Subcarpathian Rus as a part of Czechoslovakia: history, culture, national identity

Authors

  • Ksenia Egorova Институт русской литературы (Пушкинский Дом) Российской академии наук [Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House), Russian Academy of Sciences], Saint Petersburg , Институт русской литературы (Пушкинский Дом) Российской академии наук [Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House), Russian Academy of Sciences], Petersburg

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11649/a.2014.012

Keywords:

border studies, Czechoslovakia, Subcarpathian Rus, Ruthenia, minor Slavic languages, national identity

Abstract

Subcarpathian Rus was incorporated into the Czechoslovak Republic as a result of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919). The following year Subcarpathian Rus being a part of Czechoslovakia was declared a self-governing autonomy with a certain number of democratic rights established by the Constitution. Among them was a right to use their national language. Codification of the Subcarpathian Ruthenian language has not yet been completed and it is an extensively discussed problem for contemporary linguists.

After the First World War the Subcarpathian lands with its Ruthenian population was a poor farming region with a low level of ethnic self-awareness. Global economic and politic processes changed the situation dramatically and compelled the educated part of Subcarpathian Rus citizens into a discussion about their national language, culture and literature. The President of Czechoslovakia T. G. Masaryk participated in the discussion and was very interested in the cultural development of the region.

Ruthenian society was split into two parts – pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian. The national composition of the region was very complicated. In order to understand the flow of national ideas in Subcarpathian Rus, the research presented here sets out to cover the history of the codification of the Ruthenian language, the creation of grammar books for schools, and to analyze the role of both the Russian and Ukrainian components in the cultural development of this region. This research also takes into consideration the complex analysis of Masaryk’s Slavonic policy and cultural strategies.

References

Beneš, E. (1996). Podkarpatsko a jeho vztah k Československu. Praha: Česká Expedice.

Dukhnovich, A. V. (1981). Istinnaia istoriia Karpato-Rossov. Montreal.

Generalní Staut pro organisaci a administraci Přikarpatské Rusi. (1997). In J. Hořec (Ed.), Dokumenty o Podkarpatské Rusi (pp. 12–14). Praha: Česká Expedice.

Gus’naĭ, I.(1921). Iazykovoĭ vopros v Podkarpatskoĭ Rusi. Priashev: Knigopechatnia „Sv. Nikolaia".

Hartl, A. (1924). Kulturní život osvobozené Podkarpatské Rusi. Praha: Nákladem Grafického, Knihařského a nakladatelského družstva.

Hora, A. (1919). Podkarpatská Rus: přehled poměrů Karpatoruských. Praha: Vydavá Československý Cizinecký Úřad.

Kochanyj-Goralčuk, K. (1931). Podkarpatská Rus v minulosti a přítomnosti. Praha: Státní Nakladatelství.

Krofra, K. (1995). Podkarpatská Rus a Českoskovensko. Praha: Česká Expedice.

Luchkaĭ, M. M. (1999–2004). Istorīia karpats’kikh rusinīv. Uzhgorod: Uzhgorods’kiĭ derzh. un-t.

Memorandum deputace selského stavu. (1997). In J. Hořec (Ed.), Dokumenty o Podkarpatské Rusi (pp. 42–48). Praha: Česká Expedice.

Memorandum o Podkarpatské Rusi. (1997). In J. Hořec (Ed.), Dokumenty o Podkarpatské Rusi (pp. 5–11). Praha: Česká Expedice.

Nečas, J. (1997). Politická situace na Podkarpatské Rusi (rok 1921). Praha: Česká Expedice.

Orlaĭ, I. S. (1804). Istoriia o karpato-rossakh ili o pereselenii rossiian v Karptskie gory i o prikliucheniiakh s nimi sluchivshikhsia. Severnyĭ Vestnik, (6-9).

Šafařík, P. (1826). Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten. Ofen.

Voloshin, A. I. (1901). Metodicheskaia grammatika ugro-russkogo literaturnogo iazyka dlia narodnykh shkol. Ungvar: Vid-vo tov-va «Prosvīta».

Voloshin, A. I. (1902). Materinskīĭ iazyk v narodnoĭ shkole: korotkīia rukovodiashchīia zametki dlia narodnykh uchiteleĭ. Ungvar: Vid-vo tov-va «Prosvīta».

Voloshin, A. I. (1906). Azbuka ugro-russkago i tserkovno-slavianskago chtenīia. Ungvar: Vid-vo tov-va «Prosvīta».

Voloshin, A. I. (1921). O pis’mennom iazytse podkarpatskikh rusinov. Uzhgorod: Vid-vo tov-va «Prosvīta»; Lit. nauk. otdel.

Downloads

Published

2014-11-26

Issue

Section

Research Reports