Talk:Hryhorii Skovoroda/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Shouldn't we use a standarized ukrainian to english transcryption of his name? If so, his name should be 'Hryhori Skorovoda. Halibutt 08:55, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)

Ukrainian/Russian

Taras Shevchenko wrote his poems in Ukrainian, but Hryhori Skovoroda wrote his poems and other works in Russian (certainly) and Ukrainian (maybe) both. The nationality has no value as its instruction leads to racism. It is necessary to specify only citizenship and language on which the writer wrote. Moscvitch 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Only because he wrote in Russian, he's Russian now? Ceriy 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at Gogol article. I think we can write: "Hryhori Skovoroda was a Russian-language poet, philosopher and composer of Ukrainian origin". OK? Moscvitch 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hryhori Skovoroda was a Ukrainian poet, philosopher and composer who wrote most of his works in Russian-language." I think this way is more correct. Ceriy 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ceriy. BTW, Taras Shevchenko wrote in Russian too, both poetry and prose. It does not make him a Russo-Ukrainian poet. Same here. Skovoroda is an unquestionably Ukrainian person. That he wrote in Russian is notable but should not be phrased such as to cast any doubt on his ethnicity. --Irpen 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I made it. Moscvitch 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Skovoroda used a hybrid language (also used by Tuptalo, Yavorsky and other church figures) that cannot by qualified as Russian.

Skovoroda also wrote poetry in Ukrainian, which sounded peculiar to our ears but was typical in the pre-Kotlyarevsky era.Galassi 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide us with copy of his manuscripts or photos of his books (from his period - it is important), so we will be sure that it is not another fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.65.16.10 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Skovoroda never wrote in Ukrainian. Please try to find some copies or photos of original documents (manuscripts, editions of his books published in his period etc.) by Skovoroda in Ukrainian. It is not possible, because these documents do not exist! He wrote his works in Russian or in Russian with some impressions (only impressions) of Ukrainian dialects. Best Regards from Prague, Kujawianin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.65.16.10 (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Skovoroda did not use literary Russian, and nor did he use pure Church-Slavonic or the contemporary form of literary Ukrianinan. As a scholar in a religious institution the language he used in his writting is heavy influenced by Church-Slavonicism, however it also shows that the foundation of his written language was Ukrainian. We also have his writings in Greek, Latin, German and Hebrew, and nothing actually in literary "Russian". His poetry has been analyzed by phililogist George Sheveliov for foreign linguistic elements and was found to only contained 7.8% Russian vocabulary. In comparison it contained 7.7% non-slavic words, and 27.6% Church Slavonic and that the variant of Church Slavonic he used was from the Synodinal Bible of 1751. The rest however was Ukrainian.

(George Y. Shevelov. Skovoroda's Language and Style. In book: Hryhorij Savyč Skovoroda. An Anthology of Critical Articles, Toronto, 1994, P.131) --Bandurist (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for his Ukrainian manuscripts seven months without any effect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.65.16.10 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bandurist, phililogist George Sheveliov wrote too: «Отже, мова Сковороди — якщо відняти її яскраві поетично-індивідуальні особливості — є, в основі своїй, слобожанським варіантом нормативної російської мови, якою розмовляли в тогочасних освічених колах». As you see, same George Sheveliov wrote, that Skovoroda's Language was Russian. 80.129.134.190 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Ukrainian?

• 1. Skovoroda never called himself the Ukrainian, he called himself the Russian (see: James H. Bilington, The icon and the Axe. An Imperative History of Russian Culture (New York, 1967, p. 239)
• 2. Skovoroda was not a Ukrainian citizen, because first Ukrainian state was created in 1917. He was a Russian citizen.
• 3. "Ukrainians" as the name of nationality was not exist in Skovoroda's period. "Ukrainians" as the name of nationality was first time used in literature by Hrushevsky in History of Ukraine-Rus (1904).
• 4. Skovoroda was born on the territory of today's Eastern Ukraine - it does not mean that he was Ukrainian. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Sk. was a RUTHENIAN, not Russian.

In mentioned source is "Russian", not "Ruthanian". "Ruthenian" and "Russians" in English are the names of the same ethnic group. You cannot change this fact. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

2. He was born a citizen of Hetmanatate Ukraine, a vassal state in the Russian Empire.

The officialy name of this state was "Viysko Zaporozke" (Cossack Hetmanate), not "Hetmanate Ukraine". Beside this "Sloboda Ukraine" from 1708 was a part of Kiev Governorate (and the next Poltava Governorate), not Cossack Hetmanate. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

3. He was born in Slobidska UKRAINA, exactly.-Galassi (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And? "Ukraine" until the 18. century was only name of the region, the same like "Volhynia" or "Zadonshchina". Apropos "Sloboda Ukraine", when this term was created? In 20. century? --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So here is my proposition: Skovoroda was a Russian [citizenship, national auto-identification] writer [etc.] with Ukrainian [region of the born] Cossack [ethnic/social group (was born into)] origin. One thing more: Skovoroda`s works were published in Russian Empire and Soviet Union very often. It was not random. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposition is unacceptable, due to the universal acceptance of Skovoroda as Ukrainian.-Galassi (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I didn't change it :) --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Universal acceptance by whom? By preconceived scientists? --Moscvitch (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just too silly. By the same logic any Ukrainian, including Taras Shevchenko, born or living before 1917 would be described as a "Russian writer with Ukrainian origin" by you guys. Yet another source here.Faustian (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Now it is written, that he is Ukrainian poet, philosopher and composer. 15 sources used to confinm it. But I see at least in one of them (Losev article) he named "russian philisoper" (Сковорода в истории русской культуры). Ukrainists should more carefully choose sources. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? Statistically negligible.Galassi (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"он оставил всякие должности и всецело посвятил себя деятельности в пользу родного народа, малороссов." It is well known that "Malorossy" was an ethnonim which Russians (Muscovites) was using that time for Ukrainians. Hence, though Losev calls Skovoroda "Russian philosopher," he himself acknowledges him as Ukrainian (Maloross in his language). Thus, source is used rightfully. --Melandr (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no Ukraine until 1917. Ukraine was at that time either part of the Russian Empire or Austro-Hungary. So he was not "Ukraine". Also, adding 15 questionable references is not a good idea. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again: the absence of modern ethnonym (Ukrainians) in a certain period of time does not make the nation (Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Maloross however you call it) non-existant at that time and thus does not change the ethnicity of the nation's representative. If you want to question the existence of Ukrainian nation prior 1917, please do it elsewhere, this article is not on Ukrainians in general. Regards.--Freeforce —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Grigoriy Savvich and Hryhoriy Savych

I think no reason to remove his Patronym. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I found Grigoriy (33 600) more widespread writing that Hryhoriy (1 440) and Hryhorii (1 060) ~ Чръный человек (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because you are using Google.ru. Of course the Russian spelling results will be beefed up than the Ukrainian equivalents.. Using the neutral Google search for English-only pages yields 189 for "Grigoriy Skovoroda", 2,530 for "Hryhorii Skovoroda" -Wikipedia and 2,130 for "Hryhoriy Skovoroda" -Wikipedia. Quite different results, IMHO. ddima.talk 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So 33 600 is bigger! ~ Чръный человек (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and change the article name. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot do that without a consensus.-Galassi (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Skovoroda - national auto-identification

I didn't find in Skovoroda's works that he identified himself as Ukrainian. According to many sources "Ukrainians" as the name of nationality was first time used in literature in Hrushevskyi's History of Ukraine-Rus (1904). The Ukrainian state didn't exist when Skovoroda was wrote his works. First Ukrainian state was created in 1917. Skovoroda was born on the territory of today's Eastern Ukraine - it does not mean that he was Ukrainian. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And just what "auto-identofication" did you find?Galassi (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

According to James H. Bilington's The icon and the Axe. An Imperative History of Russian Culture (New York, 1967, p. 239) Skovoroda called himself the "Russian Socrates", and he was one of Russia`s first original speculative philosophers. In my country librairies they don't have this book, so I can't check references. Can I ask you (if it is possible) to check it and let us know when and where Skovoroda wrote it? Kind Regards, --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A RUTHENIAN Socrates. Not a Russian.-Galassi (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not change the sources text :) There is "Russian", not "Ruthenian". --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Руський Сократ" is Ruthenian, NOT Russian. You are making a highly controversial and imflammatory claim.-Galassi (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is "Russian", not "Ruthenian". "Руський" (in modern Russian "Русский" - the name of the language) means "Russian" :) --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But "Руський" doesn't. --Bandurist (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Руський" is older version of "Русский" - "Russian" (See any bigger etymological dictionary of the Russian language). See also Мифы украинства.

