Talk:Tsar/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

RfC

I've put up an RfC, in the hopes of getting some additional input here, since we seem rather bogged down and arguing past each other. john k 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful if the editors involved in the dispute could summarize their positions; I would like to comment, but the previous discussion is quite long, and I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the problem is. If the dispute is about how specific sentence(s) should be worded, perhaps the editors could post their preferred wording on this talk page? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that'll take some time. Right now I'll only say that the sentences concerned are too numerous. I suppose the simplest way to see what the discussion between me and Imladjov has been about is to see for yourself the versions that we two have been reverting to. As for John, he supports me, but he has also more "radical" doubts, extending into earlier periods of history. --194.145.161.227 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think my doubts are all that radical. My basic position is that Tsar (in Bulgarian and Russian) is not an exact equivalent to Emperor, but rather a rough one, especially since 1721, although even before that it was never really considered an exact equivalence, and that, starting in the 19th century, "Tsar" was actually occasionally used in ways which made it equivalent to "King." That's all. john k 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
One preliminary comment is that everyone seems to be relying on translation/interpretation of primary sources, with very few secondary sources cited. Are there any authoritative secondary sources that can be consulted here, besides dictionaries? Is there, for instance, an equivalent of the Oxford Classical Dictionary for Russian history? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Imladjov has been envoking historical works in general terms (an article in Serbo-Croatian from the 1935, a book about tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria), but so far he hasn't quoted them explicitly to explain which of his statements they actually support (despite requests). Besides dictionaries, the 1911th edition of Britannica[1], [2] supports, to a great extent, various views that John and I have expressed. Note also that since the edits in the actual revert war (in which John did not participate) were mostly about the modern meaning/usage of the word in the native languages, dictionaries (and perception by native speakers) did seem to be quite relevant as sources. --194.145.161.227 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the OED, which does not say that Tsar is equivalent to Emperor, and which provides early English usage which says that Tsar is not equivalent to Emperor. (That is not to say that "Tsar" was not seen by Russians to be equivalent to Emperor, but that Englishmen weren't sure if it was or not. Since Englishmen presumably get to set English usage, I think this is significant). Beyond this, you're absolutely right that we ought to look for secondary sources. john k 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

tsar and kral according to Naiden Gerov

"Dictionary of the Bulgarian language" by Naiden Gerov (1895-1904).

царь - 1. царь - връховный владетель на единъ народъ, на една страна; кралъ, господарь, султанъ; царь. 2. Прьвый-тъ нейде, на нечто; глава, войвода, началникъ.

краль - господарь, владалець, царь.

Translation:

1. tsar = the supreme ruler of a people, of a country; king (kral in the original Bulgarian - my insertion), lord, sultan; tsar. 2. The first man somewhere, of something; chieftain, leader, chief.

2. kral (king) - lord, ruler, tsar.

Tsar, kral and imperator according to a recent Bulgarian dictionary

Български тълковен речник, 1973. цар - 1.държавен грлава, монарх на предишна България и Русия. 2.изобщо монарх. Пример: имало едно време един цар.

крал - титла на монарх

император - най-висока монархическа титла

Translation:

tsar - 1. a head of state, a monarch in Bulgaria and Russia in the past. 2. A monarch in general.

kral (king) - a title of a monarch.

imperator - the highest title of a monarch

Tsar', korol' and imperator according to a modern Russian dictionary

Словарь современного русского языка. 1965

царь - 1. Государь, властелин какой-нибудь страны (как общее наименование, не титул). 2. Титул монарха в некоторых странах.

король - в некоторых феодальных и буржуазных государствах - титул монарха.

император - наследственный титул главы монархического государства.

Translation:

A Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language (1948-1966)

tsar - 1. Sovereign, ruler of a country (as a general designation, not as a title). 2. The title of the monarch in some countries. (next come examples from Russia)

king (korol') - in some feudal and bourgeois states - the title of a monarch.

emperor (imperator) - a hereditary title of the head of state in a monarchy.

