Talk:Tsar/Archive 1

message: >>in scholarly transliteration respectively car and car' <<
This is only occasionally the case.  Nowadays there's more of a tendency for English-speaking academics to use the Library of Congress system, which gives tsar'  Garik 11:43, 3 May 2006 (BST)
: No, "scholarly transliteration" refers to a specific unambiguous and reversible transliteration convention which is in fact the complete opposite to the cumbersome and inexact, though popular, Library of Congress system.  Just because scholars use Library of Congress "tsar" in English-language books does not mean that the scholarly transliteration itself includes that form.   Other examples of divergence between Library of Congress and scholarly transliteration would include, e.g., Chernigov vs. Černigov, Iaroslav vs. Jaroslav, Vasily vs. Vasilij, etc.  Why the form "tsar" (as opposed to car) should persevere in English usage in particular, is obvious on several grounds.  But that does not make it the correct scholarly transliteration form. Imladjov 14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly form

message: An anon put the following:
Bozhiyeyu Milostiyu, Imperator i Samodyerzhets Vserossiysky (By the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, of Moscow, Kiew, Wladimir, Novogorod, Czar of Cazan, Czar of Astracan, Czar of Siberia, Czar of the Chersonese of Tauria, Lord of Plescou, and Grand Duke of Smolensko, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia and of Finlande, Duke of Estonia, of Livonie, of Courland and Semigalle, of Samogitia, Carelia, Twer, Jugoria, Permia, Vyatka, Bulgaria and of others: Lord and Grand Duke of Novgorod inferior, of Chernigovia, Resan, Polozk, Rostow, Jaroslaw, White Osoria, Udoria, Obdoria, Condinia, Witepsk, Mstislaw, Ruler of the North Coast, Lord of Iveria, of Cartalinia, Grusinie and of Cabardinia, Prince Heir and Sovereign of Princes of Chercessia, Gorsky and others; Heir of Norway, Duke of Slesvig-Hollstein, of Stormaria and of Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst &c. &c.) 
I am wondering where did he get it from; plenty of typos.
=== From data for descendants of Holy Roman Empire ===
The Ruling Houses & Rulers in the Holy Roman Empire says:
Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov/ Russia} @
(until 1773 Imperial Estate and Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp. 
1762-1762 and 1796-1917 Emperors of Russia.
1796-1807, 1813-1816 immediate Lords of Jever)
(Emperors of Russia, 1809 Grand Prince of Finland, 
1815 Kings of Poland)
1762-1777(Imperial Crown Prince, Throne heir & Grand Prince of the whole of Russia [Kaiserl. Kronprinz, Thronfolger und Grossfürst aller Reussen], Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen, Count of Oldenburg & Delmenhorst)
1777-1796 (Imperial Crown Prince, Throne heir & Grand Prince of the whole of Russia, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg)
1796-1801(Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod,  Czar/Tsar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, Lord[Gosudar] of Pskov &  Grand Prince[Velikiy Kniaz] of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Prince[Kniaz] of Estonia, Livonia, Courland & Semigalia, Samogitia[Zhemaytia, Zhmud], Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, 
of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, Sovereign & Lord of the Land of Iveria, of the Czars of Kartly & Georgia, of the Land of Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, 
& Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands,
Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen & Oldenburg etc., Lord of Jever)
1801-1808(Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, 
Lord of Pskov & Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland & Semigalia, Samogitia, Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, 
Sovereign & Lord of the Lands of Iveria, Kartly,Georgia, Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, & Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen & Oldenburg etc., Lord of Jever)
1808-1815 (Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, Lord of Pskov & Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland & Semigalia, Bialystok, Samogitia, Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, Sovereign & Lord of the Lands of Iveria, Kartly,Georgia, Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, & Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen & Oldenburg etc.)
1815 (Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, Lord of Pskov & Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Finland, Prince of Estland, Livland, Courland & Semigalia, Samogitia, Bialystok, Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, Sovereign & Lord of the Lands of Iveria, Kartly, Georgia & Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen and Oldenburg)
[Holstein] 1773(- )(Holstein-Glückstadt/Denmark)
[Jever] 1796(+ ), 1807(- )(Holland), ^ (+ ), 1818(- )(Oldenburg)
Paul (I) (1754-1801) [1762-1773, 1796-1801]
// 1762-1773 Duke of Holstein-Gottorp
// 1796-1801 Lord of Jever
// 1796-1801 Emperor of Russia
// 1798-1801 Grand Master of the St. John Order 
Alexander (I) (1777-1825) [1801-1807, 1813-1818]
// 1801-1807, 1813-1818 Lord of Jever
// 1801-1825 Emperor of Russia
=== From Russian Constitution of 1906 ===
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Const.html says:
Extracts from the Russian Constitution of April 23, 1906
[excerpted from Readings in Modern European History, James Harvey Robinson and Charles Beard, eds., vol. 2 (Boston:Ginn and Company, 1908), pp. 378-381]
ART. 59. The full title of His Imperial Majesty is as follows: 
We, ------ by the grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kasan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Khersones, Tsar of Grusia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Esthonia, Livonia, Courland and Semgallia, Samogitia, Bielostok, Korelia, Tver, Jugor, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Novgorod, Chernigov; Ruler of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Jaroslav, Bielozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all northern territories ; Ruler of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories - hereditary Ruler and Lord of the Tcherkess and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir to the throne of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarsch, Oldenburg, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. 
*Obdoria: Obdorsk is Salekhard today.
*Udoria?
*Kondia?
===All Russias vs whole Russia===
Wouldn't Самодержец Всероссийский be better translated as "autocrat pan-Russian"?
:No. First, there is a tradition. Second, "All Russias" vs. "Whole Russia" issue. Mikkalai 18:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but wasn't Tsar's intention exactly that the title could mean both? Nikola 03:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "All the Russias" meaning is largely misleading, provided that there's no explanation what the multiple Russias it refers to. "Всероссийский" is simply "all-Russian" or "whole-Russian"; let's use either until the article is expanded with pre-Empire title which does mention "Great, White and Lesser Russias" (essentially Russia, Belarus and Ukraine). No point to artifically implement a meaning that is simply undistinguishable in Russian language title. DmitryKo 18:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the tradition of English language usage, provided by native English speaking editors, and has nothing to do with logic. Mikkalai 21:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Title 