Только в ХХ столетии галицкая - народная - партия откидывает старое, именно в простом галицком крестьянстве популярное имя руський и заменяет его сначала в виде прибавки к нему впереди ставившимся, а потом совершенно его вытеснившим именем український. Но, прикрываясь традициями имени поэта Шевченко, львовское ученое украинское - товарищество - совершенно не следует в создании своего научного языка традициям славного украинского поэта, писавшего непосредственным, живым языком крестьянства Приднепровского края, без тенденциозного желания отдалить его от русского литературного языка, а также и примеру таких талантливых самородков, как буковинский гуцул Осип-Юрий Федькович (Его образная поэтическая речь, близкая к народной речи нашей Малороссии, отличается, однако, кое-чем от последней в формах и словаре, но не в смысле отдаления от древнерусского источника, а в смысле приближения к нему: в образном языке Федьковича мы встречаем обороты, свойственные древнерусским летописям, например частое употребление родительного времени: одного вечера, одної днини (см. львовское издание.1902.Т.ІІ. С. 87, 95)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoni Chojnacki (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But not in 18th century russian.-Galassi (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In 18th century Russian dialects too (and in some today's dialects), but this is not the point of discussion. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Shevchenko never identified himself as being Ukrainian nor did he use the ethnonym Ukrainian in any of his works. He used the ethnonym kozak for the people who lived in Ukraine. That does not mean that Ukrainians did not exist. It's a stretch to call Skovoroda's language Russian. The Russian literary language was only codified by Nikolay Karamzin in the late 1780's, only about 20 years before Kotliarevsky's Aeneid, certainly not in the period that Skovoroda wrote. --Bandurist (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cossaks does not mean Ukrainians. Est Slavic people from Volhynia or Bukvoina were not Cossaks, but they were Ukrainians. Shevchenko was a Ukrainian writer, because he wrote in Ukrainian language. 1. Why did you change the source text? In all sources state that Skovoroda called himself the "Russian", not "Rutnenian", "Rusyn" etc. It is manipulation. 2. Ukrainian nation did not exist until 18. century. You cannot say about me that I am Ukrainian, only because I was born on the teritory of today`s Ukraine and I little speak Ukrainian. I never called myself the Ukrainian, the same like Skovoroda. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Golda Meir was born in Kyiv, but I do not think that she identified with being Ukrainian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1)You possibly may have difficulties with your reading. Shevchenko used the ethnonym "kozak"s for Ukrainians in his works. He never used the ethnonym "Rusky", although he did use the term "Ukraine" often. The ethnonym Ukrainians was adopted universally by Ukrainians relatively recently, in the 20th century.

Schevchenko used the ethnonym Cossaks for the Cossaks, not for Ukrainians. He never used this ethnonym for Ukrainians from Volhynia, Galicia, Bukovina, Subcarpathian Rus etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuiavian (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He did not write about Ukrainians from these parts of Ukraine.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Shevchenko also wrote in Russian, in fact almost all of his prose works were in Russian, but that does not make him ethnically Russian, despite the fact that he lived most of his life in Russia.

Schevchenko was also a Russian writer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuiavian (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

3) In the time that Skovoroda lived, Ukrainians referred to themselves as Rus'ki from the term Rus'. Indeed Bohdan Khmelnytsky signed his documents as "het'man Rus'ky". Russia was referred to at that time as Muscovy and Russians were referred to Muscovites. The use of term Russians (Russki) and Russia (Rossiya) also has a late introduction, being introduced and institutionalized by Peter I and it gradually grew in acceptance in the 19th century, and then used only by government decree. The use of these terms forced the need to change of ethnonym in Ukraine from "Rus'kyj" to "Ukrainets" (Ukrainian) to avoid the confusion between the terms which to many people sounded similar. The similarity of the terms often led to confusion, especially by foreign scholars.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The offcialy name of Russia since 1547 was "Tsardom of Russia" (Царство Русское). The name of the nation is also still the same "русские" (Russians). Russia and Rus are two linguistically variantes of the same word. "Muscovy" was a colloquial name for Grand Duchy of Moscow (1263/1340-1547). It was also Polish-Lithuanian name for Russia (until 1764) due to political reasons. "Muscovy" as the name of Russia is also using by Ukrainian nationalists, only because Russia means "Rus".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuiavian (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Can you please let me know when and where Khmelnytsky referred Russians to Muscovites? I am sure that Est Slavs in 17. century had only one national identity. "Muscovites" as the pejorative name for Russians was used for the first time by Poles circa 1690 (according to another sources in 1750).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuiavian (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

4) Your presumption that Ukraine did not exist until the 18th century is not sound. By extension Italy (1861), Germany (1861), Holland and Poland also did not exist because they came into being either in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. --Bandurist (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not about countries, this is about nations. German, Italian and Polish nations were formated before 18. century. Ukrainian nation was formated in 19. century. Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (1512-1806), Kingdom of Italy (568–962) and Kingdom of Poland (1025-1569) existed before 18. century. First Ukrainian state was created in 1917.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuiavian (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Although the tribes and kingdoms that made up these nations existed well before they were united, Nationality can only begin and exist when they are united into a Nation which happened much later in each case.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken once again. Ethnonyms "Germans", "Poles", "Russians" nad "Italian people" existed before 18 century, but "Ukrainians" not. Ukrainians nation's identity did not exist until 18 century. People from the teritory of today's Ukraine shared nation's identity with Russians. Not exist any document that they asspired to be a special nation. Cossaks are a different ethinc/social group (national auto-identification), but never any Zaporozhian Cossak (full member of Zaporozhian Host, 16 century - 1775) called himself the Ukrainian (nation). They called themself the Russians (particularly Russian nobilities, Kuban and Don Cossaks with Zaporozhian origin) --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The ethnonym Ukrainian was used before the 18th century although it was not in widespread use. I suggest you read Nakonechnyj.--Bandurist (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "Ukrainians" was used, but not as the name of nation or special ethnic group. Ukrainians meant "people from Ukraine" (geographical region), the same like Volhynians, Kievans or Zaporozhians. Nobody called people from Galicia or Volhynia the "Ukrainians" until 19 century. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't wast our time - http://maps.vlasenko.net/historical/ukraine/palatinatus-kiovia-beauplan.jpg -Galassi (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I really like old maps. Yes, there is wrote "Kiev Voivodeship or Ukrainian part in vulgar language". And? --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In the masthead, naturally.Galassi (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing about Ukrainians (nation/ethnic group).--Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"The oldest recorded names used for the Ukrainians are RUSYNY, RUSYCHI, and RUSY (from Rus'), which were transcribed

in Latin as Russi, Rutheni, and Ruteni. In the 10th to 12th centuries those names applied only to the Slavic inhabitants of what is today the national and ethnic territory of Ukraine: Galizia and Volyn'. Later a similar designation was adopted by the proto-Russian Slavic inhabitants of the northeastern principalities of Kievan Rus'- RUSSKIE (of Rus'), an adjectival form indicating that they were initially subjects of ('belonged to') Rus'. Begining in the 16th century Muscovite documents referred to the Ukrainians as CHERKASY, alluding perhaps to the fact that in and around the town of Cherkasy there were many Cossack settlements. In the 17th-and 18th- century Cossack Hetman state the terms MALOROSIIANY and MALOROSY, from MALA RUS' (Rus' Minor, the name introduced by the patriarchate of Constantinople in the 14th century to refer to the lands of Halych metropoly and reintroduced by Ukrainian clerics in the 17th century. Rus Minor means Near analogously with Asia Minor, Rus Major meant lands far and beyond), became accepted by the inhabitants as their designation. Those terms were retained in a modified Russian form and used officially under tsarist rule and by foreigners until 1917 (KLEINRUSSISCH). By the 1860s, however, some opposition to the terms became evident in Russian-ruled Ukraine, on the ground that they were as pejorative as the term KHOKHOL.