Is this a Soviet era dictionary? john k 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's obvious, isn't it? :) I forgot to write the date of edition. Anyway, the language hasn't really changed since that time. In cotrast, Dal's dictionary (1866) that I quoted previously certainly feels like a different era. --194.145.161.227 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute summary

Wow! This seems to have grown into quite a big dispute! I wasn't able to read everything, but I think if we summarize the disputed points and the points there's general agreement on, it may be easier to reach some sort of consensus.

Do we all agree, that...

  1. In the Middle Ages, tsar was merely the Slavic equivalent of the Byzantine and Western imperial titles. Bulgaria was ruled by an Emperor after 913, Russia after 1480, and Serbia briefly from 1346 to 1371.
  2. After the Liberation of Bulgaria, the title was preserved because of it being traditionally used in the Middle Ages, not because it reflected the country's situation correctly.
  3. The word tsar was directly etymologically derived from the imperial title of caesar and corresponded to it entirely; it was not further derived from kaisar, which is a lesser Byzantine title.

If we do, then we can draw the conclusion that in Russia and Bulgaria, whatever the later use or substitution, the title came to be associated as the title of our ruler somewhen in time because he historically bore that title in the near history, while in Serbia, where it was only briefly used, the traditional title of remained kral and the distinction was perfectly preserved. In Bulgaria and Russia, this led to some confusion, which resulted in this dispute.

In my opinion, we should emphasize the original imperial meaning of the title (etymology and medieval use), but we should also note that its present and recent historical use has been quite different and the meaning may have been distorted. Todor→Bozhinov 12:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I totally disagree with your position of calling a new usage/meaning "incorrect" and a "distortion" just because it's more recent. You wouldn't call each step in the evolution of "basileus" (chieftain - king - emperor of the oikumene - king) "incorrect", would you? To a great extent, the use of similar POV and linguistically unsound terms has caused the dispute.
Another thing is that I don't think that all of us would agree 100% with your points. John K has expressed some doubts in the degree to which "tsar" was understood as "emperor" in various periods. I don't agree with him completely about that, but IMO it should be noted that the meaning of the word "emperor" itself is somewhat vague. Also, the Russian Slavs have called their Mongol overlord "tsar'", and the Bulgarian Slavs have called their Turkish sultan "tsar" - in both cases, these supreme rulers could not be described as emperors in the way Imladjov defines the term.--194.145.161.227 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I elieve the Ottoman Sultans did claim the title of Emperor as successors of the Byzantines, although I'm not sure of that. john k 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but I reckoned that they hadn't been recognized as such by a Christian patriarch/pope/other emperor, thus not fitting into Imladjov 's definition. However, the situation isn't as clear as I thought; they appear to have had rather amicable relations with the Greek Orthodox Church from the very beginning, something that I wasn't aware of (seeottoman dynasty#heads of the house). --194.145.161.227 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To address Todor Bozhinov's points.

  1. The OED suggests that, in Russian at least, it was not completely clear that "Tsar" was the equivalent of "Emperor." Also, Ivan the Terrible, in 1547, was the first Muscovite ruler to officially take the title of "Tsar," although, as I understand it, it was sometimes used informally before this. I would strongly dispute that Russia was ruled by an Emperor after 1547, as well. Russia was ruled by a Tsar, a title in many ways equivalent to Emperor, after 1547. It was not, however, consistently treated as equivalent to Emperor in the west, and I think that, given that "Emperor" is a western term, the western understanding is important. Only after 1721 was the Russian Emperor. I'm willing to agree that the early Bulgarian rulers should be considered equivalent to Emperors, and the Serbian rulers definitely were.
  2. More or less agree.
  3. More or less agree.