message: Wouldn't Самодержец Всероссийский be better translated as "autocrat pan-Russian"?
:No. First, there is a tradition. Second, "All Russias" vs. "Whole Russia" issue. Mikkalai 18:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but wasn't Tsar's intention exactly that the title could mean both? Nikola 03:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "All the Russias" meaning is largely misleading, provided that there's no explanation what the multiple Russias it refers to. "Всероссийский" is simply "all-Russian" or "whole-Russian"; let's use either until the article is expanded with pre-Empire title which does mention "Great, White and Lesser Russias" (essentially Russia, Belarus and Ukraine). No point to artifically implement a meaning that is simply undistinguishable in Russian language title. DmitryKo 18:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the tradition of English language usage, provided by native English speaking editors, and has nothing to do with logic. Mikkalai 21:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: All Russias vs whole Russia

message: Tsar#Etymology and spelling says:
: Correct pronunciation of tsar is /tsarʲ/ in IPA though many if not most English-speaking people pronounce it /zɑr/ or /zɑ:/. 
I see several issues with this:
# The first line says the word is both Bulgarian and Russian. So it is not clear what correct means: 
* normal in Russian (yes, the given transcription is ok for Russian)
* normal in Bulgarian (I don't know the Bulgarian pronunciation, not sure about the soft [rʲ] because of the spelling)
* or the the suggested correct pronunciation in English (but who sets the English norm?).
I'd reformulate it as either
: The original Russian pronunciation of tsar is...
or
: According to (some authority on English language), the correct English pronunciation is...
(If we have a confirmation of the Bulgarian pronunciation, could give it, too.)
# Why is phonemic transcription used (in / /)? (See #Types of transcriptions). Wouldn't it be better just to notate it as a phonetic transcription (in [ ])? By using / / you commit yourself to phonological analyses of the involved languages, and mixing and comparing sequences of phonemes in different languages is not neat: in this particular case, there is hardly a /rʲ/ phoneme in English. A phonetic transcription could be a good common ground for comparing pronunciations in 2 languages. Perhaps, change / / to [ ]?
Further:
: This is because although English has ts in words like cats it is unusual for this sound to start an English word.
I'd write the sound in brackets: [ts].--Imz 21:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Committed the suggested changes.--Imz 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving the pronunciation 

message: Of Slavic Languages using the term tsar towards other rulers besides those using the title.I think the example(Japan)given is wrong.It probably refers only to Russian naming.
--Molobo 18:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For Serbian example, compare  with . Also,  with . Nikola 11:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please name examples