The modern name UKRAINTSI (UKRAINIANS) is derived from UKRAINA (UKRAINE), a name first documented in the Kiev Chronicle under the year 1187. the terms UKRAINIANY (in the chronicle under the year 1268), UKRAINNYKY, and even NAROD UKRAINSKYI (the Ukrainian people) were used sporadically before UKRAINTSI attained currency under the influence of the writings of Ukrainian activists in Russian ruled Ukraine in the 19th century. In late 18th-and early 19th-century tsarist nomenclature 'UKRAINIANS' was used only in reference to the inhabitants of Slobidska Ukraine (Eastern provinces of Ukraine under Russian rule since ca. 1660). In 19th-century Polish usage the people so designated were the inhabitants of Kiev gubernia. Western Ukrainians under Austro-Hungarian rule used the term to refer to their ethnic counterparts under Russian rule but called themselves 'RUTHENIANS'. The appellation 'UKRAINIAN' did not take hold in Galicia and Bukovyna until the first quarter of the 20th century, in Transcarpathia until the 1930s, and in the Preshov region until the late 1940s. In the 20th century MALOROSIIANY or MALOROSY has been a derogatory term used by Ukrainians to designate Ukrainians with litle or no national consciousness". from [1] -Galassi (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

* Terms "Russi", "Rutheni", and "Ruteni" were used for people from Galicia and Volhynia. So it could not be the synonym of Ukrainians.

• Terms "Smallrussians" and "Small Russia" was also used in Kievan Rus. In this period Est Slavs had definitely only one nation`s identity. Since 19. century it was synonym for Ukrainians, but not before. --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop (Galassi and Bandurist) Ukrainian nationalism

• 1. They changed the source texts - it's a big manipulation!
• 2. They removed many references, only because state that Skovoroda was a Russian and Ukrainain (not only Ukrainian)
• 3. They wrote that Kiev gubernya was aneexed by Russian Empire. It's not true - it was created in Russian Empire as the new administrative region.
• 4. Skovorda never called himself the Ukrainian.
• 5. He called himself the Russian, not "Rusyn", "Ruthenian" etc. See the soureces removed by Ukrainians (they also changed the orig. source text).
• 6. He never wrote in Ukrainian (Ukrainian Skovoroda`s manuscripts and Ukrainian books published in 18. century not exist).
• 7. Galassi wrote that the Zaporozhan Army (officialy name) was a "Hetmanate Ukraine" - it`s manipulation.

etc. --Kuiavian (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How offensive --Bandurist (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Galassi discussion

You are making a very controversial and inflammatory claim that is contrary to what is universally accepted. You cannot do that without a consensus.-Galassi (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"universally accepted" - it means accepted by Galassi? I found five different references in two languages (two books and three web sites). You just removed it. Beside this in Russian wikipedia is also mentioned that Skovoroda was a Russian. Than what do you mean by "universal"? --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources state that he was in fact Ukrainian. EnWikipedia has no obligation to reflect the RUWiki opinion which is often colored by nationalism.-Galassi (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC) --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How about some civility?

All I see here is accusations of nationalism and screams in CAPS LOCK. It does not help to settle the dispute at all to call your opponents nationalists. Instead, please focus on listing the issues that attract most attention and work on resolving them in calm manner.

Please also note that the issue of Skovoroda's nationality is a complex one, as he lived at a time when Ukrainian nationality was only forming and he was definitely not a Russian in the modern sense of the word, despite what he might have written and called himself. Sources on this very complex issue tend to be very misleading. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Skovoroda and Nationality

1. "he was definitely not a Russian in the modern sense of the word" - Can you please also explain why? The above are mentioned the four arguments that he was a Russian (see also removed German and Russian sources). Skovoroda called himself the "Russian", not "Ukrainian", "Ruthenian" or "Rusyn" - it is not true? He was a Russian citizenship - it is not true? 2. I did not use scremas in CAPS LOOK as the first. --Kuiavian (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, he did not use literary Russian, and nor did he use pure Church-Slavonic. As a scholar in a religious institution the language he used is heavy influenced by Church-Slavonicism however it shows that the foundation of his language was Ukrainian. We also have his writings in Greek, Latin, German and Hebrew, but nothing in "Russian". His poetry has been analysed for foreign elements and only contained 7.8% Russian vocabulary, 7.7% non-slavic words, and 27.6% Church Slavonic and that the variant of Church Slavonic he used was from the Synodinal Bible of 1751.

(George Y. Shevelov. Skovoroda's Language and Style. In book: Hryhorij Savyč Skovoroda. An Anthology of Critical Articles, Toronto, 1994, P.131)

Ok. He used non-literary Russian. Yes, he wrote also in Church Slavonic, Greek, Latin, German and Hebrew. And? --Kuiavian (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of terms Muscovite and Russian

There is a difference between the terms Руський and Русский. I suggest you read up about it. I suggest reading Nakonechnyi's book Украдене ім'я. which you can read on the internet here or here --Bandurist (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Руський and Русский are two linguistically variants for the one Russian word. The alphabet, which you used is also Russian for both of them. --Kuiavian (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken once again. The alphabet used is called Cyrillic and is the east European analog of the Latin alphabet. It was first developed and used in Bulgaria and later was adopted by most East Slavic nations and many non slavic ones as well, primarily those who looked toward Constantinople as the prime religious centre for theri faith. The Cyrillic writing system is an alphabet developed in the First Bulgarian Empire in the 9th century, and just like the latin alphabet it was adapted from Greek. It was adopted and used by Belarusian, Bulgarian, Russian, Rusyn, Bosnian, Serbian, Macedonian, and Ukrainian, and in the non-Slavic languages of Moldovan, Kazakh, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Tajik, Tuvan, and Mongolian. It also was used in (past) languages of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Siberia. I am noticing that your edits have a somewhat Russocentric view on the world. --Bandurist (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The alphabet witch you used is a Russian cyrillic alpahbet. Cyrillic alpahbet has many variants. I am sure, that you know differents between Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian cyrillic alpahbets. --Kuiavian (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The correct term for this alphabet Cyrillic alphabet, not the Russian alphabet, can be attested by reading the wikipedia entry. We don't write about the Italian alphabet, or Portugese alphabet unless we are speaking about those particular languages specifically. There is a correct term - Latin alphabet. There exist regional variants of Cyrillic just as there exist regional variants of Latin alphabets. I suggest paying more attention to scholarship rather than propagating your inaccurate Russocentric views.--Bandurist (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just see Russian alphabet, Portuguese alphabet, German alphabet, Serbian alphabet, Greek alphabet, Polish alphabet etc. --Kuiavian (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

В українській мові термін «руський» (що стосується давньої Русі) відрізняється від терміну «російський» (що стосується Росії). Плутанина цих двох термінів в багатьох мовах світу спричинена впливом грецької, а потім російської мови, оскільки в російській мові (одній з мов, які виникли на основі давньоруської) слова русский та российский вживаються на позначення всього, що стосується Русі і одночасно всього, що стосується Росії (первісно - грецька назва Русі), починаючи від часів Московського царства до теперішніх часів Російської Федерації.