Beyond this, I'd like to note that Serbia had a significant history of monarchs titled "Kral." In Bulgaria and Russia, there was no such tradition, so "Kral" was a term exclusively used for foreign monarchs. There was no distinction to be "preserved," because "Kral" was never used for native rulers in either country. I think the introduction by Peter the Great of "Imperator" in 1721 is terribly important here, and is the key factor in understanding why "Tsar" is no longer either the Russian or Bulgarian word for "Emperor." Whatever the situation beforehand (and I'm willing to accept that in Russia and Bulgaria, if not in the west, "Tsar" was understood before 1721 as being roughly equivalent to "Emperor"), Peter's desire to be accepted as an Emperor in the west, something which he was seemingly never going to get with the title "Tsar", led him to introduce Imperator as a new title, and as a new word for Emperor in Russian. This left Tsar somewhat orphaned, a term used unofficially for the Emperor, and present among his subsidiary titles, but not used any longer for other Emperors, and not used for monarchical rulers in the west. Bulgarian, heavily influenced by Russian when it was developed into a literary language in the 19th century, also came to the same usage. Thus, by the 19th century, "Tsar", in Russian and Bulgarian, is no longer equivalent to Emperor. It is used only for the rulers of Bulgaria and Russia who called themselves Tsar - other emperors are called Imperator. Furthermore, the titles are used in ways where they are directly equivalent to "King" - in the Bulgarian translation of Roi des Bulgares, and in the Russian translation of Roi de Pologne. The title never becomes fully equivalent to King, and it always retains its imperial connotations, but it has ceased to be directly an equivalent for the western "Emperor," in the way that "Tsar" still is in other slavic languages. Does this make sense? john k 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the information presented, Iwonder if it was Peter's intent to be "Ceasar"? This might merit inclusion if some refernece canbe found. It might also help with resolving some of the dispute. George 02:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean - Caesar as a synonym of Emperor? If so, yes, certainly.
That is precisely what I mean.George
My answer to Todor Bozhilov's points.
  1. More or less agree, although it should be noted that "tsar" could be used in reference to other supreme rulers (Tatar overlords), and that as a word it also preserved the more ancient meaning of Greek "basileus".
  2. Disagree with the way the question is formulated. How can the term "emperor" reflect the country's situation correctly? Do you mean international recognition of the title? If so, it should be noted that not all Bulgarian rulers who called themselves tsars and are called "emperors" by Western historiography were recognized as basilei/imperatores by the outside world, and I see no reason why recognition should matter either.
  3. More or less agree, although the "entirely" bit is questionable (see the first point). Also, it's clear that the original meaning was blurred at some point after The Middle Ages (cf. modern usage in Bulgarian and Russian, as well as John K's arguments and the 1911 Britannica). --194.145.161.227 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1911 Britannica is a model of clarity

On this issue...I will bold the statements I consider particularly notable:

Tsar, or Czar, the title commonly given both abroad and in Russia itself to the Sovereign of Russia, whose official style is, however, "Emperor and Autocrat" (Imperator i Samovlastityel). In its origin the word tsar seems to have connoted the same as imperator, being identical with the German Kaiser in its dervation from the Latin Caesar. In the old Slavonic scriptures the Greek Basileus is always translated tsar, and this title was also given to the Roman Emperor. The old Russian title for a sovereign was knyaz, prince, or veliky knyaz, grand prince. The title tsar was first adopted by the Slavonic peoples settled in the Balkan peninsula, who were in close touch with the Eastern emperor; thus it was used by the medieval Bulgarian kings. It penetrated into Russia as a result of the growing intercourse between old Muscovy and Constantinople, notably of the marriage alliances contracted by Russian princes with the dynasty of Basil the Macedonian; and it was assumed by the Muscovite princes who revolted from the yoke of the Mongols. The other tsars were gradually ousted by those of Moscow, and the modern Russian emperors inherit their title of tsar from Ivan III (1462-1505), or perhaps rather from his grandson Ivan IV (1533-1584) who was solemnly crowned tsar in 1547. Throughout, however, the title tsar was used, as it still is in popular parlance, indifferently of both emperors and kings, being regarded as the equivalent of the Slavonic krol or kral (Russ. korol, Magyar kiraly), a king, which had been adopted from the name of Charlemagne (Germ. Karl, Lat. Carolus Magnus).
The use being equivocal, Peter the Great, at the Peace of Nystad (November 2, 1721), assumed the style of imperator, an exotic word intended to symbolize his imperial dignity as the equal of the western emperor. This new style was not, however, recognized by the powers until the time of Catherine II, and then only on the express understanding that this recognition did not imply any precedency or superiority of the Russian emperor over other sovereigns. Henceforth, whatever popular usage might be, the title tsar was treated officially as the equivalent of that of king. Thus the Russian emperor is tsar (king) of Poland and of several other parts of his dominions. Thus, too, the prince of Bulgaria, on assuming the royal style, took the title of tsar of Bulgaria.

