Since the name popped up as the ancestors of the Rusyn people I thought I would provide a link to a site about them:
http://www.hr/darko/etf/et01.html

I would also like to make a few comments. I can't remember the book but it was about the use of Slavonic in the Liturgy. It stated that the White Croats were the one group that continued using the Slavonic-Roman Liturgy from the evangelization of SS. Cyril and Methodius to the present day, where they are found in Poland and Croatia. Originally they were spread throught Moravia, Southern Poland, Slovakia, Western Ukraine. If these White Croats are ancestors of the Carpatho-Rus, perhaps they are ancestors of the Slovak Greek Catholics as well. The Slovak Greek Catholics claim they are original descendants of the Cyril-Methodian mission that survived in the mountains keeping the Slavonic-Byzantine Rite, not adopting the Roman Rite like the rest of the Slovaks. Now many Rusyns say that is untrue and all Slovak Greek Catholics are just Slovakized Rusyns. I don't disagree that some are, but the continuation of the White Croats and their Slavonic-Roman Rite seems to give credibility to the oft maligned claim of Slivak Greek Catholics.

I also found it interesting that the ancient name for the Croats is Hrovat (Horvat) and I now many Rusyns with that last name several in my parish. It would seem the White Croats are at least some Rusyns ancestors.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

One problem with this kind of historical/cultural analysis is that it tends to reflect the self-fulfilling prophecies of the historians themselves.

We get that a lot in biblical exegesis too!

Who can actually claim that they are, in any way, "pure descendants" of a particular group in history?

Ukraine, for example, had many cultural groups of a non-Slavic background. It was invaded many times and the invaders often stayed and intermarried with the locals.

Many foreign religious sects emigrated to Ukraine, as did foreign merchants e.g. German, Greek and other colonies. These all intermarried.

A Canadian delegation, of which I was a part, went to Ukraine and we found a total of 96 minority cultural groups, with their own religious, social and other forms of organization in Ukraine. Their historic and cultural influence there has yet to be studied (I haven't begun my project with our Churches ).

Add to this the often forgotten "dynamic" aspect to national and cultural/religious identity that CAN BE unrelated to actual historical, cultural roots.

In other words, I can say I belong to this or that cultural group because my parents or ancestors belonged to it. Or else, I can say I belong to it because I simply feel a kinship with it and want to belong to it.

There are descedants of Rusyns who consider themselves to be Ukrainian - and even more nationalistic than many Galician, Volynian or Bukovinian Ukrainians.

There are others who see themselves with a separate Rusyn identity and culture.

I'm NOT (God forbid) saying that this or that one is "correct."

I"m just saying the two exist and that our religious/cultural commitments today depend a great deal on HOW WE OURSELVES feel about our own identity, regardless of our biological ties or historical roots.

To want to say, "Hundreds of years ago, these people lived here and they were our great-great-great-great etc. grandparents which is why we are what we are today," is simply untenable, ultimately unproveable, unrealistic and unnecessary.

We are a mish-mash of cultures throughout history.

I'm Ukrainian, or so I say.

I've studied my background to see just how biologically Ukrainian I really am.

After two years of digging, you know what I found?

(Do you want to? )

I've discovered that my ancestors came from Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, France, Germany, Scotland and Serbia. They all intermarried, they all spoke more than one language and they all eventually settled in western Ukraine where they were soldiers and (married) priests. I have 14 of the latter - tooting my own horn, you betcha!

And I am a direct descendant, I kid you not, of St Volodymyr the Enlightener of Kyiv, I can prove it and finally got the last requisite documents just several weeks ago that ended a long genealogical search.

But so what?

It is how we understand ourselves, as individuals and as members of groups/cultures which ultimately plays the deciding factor.

Cultural studies at universities reflect the biases of those who work at them, whether Rusyn, Ukrainian or Russian.

And I'm not criticizing that, just saying that's how it is.

We cannot tell someone of Rusyn background who considers himself to be a "conscious Ukrainian" that he or she is wrong based on an historical perspective. Just as we cannot tell a Rusyn who considers himself or herself as part of an independent historical/cultural entity using the same "methodology."