Якщо у росіян, зустрічається лише назва русские (іменник, що походить від прикметника), то у жителів України, Малої Русі, центру Русі Київської вживають обидві назви русини і руські, причому назва "русини" протривала й дотепер у самоназві українців Закарпаття та Східної Словаччини. Мова русинів близька до сучасної української мови) й досі називається руська (або русинська). У селах центральної України і східної України й досі можна почути «він говорить якось не по-руськи», що означає «він говорить не по-нашому, не мовою Русі».

In the Ukrainian language, the term "Rus'" (relating to ancient Rus') differs from the term "Russian" (regarding Russia). The misuse these two terms in many languages of the world is due to the influence of Greek, and Russian, as Russian language (one of the languages that have arisen based on ancient) Russkiy and Roussiysky are words used to describe anything related to Russia, while all that applies Russia (originally - Greek name Rus) from Moscow during the kingdom to the current time of the Russian Federation.

If the Russians recognize only the term Russkie (a noun that is derived from the adjective), then the population of Ukraine, Little Rus', Kievan Rus', take the two names Rusyns and Russ, with the name "Ruthenians" continuing to be used as the ethnonym of Ukrainians in Transcarpathian and East Slovakia . Ruthenian language similar to the modern Ukrainian language) still called Ruthenian (or Rusyn). In the villages of central Ukraine and eastern Ukraine it is still possible to hear "he does not speak in Rus", which means he does not speak in our language, not language of Rus' ". --Bandurist (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken once again. The Russian name for the Russians is "русские" (in other variant "руськие"), not only "россияне". "Россияне" is also the name for all Russian citizenships, not only for the ethinc Russians. Until 18. century Est Slavs had only one national identity (Ukrainian texts above are from 20 or 21 century). "Ruthenia" is also the Latin name for modern Russia. I know that these facts are for many nationalists unacceptable. --Kuiavian (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. the use of the term русский was only adopted post Peter 1. Before that you had Muscovy and Muscovites in widespread use. Keep in mind that this term in the Russian language is an adjective and not a noun, i.e. it has the meaning of belonging to Rus'. The Russians pre 18th C. did not refer to themselves as русский. I suggest you read up about Muscovy and also turn your attention to Nakonechny's treatise. --Bandurist (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in your mind that the offcialy name of Russia since 1547 was "Tsardom of Russia" (Царство Русское). The name of the nation is also still the same "русские" (Russians). Ivan III of Russia (1440–1505) officialy title was a Grand Prince of Moscow and "Grand Prince of all Russia" (Великий князь всея Руси). "Russia" and "Rus" are two linguistically variantes of the same word. "Muscovy" was a colloquial name for Grand Duchy of Moscow (1263/1340-1547). It was also Polish-Lithuanian name for Russia (until 1764) due to political reasons. "Muscovy" as the name of Russia is also using by Ukrainian nationalists, only because Russia means "Rus". Can you please let me know when and where Khmelnytsky referred Russians to Muscovites?! I am sure that Est Slavs in 17. century had only one national identity. "Muscovites" as the pejorative name for Russians was used for the first time by Poles circa 1690 (according to another sources in 1750). --Kuiavian (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Словосполучення “Московское государство” фігурує в договорі з Данією від 12 січня 1701 року. У міжнародному договорі між царем Петром І і Річчю Посполитою Польською та Великим князівством Литовським від 28 червня 1703 року звично вживається “Монарх Московскій”, “война Московская” тощо.

На початку 1703 р., як вже говорилось, у Москві вийшла перша газета, яка називалася “Ведомости о военных и иных делах, достойных знания и памяти, случившихся в Московском государстве и в иных окрестных странах”, ще називали її “Ведомости московские”, “Ведомость московская”.

У 1721 р., коли Московія вже осягнула гегемонію в Східній Європі, Петро І прийняв пишний титул Імператор Всеросійський, про що було оповіщено такими словами: “В 20 день сего октября, по совету его величества, в показание своего должного благодарения, за высокую его милость и отечесткое попечение и старание, которое он о благополучии государства во все время своего славнейшего государствования и особливо во время шведской войны явить изволил, и всероссийское государство и такое сильное и доброе состояние, и народ свой подданой и такую славу у всего света единое токмо руковождение привел, как то всем довольно известно, именем своего народа российского, дабы изволил принять, по примеру других, от них титло: отца отечества, императора всероссийского, Петра Великого…” [1].

У 1725 р. “Ведомости московские” перейменовано на “Ведомости Российские”. Підручний царя Петра I Меньшіков вислав до посла в Копенгаген таку директиву: “Во всех курантах печатают государство наше Московским, а не Российским, и того ради извольте у себя сие престеречь, чтоб печатали Российским, о чем и к прочим ко всем Дворам писано” [3]. Так Московське государство змінило свою природну віковічну назву, перетворившись в Російську імперію. Назва ця проіснувала до березня 1917 р., коли слово імперія замінено республікою. here

The phrase "Moscovite state" is mentioned in the agreement signed with Denmark on January 12, 1701. In an international treaty between the Tsar Peter I and the Commonwealth and the Polish Grand Duchy of Lithuania on June 28, 1703 is typically used Monarch of Moscow, Moscow's war "and others.

Poland and his allies due to political reasons not accepted the officialy name of Russia. (Poland until 1764). --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In 1721, when Muscovy has achieved hegemony in Eastern Europe, Peter took the title Emperor All Rossiya', which was notified the following words: "In 20 days this October, on the advice of His Majesty, in his testimony due to Thanksgiving, for its high state mercy and care and diligence, he has regarding the welfare state in all its glorious state time and especially during the Swedish war was pleased to reveal, and All-Russia State and such a strong and good condition, and his people citizens and a glory of the whole world united leadership led, as it all pretty well known, the name of the people of Russia, so was pleased to accept, like the other, they are Title: father of the fatherland, the All-Russia Emperor, Peter the Great ... "[1].

Since 1721 Tsardom of Russia (the officialy name, 1547-1721) was renamed to "Emperor of Russia" (1721-1917). Some Russian researchers consider the propagation of the term Muscovite Tsardom in western Europe as a result of political interests of PolandAlthough even Voltaire referred to this Tsardom as Moscovy in his works such as History of Charles XII, King of Sweden (1731). The term, however, is also used by some Russian historians and is considered by them to be authentically Russian.. Russians never called themself the Muscovites (nation). --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In early 1703, as discussed in Moscow the first newspaper was published, entitled "Official Gazette of the military and other matters worthy of knowledge and memory that occurred in Muscovy and in other neighboring countries", renamed it "Moskovskye Vedomosti" News of Muscovy. In 1725, "Moscow's Vedomosti" was renamed to "Vedomosti Rossijskie". Adjutant tsar Peter I sent to Ambassador Menshikov in Copenhagen the following directive: "In all the chimes publish our state of Moscow, not Rossiyskim, and also for kindly hosting these things to print Rossiyskim, as to the way to the whole yard was written" [ 3]. As a result the term Muscowy was changed from its natural age-old title to the Russian Empire. This name existed until March 1917 when the word empire replaced the republic.--Bandurist (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Moscow's Vedomosti" were published in 1756-1917 under the same name. "Kievans's Vedomosti" was renamed to "Ukrainians Vedomosti" - and what it means according to Skovoroda? --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In all sources state that Skovoroda called himself the Russian, not "Rusyn", "Ruthenian", "Ukrainian" or sth. like that. --Kuiavian (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