The basic points here, at least in my view, iare a) before 1721, it was not clear that the title "Tsar" was meant to be specifically equivalent to "Emperor," perhaps due to the fact that in the East there had never been a clear distinction between Kings and Emperors (what with the Greek word for "King" coming to be the main title of the Byzantine Emperors, and the word used in Slavic languages for western kings being one derived from the name of a western emperor); b) after 1721, or at least after the powers recognized the Russian imperial title, "Tsar" was officially considered to be equivalent of "King," even if it was popularly used as the equivalent of "Emperor." QED? john k 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding: it seems to me that, at the very least, the 1911 Britannica should be considered a reliable guide for diplomatic practice at the time - note that this was written while "Tsar of Poland" and "Tsar of the Bulgarians" were still operative titles. I think this should show that it is settled that in European diplomatic usage from the mid 18th century on, "Tsar" was considered to be equivalent to "King," rather than "Emperor." john k 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I have not bothered to involve myself in this debate in its second day, as it is apparent to me that the whole process is becoming a waste of time. There is little that I can agree with here apart from Todor Bozhinov's fully accurate summary. Any direct statement to the effect that "tsar" means "king" is blatantly wrong. Actual kings, medieval and modern, western and non-western, are designated as such in Bulgarian, Russian, and Serbian. That in rare instances the term "tsar" has been used to designate an actual "king" is not under dispute. But that does not change the particular meaning of the term "tsar," and the original meaning has not been supplanted by a new one. Nor is "tsar" some sort of idiosyncratic title common to a few Slavic languages that designates the native ruler regardless of that ruler's actual status within the hierarchy of monarchs (this could perhaps be said to have been the case with knjaz and its equivalents). The appeals to citing dictionaries — at least the ones included above — have done nothing to cast doubt on this. Generic and unspecific usage of either title cannot claim precedence in determining actual meaning (this discussion has been, after all, about precision).
Recourse to a few largely unofficial early western sources is often of extremely dubious relevance as to what "tsar" meant where it was actually used (it is curious that one would expect misapprehension to correct itself), even though it may explain, among other things, why Peter the Great chose to clarify his status by using the equivalent Latin term imperator. There is extensive literature (especially specialist literature) on the subject and a basic selection of that was cited in the article before the misleading alterations. Specifically on Ferdinand as "king" and "tsar," much of the literature, then and now remains confused (but see, in addition to the work by S. Constant, also W. Kolarz, Myth and Realities in Eastern Europe, 1946, 222, and A. Palmer, Twilight of the Habsburgs, 1997, 304); yet tsar continued to be used for the emperors of Russia, Bulgaria, and Serbia, and was recognized as such, for example by S. Runciman, The First Bulgarian Empire, 1930, 174 (the most detailed study is that by Ostrogorsky, cited in the bibliography to the article). The meaning of the term ("tsar" = "emperor") has been repeatedly shown or accepted in Byzantinist and Balkanist scholarship ever since (see for example, J. Shepard, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3, 1999, 575: "...the title basileus (Slavonic tsar)..."). These works (and others included in the bibliography to the article) are of course more specific and reliable than the 1911 Britannica.
I do not see it as my responsibility to provide more than references as bibliography and to introduce citations for every single sentence that may one day be challenged by yet another editor either acting out of ignorance or laboring under misapprehension. If you wish to take exception to this characterization, by all means do so; I take issue with the unstemmed influx of underinformed POV and the outright failure to take into consideration the authorities provided for the purposes of verifying the information (there is no readily accessible online compilation for everything under the sun and occasionally one has to use actual books). That is not simply a problem confined to a couple of editors involved in this particular dispute, it is symptom of the fundamental (and yet unavoidable) flaw of Wikipedia's open editing policy. When there is such determined resistance to consulting relevant works and such readiness to form and irresponsibly apply inaccurate opinions while abandoning verifiability, it becomes futile to uphold the accuracy of information. For me this has simply become an absolute waste of time, and I have no interest in following up. The version as of [24 July 2006] was fully accurate in these respects. Distort this information as you please. Imladjov 05:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the trouble of quoting my sources. You haven't. Demanding precise quotes is, IMO, a natural part of Wikipedian practice and your refusal to provide them only shows your reluctance to act like a Wikipedian and convince the other editors by means of sources and arguments rather than authority. If you had spent some of your energy on quoting actual sources related to Ferdinand and "the tsar of Poland" rather than arguing and repeating yourself, things might have been different. Also, I have tried to modify my version of the article, making various concessions and corrections based on our discussion (for instance, I have replaced the statement to the effect that "tsar has become the equivalent of king" with something like "tsar is used in a similar, although far from always the same way as king", and I have included the bit about modern kings/krals of Thailand and the like). You have shown no interest in these attempts to compromise.
For the emptieth time I repeat that if the usage has changed, so has the meaning. Nobody denies that "tsar" originally and most of the time was the equivalent of "emperor", and this is clearly stated in the article; the info in the 1911 Britannica is not yet included: while it does sound convincing, another, confirming, source would be desirable.
In fact, one should say that "tsar" was used to translate the Greek "basileus", and the Greek "basileus", despite the official Byzantine ideological fashion of confining its use to "emperor", did preserve a secondary meaning of a "king" (not in the sense of medieval Latin "rex", but in the sense of classical Latin "rex", i.e. a monarch without reference to the rex/imperator hierarchy), present in Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic literature, at least when referring to Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic times. This was naturally transferred into Slavonic. Thus, the use of tsar as "king" is in fact the most ancient and original one, albeit one that didn't apply to the political realities of the Middle Ages.
Just to make clear what you are disagreeing with - the major changes from your version to the present version are:
  1. The new version mentions modern usage without labelling it incorrect, anachronistic, distorting and what not.
  2. I have removed the implication that "tsar" was intended to mean "emperor" in XXth century Bulgaria until the opposite is proven/sourced; rather, I have included a statement to the opposite effect, based on accumulated evidence from my dictionary info about modern and XIXthe century usage, the quote in Polyviannyi which speaks of "Belgian tsars", and the 1911 Britannica.
  3. And, last but not least, numerous repetitions have been removed.
  4. The info in 1911 Britannica - claiming that "tsar" was used informally as a synonym of "king" from the beginning, and that it came to mean "king" officially after Peter's change of style to "imperator" in 1721 - has not been included yet, because it would be desirable to support it with other sources. --194.145.161.227 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey 194 - this all seems sensible. I would add, though, that Tsar did not "come to mean king officially" after 1721. Rather, it came to be considered as an equivalent title to "king" in diplomatic discourse. In terms of 1911 Britannica, one would think that, being written only three years after Ferdinand took the "tsar" title, they would know what they were talking about about that, at least. As far as Imladov's, I see nothing constructive. I find the readiness to list a bunch of sources without taking any time to actually explain what they say very annoying. Some of us are in situations where it is basically impossible for us to check Imladjov's sources ourselves (I am in France and isolated from my university library, which is 3500 miles away, at the moment). It is common courtesy to at least provide some basic quotes to explain the reasons for you viewpoints. john k 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Much of the 1911 Britannica was written for the Ninth Edition of some 25 years before. I don't know about this article. Septentrionalis 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Split