I'm not Ukrainian because my ancestors were. I'm Ukrainian because I grew up in a home where such a cultural identity was fostered, where the language was spoken and where Ukrainian symbolism was fostered.

I don't need anything further to justify my cultural commitment in that regard.

God bless you!

Alex

Lance,

The modern name for 'Croat' in various Slav languages is still a form of Horvat/Chorvat, depending on the spelling convention.

There is quite a bit available about the use of Slavonic in the Roman Liturgy in what is modern Croatia available. These Croatians wrote Slavonic in Glagolitic or Latin script, not Cyrillic. This use continued until recent times in isolated parts of Croatia; perhaps until today?

I find the whole discussion of Rusyn vs. Slovak Greek Catholics in modern Slovakia tiresome. Are people not free to choose a church now? Were not many of our ancestors one thing or another? Now what are we? Still Italian, Slovak, Rusyn? Most of us are Americans.... I think the ethnic situation in what is now modern Slovakia is rather complex and was even more so before. The various "plots," for lack of a better term, of the Communists did not help either. There is no doubt that before there was a modern Slovakia many Greek Catholics in Slovakia would not have called themselves Slovaks...but the same could be said of the Ukrainians. Were there Ukrainians before a state called Ukraine existed? I would say yes. Same holds true for Slovaks, and for Rusyns in spite of not having a state.

Anyway, enough rambling.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Very good - and I say that not only because I agree with you

Your post is an excellent contribution to the view that cultural identity is related to, but not a prisoner of, historical and national circumstances.

In short, it is a dynamic thing that adapts to and is shaped by contemporary realities in North America and elsewhere.

There are many kinds of "Ukrainian identity" as well.

I met a Ukrainian government official who is an ethnic Moldovan.

He was very proud of his Moldovan identity and heritage.

But he spoke Ukrainian better than other officials, knew more about Ukrainian history, and seemed to have a more enthusiastic feel for the culture than the other "cradles" .

I've also come across Rusyns who see themselves as Slovaks or Ukrainians in terms of their "citizenship nationality."

And with the advent of the "hyphenated" ethnicity, the reality is that we often have composite cultural identities.

Again, our identity is something that we do for ourselves. It is not imposed, at least not any more.

And we can point to historical "facts" to legitimate it.

But we don't need to, ultimately.

Alex

http://www.archaeology.net/language/liturgy

This link is related to the use of Croatian and Slavonic in the Liturgy.

The "Bilyj 'Horvatyj" (i.e. White Croats) were Central/East-Central Proto-Slavic peoples who had originally lived in the Carpathian Mountain area
during the 8th-12th Century. Originally, they were not classified as Eastern or Western Slavs. At the time of the Magyar arival to Pannonia, East Slavic peoples (i.e.Rusyn, "The Rus")were also living in the Carpathian region and began to assimilate the "Bilyj 'Horvatyj" and the White Croats who didn't assimilate with the East Slavic peoples went south to the former Yugoslavian area of Southern Europe. By the time of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission into what was then Greater Moravia, all the Slavic peoples were converted to Eastern Christianity in it's Constantinopolitan form. Later on what ever Western Slavic peoples lving among the Carpathians (i.e. Slovaks, Poles, etc.)
were re-christianized by the Germanic Roman bishops because even during this time (860-1000) there was only one Apostolic Universial Church and the pope of Rome had already
sactioned the evagelization of the Slavs according to the particular Constantinopolitan tradition. Only the East Slavic Rusyns remained Eastern Christians. Most Poles were always Western Christians and what ever West Slavic Slovaks who initially were Eastern Christians, became Western Christians. Just a little Slavic history lesson for all of you who aren't of Slavic descent

I don't think the Rurik ancestors of Sts. Volodymyr and Olha probably considered themselves Slavs at all...just some wild southern Vikings who wondered down some rivers! It is interesting also that there are some architectural similarities between some of the historic Norwegian wooden church architecture and some of the Hutsul, Boyko, Podolian and Kyivan styles of wooden church architecture...I think there's some connection there...