However none of these sources refer back to any of Skovoroda's writings where he actually writes this. All are tertiary foreign language sources. --Bandurist (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Citations

• Skovoroda called himself the "Russian Socrates", and he was one of Russia`s first original speculative philosophers (James H. Bilington, The icon and the Axe. An Imperative History of Russian Culture, New York, 1967, p. 239)
• So wurde Skovoroda de “russische Sokrates” (Konrad Onasch, Grundzüge der russischen Kirchengeschichte, 3. vol., p. 110 (Göttingen: Hubert & Co, 1967). See also on-line version
• The Five balanced chapters of this section provide perspectival lines over the "philosophic expanses" of Russian philosophy from the founders (Lomonosov, Skovoroda, Radischev, Speransky) to the personages of the high period (Solovev, Lossky, Berdejev, Frank, Novgorodcev). ("Review" of this work in: Studies in Soviet Thought 30 (1985) 73 [2]). See also Wilhelm Goerdt`s, Russische Philosophie: Zugänge und Durchblicke (Freiburg: Verlag Karl Arber, 1984). There also state that Skovoroda called himself the "Russian Sokrates" --Kuiavian (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that foreign language publications have made numerous errors because of an inadequate knowledge of Eastern Slavic Languages is well known, and instead of correcting these errors you are continuing to foster them. What would be more beneficial would be to find in Skovoroda's writings his statement that he discribes himself as the русский Socrates. I suggest you can start by looking this up on the online concordance of all his writings and language. --Bandurist (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)--Bandurist (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)>

Once again. Skovoroda called himself the "Russian" ("Русский"), not "Руський". Word "Руський" was never used in literature in 18 century :) --Antoni Chojnacki (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Any direct quotes by Skovoroda? Apparently it is others who called him a "Russian Socrates." The only direct quote I found from him was, "I intended with my mind and desired with my will to be a Socrates in Russia" which obviously is not the same thing as an ethnic self-identification.Faustian (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a direct quote, and after several months noone has come up with one. At least one of the sources used to push the idea of Skovoroda being Russian was seriously twisted. Losev's work was cited in such a way, the link is here. Losev describes Skovoroda's role in Russian culture and philosphy and described him as Russian in the sense of citizenship. However he also stated "Сын простого казака, он получил образование в киевском Коллегиуме 4 , занимал различные должности, обошел пешком с палкой в руках многие страны Западной Европы. Около 1766 года (родился Сковорода в 1722 г.) он оставил всякие должности и всецело посвятил себя деятельности в пользу родного народа, малороссов." Translated direct from googletranslate: "he son of a simple Cossack, he was educated at the Kiev Collegium 4, he held various positions, walked on foot with a stick in the hands of many countries in Western Europe. Around 1766 (born pan in 1722) he left all sorts of positions and dedicated himself entirely to work in favor of the native people, Ukrainians." Yes, googletranslate translates the word "малороссов" ("Little Russian") as "Ukrainian." See the article Little Russia for more details. Losev also writes, "Сковорода является для русской философии тем же, чем была история Греции и Рима для з<ападно>-европейских государств: его система послужила как бы прототипом для систем последовавших за ним философов." which translates as "He is for the Russian philosophy of the same, what was the history of Greece and Rome for r <from Western> European States: his system would serve as a prototype for the systems of the subsequent philosophers."

BTW, Losev work was cited as a reference for the claim that Skovoroda "many times" referred to himself as a Russian Socrates. Nowhere does Losev state that Skovoroda did so. He doesn't even state that Skovoroda did so one time. Instead, Losev writes "«Философ из народа» любил сравнивать себя с Сократом, и мы находим, что Сковорода во многом напоминает собою древнегреческого мудреца как по учению, так и по жизни. Жалко только, что русский Сократ не нашел себе своего Платона, какой был у Сократа древнего мира." Translated, "The Philosopher of the people" liked to compare himself to Socrates, and we find that the man is very much like him as an ancient Greek sage on the teachings, and on life. I only regret that the Russian Socrates could not find his own Plato, Socrates, what was at the ancient world. Philosophers would have been much more famous and much stronger than it would be the influence of his remarkable personality." That passage is used as a refrence for the claim that Skovoroda "many times" claiemd to be a Russian Socrates.

This subtle kind of dishonest use of sources is really bad. Basically it seems to be a clear-cut case of Russian nationalists misusing sources to give the false impression that the guy was a Russian when he was not (although his influence on Russia was great and this is rightfully mentioned in the article's lead). Incidentally, Losev writes a lot about Skovoroda's impact on Russian philosophy. How sad that the Russian nationalists here only used his work for no other reason than to ptweist it to make it look like Losev considered him a Russian. Is that all that matters to those people?Faustian (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Another misuse of a source: Kalnoy et al's article here was used to support the claim that Skovoroda called himself a "Russian Socrates". Actual quote is here: "Его называли русским Сократом. Да он и сам писал, что замыслил умом и пожелал волею быть Сократом на Руси" translated as "He called the Russian Socrates. And he himself wrote that he had devised mind and wished to be the will of Socrates in Russia" (googletranslate) or my translation "He was called the russian Socrates, and he himself wrote that he thought with his mind to wished with his will to become Socrates in Rus (not Russia/Rassiya)." So we see a pettern of misuse of sources by Russian nationalist editors.Faustian (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Skovoroda and the Russian\Ukrainian Problem. Again

Dear all, There are so many politically committed speculations about the role of Gregory Skovoroda in the history of philosophy as well as about his national identity, that I would like to make some review and to try to show you, how we could find some kind of the rational consensus in that situation. First of all we should take account of different researches about Gregory Skovoroda, in which we can see, that Skovoroda could be taken as a Russian as well as a Ukrainian philosopher. I special cite only the peaces of the researchers, which have neither part nor lot in the historical policy of Russia and Ukraine:

• Scherer S.P. The Life and Thought of Russia’s First Lay Theologian, Grigorij Savvič Skovoroda (1722–1794): Ph. D. dissertation. – Ohio State University, 1969. – VII, 184 р.
• Fuhrmann J.T. The First Russian Philosopher’s Search for the Kingdom of God // Essays on Russian Intellectual History / Ed. by L.B. Blair. – Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971. – P. 33–72.
• Lo Gatto E. L’idea filosofico-religiosa russa da Skovorodà a Solovjòv // Bilychnis: Rivista di studi religiosi. – 1927. – Vol. XXX. – Р. 77–90.
• Schultze B. Grigorij Savvič Skovoroda // Schultze B. Russische Denker: ihre Stellung zu Christus, Kirche und Papstum. – Wien: Thomas-Moraus-Presse im Verlag Herder, 1950. – S. 15–27.
• Genyk-Berezovská Z. Skovorodův odkaz (Hryhorij Skovoroda a ruská literatura) // Bulletin ruského jazyka a literatury. – 1993. – S. 111–123.

In the current version of the preamble is said: He lived and worked in Ukraine. But what we really know about the area of his activity? We know that he lived in Saint-Petersburg, and than he lived twice in Moscow. We know about his journey to Vienna. If we analyze, where Skovoroda lived the most part of his life, we can see, that it was not Little Russia, i.e. Kiev, but in Sloboda-Ukraine. It was an area, which is today partly in Russia and partly in Ukraine. So, where he lived and worked the most part of his life? Skovoroda lived and worked in Kharkov (or now Kharkiv), Belgorod, Kupyansk, Ostrogozhsk, Voronezh and Kursk. Sometimes he lived in Taganrog and Orel. So we can see, that there are many cites, which are today in Russia. If we take a look on his national consciousness, we can see, in the preamble: Skovoroda consciously identified with its (i.d. Ukrainian) people, differentiating them from those of Russia and condemning Russia's interference in his homeland. We can see Stephen P. Scherer’s citation from Skovoroda and Society. In Hryhorij Savyč Skovoroda: an anthology of critical articles edited by Richard H. Marshall, Thomas E. Bird. University of Alberta, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, pp. 63-65.: "The hunter does not sleep. Be alert. Carelessness is the mother of misfortune... indeed Great Russia considers all of Little Russia as so many grouse." But this citation is some kind of falsification. I have found the first part of this citation in Original (Skovoroda H. Povna akademychna zbirka tvoriv. Kharkiv 2010. pp. 315) and there is nothing about the antagonism between Great and Little Russia, so we can not use this citation as an argument, that Skovoroda indeed opposed Ukraine to Russia. Also I think that we should take into account, that Skovoroda was a Ukrainian, as well as a Russian philosopher.