If nobody objects, I will split Tsar of Bulgaria into separate article, because this controversial stuff obscures what most edits seek on this page, i.e., detailed info about the Russian title. The 20th-century Bulgarian rulers might have styled themselves tsars, gods, or pharaohs, but even in Russia (as in the rest of the world) they are referred to as kings. Case closed, Ghirla -трёп- 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly object strongly. The title is Slavonic and Russia has no monopoly over it. You might as well remove Serbia. Not to mention that you got the title from us in the first place. :) --194.145.161.227 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, of course it's not true that the Bulgarian kings are referred to as koroli in Russian. Check it in any Russian encylopedia, including the Russian wikipedia. You simply haven't been sufficiently interested in Bulgaria to know what its rulers are called in Russian. --194.145.161.227 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trolling and check either Great Soviet Encyclopedia or Brockhaus and Efron. Both refer to 19th-century and 20th-century monarchs of Bulgaria (and Serbia) as koroli. The term "tsar" is applied to medieval rulers of Bulgaria only, as may be seen from my message above. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I have to assume weak memory in this case. Brockhaus and Efron was published in 1890-1906, i.e. before there were any modern tsars of Bulgaria (Ferdinand I assumed the title tsar in 1908). As for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, here are some quotes:
"Борис III (1894 - 1943) - царь Болгарии 1918-1943. При его поддержке буржуазно-монархическая клика во главе с А.Цанковым произвела фашисткий переворот ..." и т.д. и т. п.
Translation: "Boris III (1894 - 1943) - tsar of Bulgaria 1918-1943" etc.
"Болгария - ... Фердинанд принял титул царя. (стр.419) ... В этой обстановке 19 мая 1934 произошел переворот, произведенный антигермански настроенными офицерами, стоявшими в оппозиции к царю Борису. ... В 1935 царь Борис, опираясь на реваншистикие прогерманские элементы, устранил от власти правительство К.Георгиева. (стр.422)"
Translation:
"Bulgaria - ... Ferdinand assumed the title of tsar. ... Under these circumstances, a group of anti-German officers who were in opposition to tsar Boris, carried out a coup on the 19 of May 1934. ... In 1935, tsar Boris overthrew K. Georgiev's government."
"Фердинанд I Кобург (1861-1948) - болгарский князь 1887-1908 и болгарский царь 1908-1918.