Dear Diak,

You hit the nail right on its historical head!

The kings and emperors of history NEVER associated themselves with a particular national/cultural identity as such.

They saw themselves as heads of a royal jurisdiction in which there were many different cultural groups.

St Volodymyr/Vladimir sought out a new religion precisely as a way to unite the religiously diverse peoples of his empire (which was five times the size of the Byzantine Empire then).

Christian Rulers who were Enlighteners of Kingdoms and peoples of their time often sought to introduce the new Christian faith from outside for this same purpose.

It was good politics as well as good religion!

Alex

Ung, do you infer that those of Slavic descent are born with a knowledge of Slavic history?

Bob

Dear Bob,

Perhaps not exactly "born" with it.

But the brainwashing begins almost immediately following birth

Alex

Bob, just a small correction from your earlier post about White Croats to Lance. Glagolitic is not Latin script but rather an older Old Slavonic script that doesn't look much like modern Cyrillic at all and less like Latin letters. :p

Subdeacon Randolph,

I think Bob was refering to the fact that White Croats used Glagolitic and Latin letters in their manuscripts and printings of the Roman-Slavonic Liturgy.

In Christ,
Lance

Friends,

By posting this topic I was not trying to pit one group against another or say one group is better. I find it rather silly that Russians tell Belarusans, Ukrainians, and Rusyns they are Russians; Ukrainians and Slovaks tell Rusyns they are Ukrainians or Slovaks; Rusyns tell Greek Catholic Magyars and Slovaks they are Magyarized or Slovakized Rusyns, etc.

People are who they choose to be regardless of history or myth. And given that the Slavs didn't have an alphabet until the 9th century and the histories of the divisions of the Slavs into the groups we know today were poorly recorded, I think every group has the right to promote the identity it chooses for itself. Ukrainians, Belarusans, and Rusyns, deserve to have a seperate identity from the Russians. and Greek Catholic Hungarians and Slovaks deserve to have their own identity from Rusyns if they so choose.

Some have seem to adopted the idea that ethnicity is static which is completley wrong I think. Ethnicity is dynamic, ever growing and changing. If it didn't we would all just be Slavs, with no other qualifiers. But geography, distance, and context all worked their magic and as time went on we got Russians, Poles, Croats, etc. All sharing a common heritage and yet all unique. And this continues, it never stops. We Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians of Greek Catholic ancestry are all changed and not exactly what our ancestors in the Old Country were nor should we be. We have different contexts and histories that are our own besides the ones we share with our brothers in the homelands. This should be a cause for rejoicing as it reflects the universality of the faith and its meaning for all peoples and times.

In Christ,
Lance

Diak,

I did not say that Glagolitic is Latin script...having done post grad work in Slavic Languages I am familiar with the different writing systems.

Further, it is argued that Glagolitic is the alphabet of Cyril and Methodius...'Cyrillic' which is just a reworking of Greek uncials plus some letters from Hebrew to make up for sounds lacking in Greek evolved later with the movement out of Moravia/Panonia into what is now Bulgaria.

The latest "Croatian Church Slavonic" Roman 'missal' out of Rome that I have seen is written in latin script according to Croatian spelling convention. Notably there is the use of 'titlo' and abbreviations in that text.

Bob

A few comments on this, after everything else already said. Are we to presume that folks with the surname 'Horvat' are all of Croatian ancestry? What about 'Lengyel' are they originally Poles? And 'Orosz' all Russians? And all those 'Kovach' descendents of smiths? What about 'Molnar'? No doubt there were millers in their past. 'Takach'? weavers, right? And 'Szabo' cobblers? Sure!

Like English Slavs and other languages make use of not only patronymics but also names derived from professions, real or imaginary (mythical?) places of origin or sometimes distiguishing charateristics (I know some folks with the surname 'Dolgy', I wont go there).

I just don't know how much all of this matters. For those purists out there these things may be important. I think that foreign domination and shifting boarders have muddied these waters so much it is hard to make real connections.

Bob