91.9.156.112 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has had a long consensus, sensitive to all sides, and reflecting the opinion tilt. --Lute88 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, a lot of what this anon editor proposes is based on his original research.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think, that there is no sense to speak about some kind of original research. There are three moments, which we must have in mind to come to the real neutrality of this article. 1) There are many sources, which I can show you, where the figure of Skovoroda is described as a Russian philosopher. 2) Skovoroda had near relation with his uncle Poltavcev, who lived in Moscow and St. Petersburg. 3) It must be clear, that Skovoroda lived the most part of his life in Sloboda-Ukraine, so he lived not just in the cites and villages of today Ukraine, but of today Russia too. He lived for example in Belgorod. Many works of Skovoroda were written by him near Voronezh, Ostrogozhsk and so on. So I think, that we must clear in the article the fact, that Skovoroda was such kind of philosopher, which cannot be described just as Russian, or just as Ukrainian thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.179.211 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If the information and conclusions are not from reliable sources they don't belong in the article.Faustian (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Faustian, the most part of these sources are reliable. For example Lo Gatto belongs to the most respectable European specialist in the History of Russian and Ukrainian philosophy. Many works were written about Skovoroda as Russian philosopher in the USA. Indeed there is in the sources, which you can find in the consensus-version many of such kind of studies, which consider Skovoroda as Russian, as well as Ukrainian philosopher, or even just as Russian. So I don't understand, why we should ignore this fact. 91.9.178.9 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Gatto was an Italian writing over 60 years ago. Many sources confuse Ukrainians and Russians and claim that Ukrainians are Russians because they are from the Russian Empire. One needs to be quite careful here. Faustian (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, that many sources of the Russian Empire time confuse Ukrainians and Russians and that we need to be careful here, but there is a problem of criterion in whole. If we speak for example about ethnic identity of Skovoroda, there is no doubt that he was Ukrainian origin because he identified himself with Little Russian Cossacks. If we speak about nationality, or citizenship, we should speak about Skovoroda as Russian, because he lived in Russian Empire. So we can see the classical discrepancy between his ethnic and national identity. The same situation we can see in case of Nikolay Gogol for example: he was a Ukrainian-born Russian writer. In case of Gogol there is no doubt, that he was Russian writer, because he used Russian language in his works. So language is a criterion here. But in case of Skovoroda we have especial problem, because he couldn’t use literary form of Russian language: in 18th Century there was not some kind of literary standardized Russian language, but many different projects. So here we have a real problem, because his language is some kind of mix between Church Slavonic and language of Sloboda-Ukraine people, i.e. mixed Russian-Ukrainian dialect. That’s why I think, that we cannot speak about Skovoroda as Russian writer so easy, as in case of Gogol. Gogol was Ukrainian-born Russian writer, but Skovoroda was not just Ukrainian-born philosopher, he was Sloboda-Ukrainian philosopher, i.e. he was Russian-Ukrainian philosopher, if we you use his language as criterion and if we take in mind, that the area of Sloboda-Ukraine is currently partly in Russia and partly in Ukraine. This is not some kind of my conception. You can find such interpretation in such modern reliable sources as in the books of Prof. Alexei Malinov, Prof. Ludmila Sofronova, or Prof. Oleg Marchenko:

• Малинов А. В. Философские взгляды Григория Сковороды. СПб., 1998.
• Софронова Л. А. Три мира Григория Сковороды. — М., 2002.
• Марченко О. В. Философия Г. С. Сковороды и русская философская мысль XIX–XX вв. М., 2007.

Malinov is a specialist in the history of Russian philosophy, Sofronova is a specialist in Slavic philology, Marchenko is a remarkable specialist in the life and philosophy of Gregory Skovoroda. More over, Marchenko went a work on the modern critical issue of Skovoroda's Opera omnia together with Leonid Ushkalov from Kharkiv. So all of them maintain, that the case of Skovoroda is more complicated, as modern difference between Ukraine and Russia. I hope you take into account my arguments and I have convinced you of the equity of this position. Best regards, 91.9.179.104 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The overriding factor is Skovoroda's SELFidentification, not the proverbial 7 cities which vied for Homer's citizenship, because he panhandled in all 7 of them. And finally all this russocentric POV nicely falls into the WP:WEIGHT category.--Lute88 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don’t understand, why you are trying to insist, that Russian works about Skovoroda can not be reliable sources. All three works, which I gave here are not some kind of fiction, or popular literature. The authors of them are respectable specialists in Slavic History, Philology and Philosophy. For example in case of Oleg Marchenko we deal with one of the most important modern Skovoroda-Researchers. As I told you, you can see that Marchenko was among commentators of the critical edition of Skovoroda’s Opera omnia (Kharkiv 2011). So I can not accept your position about the sources, which I have given here. Also it is not so clear for me, how you can protect this consensus-version of the article and speak about some WP:WEIGHT, if we can see in this version some philosophical reviews for PhD candidates as reliable sources. Wherein I agree with you, is you thesis, that the overriding factor is Skovoroda's «SELFidentification».

But (!) if you insist that, you should agree with the fact, that there is no place in Skovoroda’s works, where he directly talks about his national Identity. Of course we can see, that he refers to many proverbs of Little Russians and Great Russians, that he speaks about Little Russia, Great Russia, or simple about Russia in whole, or about Russian Empire, but we can not see in his works some kind of national opposition between all of these concepts. So we don't have right to maintain, that Skovoroda had some kind of national consciousness, which could oppose to his Russian identity in whole. All what we know about his national identity are the words of his disciple Michail Kovalinsky, who told, that he liked Little Russia like his “mother” and Ukraine like his “aunt”. We should here notice, that in case of Skovoroda as well as Kovalinsky there in no way to talk about Little Russia and Ukraine as the same thing. Under Ukraine Kovalinsky means Sloboda-Ukraine, where Skovoroda lived the most part of his life. But if we look, in which cites he lived and worked, we find out, that it is talked of Voronesh, Charkov, Belgorod, Kursk, Bryansk, Kupyansk, Ostrogoshsk, Taganrog and so one. So he lived and worked in Russia Empire in the region of Sloboda-Ukraine and the most important places of his activity are steel in modern Russia. That’s why, if we use this well-known fragment of the biography of Skovoroda by Kowalinsky as the main source of Skovoroda’s “SELFidentification”, we should write about Skovoroda as about Russian and Ukrainian, or (sic!) Sloboda-Ukrainian philosopher. 91.9.172.68 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Hryhorii Skovoroda → Gregory Skovoroda – "Hryhorii" is a transliteration from modern standard Ukrainian, which did not have a unified orthography prior to the 1920s. The custom was typically to translate, rather than to transliterate a name. For example: Peter I, not Pyotr I; Alexander Suvorov, not Aleksandr Suvorov; to name a couple of people from this time period. "Gregory" would be the best option, as neither "Hryhorii" nor "Grigori" would be fully appropriate. --Relisted. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Interchange88 ☢ 19:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Modern Ukrainian transliteration should not be applied to historical subjects. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Original research being used to twist ethnicity

Please note that I have removed references to the so-called 'pre-1918 Russian' spelling of his name. The 'pre-1918 Russian' spelling is original research, biased and inaccurate. If you care to check the correct spelling, it was 'Hрыhорий Савыч Сковорода', not 'Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода'. See a copy of the publication being cited with the correct spelling. Where's the 'aitch' (English 'h') elimination in pre-1918 Russian exactly. Could it have something to do with the fact that the Russian language evolved without an 'aitch' far, far earlier it the piece? How on earth could 'Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода' transliterate as being pronounced as Grigory Savvich Skovoroda when it actually transliterates as 'Hryhoriy Savvych Skovoroda'?