Translation:
Ferdinand I Coburg (1861-1948) - Bulgarian prince 1887-1908 and Bulgarian tsar 1908-1918.
By the way, this is another argument against Imladjov's stance. If the Russians had viewed "tsar" as a synonym of "emperor" and had refused to recognize the Bulgarian rulers as emperors, then obviously they would have refused to call them "tsars". That would have been reflected or at least mentioned in later Russian sources such as The Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
--194.145.161.227 15:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I object the split too, especially in order to have info about the Russian monarch only at Tsar. This would be misleading, incorrect and even unfair, considered who first used the title, the way it originated and where and how it was first attested. Todor→Bozhinov 13:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Having separate articles at Tsar of Russia and Tsar of Bulgaria might be appropriate, but the problem is that there's so much material that would have to be common to both articles that it would probably make more sense to just leave it all here. Separating out just Bulgaria would be wrong, I think. john k 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The final proof

Ghirlandao, thank you so much for telling me to look at Brockhaus and Efron! By 1890-1906, the academics of the Russian Empire regarded tsar' as equivalent to korol' , and not to emperor. The following is the unabridged introductory section of the article on tsar in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in these years and known as "the Russian counterpart to the 1911 Britannica"([3]). The significant parts are in bold.

Translation first.

Tsar

- one of the monarchic titles, equivalent to the title "king" (korol'). Other languages don't have the distinction that the Russian language makes between tsars and kings, the first word being used almost exclusively for the monarchs of the Ancient Near East and of Classical Antiquity, as well as for the Russian sovereigns after the XVIth century, and the second being used mostly for the West European sovereigns of the Middle Ages and Modernity. The French, the Germans, the English, the Polacks etc. use the same terms roi, König, King, Król both for the Ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Roman tsars and for the modern koroli (kings) of England, Italy etc.. The very word Tsar in the title of the Russian emperor is rendered in Polish with the term Król, i.e. korol' (king). The terminological distinction between the words Tsar and korol' has arisen in our language, depending on which language we have borrowed the term from. The word Tsar is a contracted form of the word cesar' (Caesar); it's equivalent to forms such as kesar', Greek kaisar, German Kaiser, i.e. emperor (imperator). Other Slavic peoples still preserve the form cesar' to designate imperial power: Polish cesarz, Czech císař, Gallician cesar'; the latter word was still used in our language in the XVIIIthe century to designate the Holy Roman Emperor. The Bulgarian language uses the contracted form, too, and it was used to designate the Bulgarian sovereigns of the past. The first sovereigns to be called Tsars in Russian were the ones mentioned in the Holy Scripture, as well as the Byzantine emperor (imperator). The word korol', which we share with other Slavs (Polish Król, Serbian краль etc.), originated from the name of Charlemagne (Carolus), and in our language it came to be used above all in reference to the Western sovereigns. In Russian history, it was only applied to Daniil Romanovich Galickiy in the XVIIIthe century. Thus, the distinction that the Russian language makes between teh two monarchic titles, has no principal significance; we translate the same Latin rex with the one or the other word, depending on whether we are referring to an Ancient Roman king or a Germanic konung.

