rusyn Culture in Prešov, an institution within the framework of the Slovak National Museum. 212 language and national identity 48. A page from the Uchebnŷ osnovŷ pro 1.-4. klasu OSh z navchanem rusyn’skoho iazŷka (Instructional Fundamentals for Elementary Grades 1-4 in Schools Teach- ing the Rusyn Language, 1997), published by the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic bilingually in Slovak and Rusyn. illustrations 213 49. Bilingual invitation printed by the local administration in the village of Ča- biny, Slovakia at the opening of the Osnova shkola Anatoliia Kralits’koho (Ele- mentary School of Anatolii Kralyts’kŷi, the first school with Rusyn as the lan- guage of instruction. 214 language and national identity 50. The official sign denoting the Elementary School of Anatolii Kralits’kŷi in Čabiny with its bilingual name in Slovak and Rusyn, as well as a sign on the school in Rusyn with information about the donor, Steven Chepa of Toronto, Canada, who supported the reconstruction of the school building. illustrations 215 51. Bilingual invitation issued by the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater in Prešov to the premier performance of the play Dyn’ dereshovŷi (The Beating Bench) and to the premier of the Pidduklian’skŷi umelets’kŷi narodnŷi ansambl’ (The Duk’la Artistic Folk Ensemble) for which the writer apparently did not adhere to the normative Rusyn language. 216 language and national identity 52. Excerpt from the text of Ivan A. Goncharov’s play Oblomov in the repertory of the Aleksander Dukhnovych Theater as an example of the usage of Rusyn in the functional domain of the theater. illustrations 217 53. Front cover of the Rusyn’skŷi literaturnŷi almanakh (Rusyn Literary Alma- nac), published beginning in 2003 by the Society of Rusyn Writers of Slovakia. 218 language and national identity 54. Front cover of prose writer Mariia Mal’tsovs’ka’s volume of stories, Manna i oskomyna (Heavenly Sweetness and Bitterness, Prešov, 1994), for which in 1999 she received the Aleksander Dukhnovych Prize, an international award for the best work in Rusyn literature. illustrations 219 55. An excerpt from Mal’tsovska’s Manna i oskomyna as an example of the use of Rusyn in literature. 220 language and national identity 56. Title page of Shtefan Sukhŷi’s Endi sidat’ na mashŷnu vichnosty (Andy Takes a Seat on the Train of Eternity, 1995), for which he was awarded the Aleksander Dukhnovych Prize for Rusyn literature in 2000. illustrations 221 57. Excerpt from Sukhŷi’s Andy Takes a Seat on the Train of Eternity as an ex- ample of the use of Rusyn in literature. 222 language and national identity 58. Front cover of Mykolai Kseniak’s Bida Rusyniv z domu vŷhaniala (Need Drove the Rusyns From Their Home, 1995), for which the author received the Aleksander Dukhnovych Prize for Literature in 2000. illustrations 223 59. Excerpt from Kseniak’s Bida Rusyniv z domu vŷhaniala as an example of the use of Rusyn in literature. 224 language and national identity 60. Title page of the biweekly InfoRusyn, which the Rusyn Renaissance Society began to publish in 2004. illustrations 225 61. Title page of the Ievanheliia na nedili i sviata tsiloho roku (Gospel Readings for Sundays and Holy Days Throughout the Entire Year, 1999), compiled under the editorship of the Reverend Frantishek Krainiak, serves as an example of the use of Rusyn in religious texts. 226 language and national identity 62. Title page of the newspaper Artos, published by the Society of St. John the Baptist beginning in 2005, with articles in Rusyn using both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts. illustrations 227 63. Front cover of the Grekokatolits‘kŷi rusyn’skŷi kalendar‘ (Greek Catholic Rusyn Calendar) which the Society of St. John the Baptist has been publishing since 2005. Articles in the calendar are printed in the Cyrillic and Latin scripts. 228 language and national identity 64. Invitation to the archeparchial pilgrimage of the Greek Catholic Church Ad- ministration in the village of Čirč, Slovakia as an example of the use of Rusyn in a local parish. illustrations 229 65. Front cover of the quadrilingual textbook, Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk v obrazkakh pro I. stupin’ osnovnŷkh shkol (A Rusyn Picture Dictionary for the First Grade of Elementary School, 2008), by Mariia Smetanova. 230 language and national identity 66. Front cover of the trilingual Slovak-Rusyn-English textbook, Rusyn’skŷi iazŷk u konverzatsiï pro II. stupin’ osnovnŷkh i serednï shkol (Rusyn Language Conversational Book for the Second Level of Elementary and Middle Schools, 2009), by Kvetoslava Koporova, Anna Plïshkova, and Eva Eddi.