Of course, the spelling 'Hрыhорий Савыч Сковорода' can't be correct, either. In other words, unless someone can present a reliable secondary source which depicts the spelling of his name in the genuine first publication (as well as how he referred to himself), no one has a case for any absolute method by which to gauge the name. It's funny because researchers on him don't agree (except for a couple of WP:CHERRYPICKED ones).

Find genuinely reliable sources, or leave the article be. There's been more than enough stupid, useless edit warring over the subject already.

Finally, please pay attention to the warning at the top of this talk page: The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute... Please supply full citations when adding information... Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Iryna, first of all, I insist, that there is no one, who try "to twist Skovoroda's ethnicity", as you say. It is absolutely clear, that he was Ukrainian-born Cossack, but the language of his works and the spelling of his name is not the same thing with the ethnicity. You are absolutely right, that there is no where to find some reliable sources, to prove the spelling of his name, but we are able to find the writing form. The form 'Hрыhорий Савыч Сковорода', which you have found in Google Search, here means definitely nothing, just because there is no such form in this edition of Bagaley, which you have cited. It is just an index form for librarian. Secondly, the pre-1918 Russian form of his name 'Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода' is not some kind of original research: you can see this form in the first edition of Bagaley. The same form you can find in original text of Skovoroda's first biography by Michailo Kovalensky, his friend. It means not, that according to this writing form we are able to speak about the spelling form of his name (I think, that he used both variants of spelling in different society's), but it is enough, to insist, that this form ('Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода') is actually the correct writing form of his name, which was used by Skovoroda und which you can see in his works, in first biography and in first academic edition of his works. Thirdly is to say, that there was actually no way for using the Ukrainian literary language to Skovoroda, just because the Ukrainian literary language was not shaped at his time: Skovoroda died, when Ivan Kotliarevsky and Alexey Pavlovsky were only near thirty yeas old, that means, Skovoroda couldn't use Ukrainian writing language and had to use the so called "language of Lomonosov". That's why Shevelyov write about his language: ″It was a peculiar Russian that grew up on the Ukrainian substrat″. Shevelyov G. Skovoroda’s Language and Style // Hryhorij Savyč Skovoroda. An Anthology of Critical Articles. Edmonton — Toronto 1994. P. 129.; ″In Summary, the language of Skovoroda, minus its many biblical and ecclesiastical, political and personal features is, in its foundation, the Slobozhanshchina variety of standard Russian as used by the educated″. Shevelyov G. Skovoroda’s Language and Style // Hryhorij Savyč Skovoroda. An Anthology of Critical Articles. Edmonton — Toronto 1994. P. 131. Ушкуйник (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Insist away, Ушкуйник. I'm sorry that you missed the humour of using 'Hрыhорий Савыч Сковорода' as an example. I'm well aware of everything you've written above. What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that the same issues have been raked over time and time again on this talk page. You have merely brought exactly the same references already discussed to the talk page.

The first publication was, as you would be aware, nearly a hundred years after the handwritten manuscripts were penned. What, then, is the significance of 'pre-1918 Russian' in the lead if it is not to be misleading? How does an 1861 publication in Petrograd using a Russified version of his name, and its transliteration into English, inform the reader about him (outside of being a fresh attempt at re-Russifying Skovoroda for contemporary consumption)? Does it reflect how he pronounced his own name, how his peers referred to him, or how he perceived himself? Aside from the fact that it is highly unlikely that his name was pronounced with a 'g' the concept of identifying as being "Russian" even within the Russian Empire has been disputed hotly here already. I've tolerated your addition of Skovoroda to the list of Russian philosophers and writers as he was influential. Russifying his identity is, however, not an appealing agenda.

Shevelyov (et al) having all been discussed before with no consensus that one linguistic study of Skovoroda's works (particularly a disputed one) could be reached, the consensus has been that a stable version should being retained before a fresh bout of edit-warring break out. Please be respectful of the sensitivity of the standing version. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, I don't try to ignore that the first academic edition of Skovoroda was issued nearly a hundred years after the handwritten manuscripts were penned, but we see the same form of his name ('Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода') in these manuscripts. I'm agree with you, that in the edition of Bagaley we can see some "Russifying", or better is to say, some Modernisation of Skovoroda's language, but this Modernisation is not so radical to make a difference between language of Skovoroda in manuscripts and in this edition. More over, if we take new academic edition of Skovoroda by Ushkalov, which is published (sic!) without any modernization of Skovoroda's language, we can see in like manner the same form of his name: 'Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода', so we see this form in the edition, which was published without any Russifying. So I don't understand, why we shouldn't use this form. It means not, that if Skovoroda used the form 'Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода', the pronunciation of his name was with a 'g'. The writing form and the spelling form of the name in 18. century was not the same not only in Ukrainian Ecumene, but also in Russian. I am sure, that near Poltava at this time the pronunciation of his name was with a 'h', but in St. Petersburg, in Moscow, in Voronezh, in Kiev it could be very different, with a 'h', a 'g', ot with a 'gh'. So Skovoroda could called himself in different manner, depending on society. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ушкуйник, I understand what you're trying to convey, but my concern is with WP:UNDUE weight being assigned to his ethnicity by the use of 'pre-1918 Russian' in the lead. You must be aware that, for Westerners (the English speaking world in particular) the word 'Russian' has an absolute meaning. The article is short and, in order to convey hundreds of years of history that you and I understand, it would be disproportionate to start parsing the evolution of Eastern European Slavistics in order to establish that we can only guess at how his name was pronounced, developing a discourse on 'Триединый русский народ', plus everything in-between. If 'Григорій Саввичъ Сковорода' is added, how do we transliterate it? The fact is that we can't as it would be a guestimate (that is, WP:OR)... and you're still working on the assumption that Bagaley merely 'modernised' the 'Russian' being used per Shevelyov's linguistic evaluation of Skovoroda's work. Shevelyov is not considered mainstream. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, ok. I think you are right, it is to complicated to make clear all these nuances in this article. Ушкуйник (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Mother of Crimean Tartar ancestry

Does anyone think this information to be due in the context of the article? "His mother was of Crimean Tatar descent."(from УКРАИНСКИЙ КОНТЕКСТ ТВОРЧЕСТВА М. Ю. ЛЕРМОНТОВА(НЕКОТОРЫЕ МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ АСПЕКТЫ), pg 101)

While it may be of peripheral interest to Lermontov or Skovoroda, given how little information is given as to Skovoroda's ancestry in particular, I'm dubious of such additions per WP:BALASPS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Being of Crimean Tatar descent is not the same as being a Crimean Tatar. I think the fact that his mother being of Crimean Tatar descent is notable and ought to be in the article, but the latest edits seem to overemphasize this descent. The Bulgakov family is of Tatar descent but Mikhail Bulgakov is described as being Russian and Tatar.Faustian (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I read the article (mainly about Lermontov) and tried to find the section about Skovoroda. There is only a brief mention of Hryhorii Skovoroda: "Вероятным основателем русского рода Шан-Гиреев, предков не только Лермонтова, но и Григория Сковороды, является козацкий полковник времен Богдана Хмельницкого – Шагин Иван Гирей (Шан-Гирей), родившийся до 1648 года. Его отцом был хан Саадет II Гирей. "

This says that a probable founder/source of the Shan-Giray family, who were ancestors of Lermontov, and Hryhorii Skovoroda, appears to be a Cossack colonel during the time of Bohdan Hmelnitskyi - Shagin Ivan Giray, born in 1648. His father was khan Saadet II Giray.