Original

Царь

— один из монархических титулов, равносильный титулу король. В других языках нет того различия, которое русский язык делает между царями и королями, называя первым именем почти исключительно монархов древнего Востока и классического мира, a также русских государей с XVI в., и давая имя королей главным образом западноевропейским государям в средние века и в новое время. Французы, немцы, англичане, поляки и т. д. одними и теми же терминами roi, K önig, King, Kró l обозначают и древневосточных, или греческих, и римских Ц., с одной стороны, и современных королей Англии, Италии и т. п. Самое слово Ц. в титуле русского императора передается по-польски термином Kr ó l, т. е. король. Терминологическое различие между словами Ц. и король возникло у нас в зависимости от того, откуда наш язык заимствовал эти термины. Слово царь есть стяженная форма слова цесарь (Caesar); ему равносильны такие формы, как кесарь, греч. καϊσαρ, нем. Kaiser, т. е. император. Форма цесарь сохранилась и теперь у других славян для обозначения императорской власти: польское cesarz, чешск. t ísa ř, малорус. (в Галиции) цесарь; последним именем еще в XVIII в. у нас обозначали римско-германского императора (ср. выражение Цесарская земля). Болгарский язык также знает стяженную форму, каковая и употреблялась для обозначения прежних болгарских государей. Прежде всего у нас царями стали называть государей, о которых говорится в Св. Писании, а также византийского императора. Слово король, общее нам с другими славянами (польск. Kr ó l, сербск. краль и т. п.), произошло от имени Карла Великого (Carolus), и им у нас стали называть главным образом западных государей. В русской истории оно было применено лишь в XIII в. к Даниилу Романовичу Галицкому. Таким образом, различение, которое русский язык делает между обоими монархическими титулами, не имеет принципиального значения; одно и то же латин. rex мы переводим то одним, то другим словом, смотря по тому, говорим ли о древнеримском царе или о германском конунге. Конечно, власть Ц. у разных народов имела разное происхождение, разный объем и разный характер (см. Королевская власть, Монархия, Князь). В дальнейшем даны очерки царской власти: 1) на древнем Востоке, 2) в Греции и Риме, 3) в Византии и 4) в России.

--194.145.161.227 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Brockhaus on Peter's change of style

[4]

Extract from the article on Emperor (Imperator).

In the early modern period, the imperial title was restored in some countries, but now it applied to a new, mostly national system. The first rulers to assume the title were the Russian sovereigns: in 1721, the Senate and the Sinode asked Peter I, on the occasion of the Nischtad peace, to accept the title of Emperor (Imperator), Great One and Father of the Fatherland. That act, which made the Russian tsar equal to the only Emperor of the time, the head of "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", caused protests on the part of many European countries."

В новое время императорское достоинство было возобновлено у некоторых наций, но в применении к новому, главным образом, национальному устройству. Прежде всего приняли этот титул русские государи: в 1721 г. Сенат и Синод в ознаменование Ништадского мира определили просить Петра I принять наименование И., Великого и Отца Отечества. Этот акт, ставивший русского царя наряду с единственным тогда И. "Священно-Римской империи германского народа", вызвал протест со стороны многих европейских держав.

--194.145.161.227 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Brockhaus on The Tsardom of Poland

[5]

Translation:

The tsardom of Poland

(Królewstwo Polskie [Polish: "The Kingdom of Poland"]) - that is the name of the part of Poland that was annexed by Russia on the Congress of Wien.