message: In view of the repeated introduction of the inaccurate equation of "tsar" and "king" by Fastifex, I am adding the following notes as justification for my corrections to the article:
Etymologically, car'  is the contraction of cěsar' , which derives directly from Latin caesar.
By contrast, the subordinate title kesar'  derives directly from the Greek kaisar.
In Slavic usage, car ' /cěsar'  corresponds to Greek basileus and Latin imperator and is used as such in translations of Byzantine chronicles and other texts.  The distinction from kesar'  is maintained, as this term corresponds to the devaluated Byzantine court dignity of kaisar.
Therefore, "Tsar" (car' ) is as much equivalent to "Emperor", as is the German "Kaiser".  Both terms were apparently derived from the title "Caesar" before its lost its connotation of fully-fledged imperial rank.  (The Slavic term may have evolved via the Germanic usage.)
In terms of particular usage, we note as follows.  According to Roman practice, only a legitimate emperor may create (or recognize) another legitimate emperor.  At first this extended only within the Roman state, and it was supplemented or replaced by acclamation by the army, senate, and people, and eventually by the Church.  In the early 9th and early 10th centuries, the Byzantine Empire extended reluctant recognition of the imperial titles of non-Roman emperors, in Francia and Bulgaria, respectively.  The Byzantine emperor made up for these concessions by emphasizing his Roman heritage and his status as autocrat (basileus kai autokratōr tōn Rōmaiōn), while recognizing his counterparts in Francia and Bulgaria as merely emperors of the Franks (basileus Phrangōn) or Bulgarians (basileus Boulgarōn).
As noted above, the 10th century the Byzantine emperor reluctantly accepted the imperial title of the Bulgarian emperor (tsar), as "emperor of the Bulgarians" (basileus tōn Boulgarōn) or "emperor of Bulgaria" (basileus Boulgarias) (e.g., Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis, II, cap. 48).  The title was recognized again when Bulgaria recovered its independence from Byzantine rule.  It was also recognized by Bulgaria's neighbors and trading partners (e.g., Serbia, Hungary, Venice, Genoa, Dubrovnik, the Papacy), and was rendered in Latin as imperator Bulgarorum and the like.  The Bulgarian imperial title read, in its final basic form, "emperor and autocrat of all Bulgarians and Greeks" (car i samodăržec na vsički bălgari i gărci in the modern vernacular).  Here tsar = emperor.
In the mid-14th century the Byzantine emperor refused, but the Bulgarian emperor agreed to recognize the imperial title of the Serbian emperor (tsar). The title was recognized by most of Serbia's neighbors and trading partners but was of short duration (1345–1371).  It was rendered in Greek as "emperor and autocrat of Serbia and Rōmania" (basileus kai autokratōr Serbias kai Rōmanias) and in Latin as imperator.  The Serbian imperial title read, in its basic form, "emperor of Serbians and Greeks" (car srbljem i grkom in the modern vernacular).  Here tsar = emperor.
After ending Muscovy's dependency on the Mongol Golden Horde in 1480, and marrying Sophia (Zōē) Palaiologina in 1472, Ivan III of Moscow encouraged his subjects to call him emperor and autocrat (car i samoderžec' ) and claimed the titles both as a sovereign ruler and perhaps also as heir to the now defunct Byzantine Empire.  This sentiment is echoed more emphatically by the monk Filofej writing to Ivan III's son and successor Vasili III in the early 16th century.  Ivan III had demanded recognition as emperor from the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III as early as 1489, and this recognition was finally granted in a treaty between Emperor Maximilian I and Vasili III in 1514.  Therefore, the imperial status of the Russian emperor (tsar) was established by, among other things, recognition from a legitimate emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire).  The emphatic coronation of Ivan IV as emperor (tsar) in 1547 had more to do with his ostentatious assumption of the reigns of government (end of his minority) and his determination to exercise effective rule over his boyars, than with the assumption of a new title.  Here tsar = emperor, and to argue that the Russian emperor assumed the imperial title only in 1721 is tantamount to arguing that Queen Victoria did not become Empress of India until such time as her title was actually spelled in Latin (imperatrix).    Modern Russian usage sometimes distinguishes between the terms "tsar" and "imperator", but this is largely a stylistic choice or a faithful reflection of the sources, rather than a distinction in meaning.  By the same token Russian texts may refer to the Byzantine emperor as "vasilevs" (i.e., basileus) without implying that in this role he was anything less than "imperator".
Speaking of Byzantium, I also wish to note that Greek had been an official language of the Roman Empire (in the east) long before the foundation of Constantinople, and that it gradually replaced Latin as the official language of the court and government in the early Middle Ages.  Justinian's Novellae and Herakleios' titles indicate stages in this gradual change.  By the 10th century the few remaining Latin acclamations and titles used in the imperial ceremonial had become virtually meaningless, as indicated by their mangled usage in the official imperial books on protocol. 
Note on informal usage.  Slavic usage of the title "tsar" to designate Biblical and oriental monarchs has nothing to do with the inherent imperial connotation of the term.  Our English usage "king" is technically accurate only within the bounds of European and largely "feudal" hierarchy, where it universally corresponds to Latin rex as opposed to the superior Latin imperator.  Monarchs of Israel and Judah, of Assyria and Babylonia, of Egypt, etc, are in no way clearly distinguishable as "kings" or "emperors" or "tsars" (however a case may be made, both on logical grounds and Roman precedent, that the Persian "kings of kings" and Persian and some other eastern "great kings" could be equated with "emperor").  Therefore, this informal usage bears no impact on the actual meaning of "tsar".  Similarly, the usage of "tsar" and "basileus" for the modern kings of Bulgaria and Greece, respectively, does not indicate that these terms are any less imperial, but rather the change in status of the monarchies that adopted them on the basis of tradition (the title of "king" being alien to both).
The above observations are based on the printed sources referenced in the article itself. 
Imladjov 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be accused of not having addressed the above arguments when making my edits. So, to be brief: this is a linguistic issue. If a term is used to denote a duck, to translate a duck, if the native speakers unanimously define it as a duck, then the only possible conclusion is that it presently means a duck. A term doesn't have any "inherent" meaning outside of the speakers' conscience and practice. One shouldn't confuse etymology (in other words, past speakers' conscience and practice) with "inherent meaning". This would be tantamount to saying that the true meaning of tsar is "a hairy guy". --85.187.44.131 12:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsar and Emperor