Original:

Царство Польское

(Królewstwo Polskie) — так называется часть Польши, присоединенная в 1815 г. на Венском конгрессе к России.

--194.145.161.227 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, 194. I think we have enough evidence now to say that, from the 18th century onwards, "Tsar" was considered to be the equivalent of "King." john k 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! A little appreciation of one's efforts is nice at times, and something tells me I'm not going to get any from Imladjov. :) --194.145.161.227 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, excellent sleuthing! I have been following the discussion here, and on and off elsewhere (it has been periodically debated over several years on Usenet, both at alt.talk.royalty and at soc.genealogy.medieval, and I agree with your conclusions, which I think benefit from the strong challenges raised. Lethiere 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Weren't the latter Russian monarchs often referred to as "Tsar Emperors"? This is evocative of references to British kings in the 20th century as "King Emperors" in reference to the UK monarch's role in India. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so. They were referred to formally as "Emperor," but often informally as "Tsar." john k 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosponse to RfC

In Russian the term neans ultimate autocratic ruler of a country. The country is either ancient or eastern (Tsars of Rome - pre-republican rulers of Rome), Tsar David etc. Medieval and modern european monarchs (excpt those of Russia and Bulgaria) called korol'. Monarchs of China and Japan called Emperors.--Nixer 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To anon

  • Kievan Rus crumbled a century before the Mongol invasion. Misleading statements with Russophobic overtones should not be tolerated.
That was another anon IP. --194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Serban usage does not reflect either the Greek or Church Slavonic tradition. Bulgarian and Russian do. Please verify how Serbian Latin-influenced usage of the word may be considered original, citing appropriate sources.
As I stated in the edit summary, I have removed all allusions to the issue of who reflects "the original usage", since this is a matter of interpretation and not of facts. However, I still want to say that I don't agree fully with you. Bulgarian and Russian have departed from medieval usage, because they have come to call most emperors "imperator"; in another sense, they preserve medieval usage by calling Biblical kings "tsar". Serbian has departed from medieval usage, because it has come to call Biblical kings "kral"; in another sense, it preserves medieval usage by calling most emperors "tsar".--194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Concerning Yaroslav. If you want to reference Ilarion, please do so, after consulting Vodoff's work. Otherwise your changes make this reference highly misleading.
That's the other anon IP again.--194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you replaced my observation that Shah was referred to as Basileus with some mysterious "native kings". Could you specify which other "native kings" you have in mind? Clovis? Baldwin? Philip Augustus? I daresay your edits make the phrasing rather ambiguous.
I meant the native monarchs of Bulgaria and Russia (that's the usual definition that you find in a dictionary). As for the Shah, I just didn't feel it was quite relevant, and I saw several problems with the statement. First, I believe that his official title was shahinshah (king of kings, hence emperor), so the fact that the Greeks called him that didn't change that much. Second, you should specify which "Greeks" and at which time you mean. Third, I would be grateful if you would provide a citation for that claim.
  • The lead resulted from a compromise worked out above. Please don't change it at whim. Boris Uspensky presents overwhelming evidence that, before the 18th century, the word "tsar" was construed as "emperor", particularly in the Slavonic discourse. Other meanings of the word evolved in vernacular languages later and have no bearing to the Church Slavonic context. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There was no real compromise, and I was one of the three main actors in the discussion above. When it was finished (as Imladjov abandoned it and John Kenney had shared my opinion all along), the resulting redaction was written by me and had the lead that I have been restoring. The other one was the result of an anon who got reverted twice but somehow sneaked in the third time. Yes, tsar did mean mostly "emperor" until the XVIIIth century or so, and there has always been a consensus about that, but the point is that all interpretations of the title (pre- and post- XVIIIth century) should be included in the introductory sentence. Since the sentence that immediately follows says that the title originally meant "emperor", I think there is no room for misunderstanding. The remaining part of our disagreement seems to be due to our different interpretations of the word "Slavonic". IMO, the editor who included it meant "Slavic" (including Russian, Bulgarian, etc.) and not (Old) Church Slavonic (why limit things to a single language?).

--194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.