It was written that the mother of Lermontov had a connection to Giray, not the mother of Skovoroda.

The article only states the possibility of a link between Shagin Ivan Giray (whose ethnicity it not clear) and Skovoroda--there was no detailed investigation described. 208.66.130.43 (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Svyat Vergun

Thank you. Based on this, we can conclude possible Crimean Tatar ancestry but not that Skovoroda was an ethnic Tatar.Faustian (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. One small detail is that there was no mention of Skovoroda's mother having Crimean Tatar ancestry. It was not clear if it was his mother or father, just "ancestors" were mentioned in the Lermontov article. After reading the Skovoroda wiki article it does seem that the possible Crimean Tatar ancestry is secondary and difficult to confirm.

Maybe a parenthetical phrase like you had is best, just modified to: "It is believed that Skovoroda may have had Crimian Tatar ancestry." Svyat Vergun208.66.130.43 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy, I wanted to edit the Crimean Tatar phrase to "Skovoroda may have had Crimean Tatar ancestry," removing the connection to his mother. It was Lermontov's mother who had Crimean Tatar ancestry. Svyatver (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed the phrase to exclude the connection to his mother. Svyatver (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that the structure of the allusion to his Crimean Tartar ancestry was clearer prior your change. The re-rendered text suggests that, in terms of his genealogy, his entire family were Crimean Tartars who joined the Cossacks at some point in history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor Typo Corrections Lost in Revisions

I've been trying to get some typos fixed but these have been lost after frequent undo's and edits. I'll list them here to keep track:

In his tracts and **dialogues**, biblical problems overlap with those examined earlier by Plato.

The world tried to catch me but could not. (Iryna's edit)

Section title: Works and **Teachings** (it seems appropriate to add "teachings" since he wrote his ideas as well as taught them to others as described in the section text).

The **Muscovite** Orthodox clergy was intolerant to Skovoroda's teachings...

...under the editorship of **Professor** D. Bahaliy.

reference: Taras Zakydalsky. "Skovoroda, Hryhorii". Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Retrieved 27 November 2015.

Here 16 of his works **were published**, 9 of **which appeared** for the first time! Also published here **was** Pans biography and some of his poems. Another edition of the works **was published** in December.

Svyat Vergun208.66.130.43 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties in working out where the changes took place and what needs to be rectified as the article has been changed without discussion a number of times since you left this message. The only instance I can identify is epitaph on his tombstone (which I'd referenced from a reliable secondary source as the translation). If there is an overlap with Plato, it should be in the footnotes citing the source. As it stands, my referenced translation has been overwritten so that it neither sourced nor can it be qualified as referencing Plato.

It would be nice if editors making changes actually using this talk page to discuss any content changes rather than simply reverting without first checking for referenced/sourced content and translations being removed. Instead of making progress on developing the article, it's constantly being refactored and losing reliable sources. Please, let's discuss content changes. It's not a large article and there's no need to be hasty in improving it. In the end, we just end up frustrating each other and making no qualitative improvements for the reader (and the reader is audience we're writing for, not each other). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, wise words. It is difficult to enforce a discussion and frustrating when accuracy is lost due to many hasty editors. Let's agree on the fundamental goal of improving the article (more accurate, descriptive) for the reader and for ourselves. We are also interested in Skovoroda and want to give credit where credit is due. I'm going to be patient with the revisions. Svyat208.66.130.43 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

One addition that I've been holding off on was a neat description of the 1890s Bahalii publication. "... the publication of the famous 7th volume of the Transactions of the Kharkiv Historico-Philological Society (1984), containing the bulk of his [oeuvre], edited by Dymytro Bahalii on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the philospher's death ..." reference: Ушкалов, Леонід. 2 століття сковородіяни. " Acta" publishers, 2002. (Ukrainian and English text)

I didn't realize it was 100 years after his death. This adds an element of culture and regard for Skovoroda from the Kharkiv scholars. Svyat24.12.213.61 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, the source you added earlier about Skovoroda's epitaph is:

Daniel H. Shubin; Grigori Skovoroda (1 August 2012). Skovoroda: The World Tried to Catch Me but Could Not. Lulu.com. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-9662757-3-5. Retrieved 24 November 2015.

cquote|The world tried to catch me but could not. ref name="ShubinSkovoroda2012" cite book|author1=Daniel H. Shubin|author2=Grigori Skovoroda|title=Skovoroda: The World Tried to Catch Me but Could Not|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yurhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1%7Caccessdate=24 November 2015|date=1 August 2012|publisher=Lulu.com|isbn=978-0-9662757-3-5|page=1 (removed brackets to keep the syntax visible)

This is from the webpage of your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gregory_Skovoroda&oldid=692727093

I'm just keeping track of the citations and typos in this discussion topic.

Svyatver (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(12/31/15) English translation of city names. Kharkiv is the English translation of "Харків." Following the custom to translate, rather than to transliterate a name. For example: Peter I, not Pyotr I. (reference "Requested move" post above).

Consensus version?

Someone keeps reverting various other editors to support what he calls a "consensus " version. Yet, it seems that the consensus is not with him, because he is outnumbered by the ones whose edits he reverts.Faustian (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• It has been spoken here many times: Skovoroda is Ukrainian as well as Russian philosopher. See the sources in the article. His ethnicity is important for the article about him, but his ethnicity is not the subject of his nobility. His fame is so great because of his life and works, which could not be reduced to Ukrainian substrate. Skovoroda had a great influence on different philosophers not only in Charkov, but also in Voronezh, Ostrogozhsk and Moscow. Due to his followers - Kovalensky and Tomara - his works were popular in the circle of Moscow Martinists. He lived in Russian Empire and his connections were very different in different regions of imperial Russia, not just in the Ukraine. He lived also in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Taganrog, Rostov, Voronezh, Belgorod. So there is no any sence to reduce the information about his role in the history of Russian philosophy to his ethnicity. Secondly, it should be also remarked, that Skovoroda belongs to philosophers of 18. Century. His national identity could not be reduced just to Ukrainian or just to Russian. His teacher - Gregory Konissky - was one of the most distinguished apologists of the triune Russian nation, and it is not complicated to find such ideas in works of Skovoroda. Also, according to sources and facts of his biography I insist, that it is not right to reduce his cultural and historical identity to his ethnicity. We have spoken about the same situation in fall of the article about Gogol and I don't see any sense to repeat it. Ушкуйник (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Your point is not unreasonable. But, a brief mention is his ethnicity - 2 words in the lead - does not seem to be excessive or overemphasis. And it looks like consensus is to include it, judging by the fact that multiple editors put it in, and one removes it.Faustian (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Dear Faustian, I would be agree with you, if these editors would make any real contributions in the article to make it better, but they just don't want to see any connection of Skovoroda with Russia. They try to write about the primacy of his ethnicity without any knowledge of his contributions and with ignorance of his life and philosophy. One of them just changed all passages about Skovoroda's connection with Russia, he has made it with obvious ignorance of the facts of his life and without any respect to reliable sources and historiography. So it is not just overemphasis, it is try to make his ethnicity the subject of his notability. In this situation I would like to carry back to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies, which Alex Bakharev has mentioned in our discussion about the article Nikolai Gogol. Now we speak about the same things. There is a big tradition to describe Skovoroda as Ukrainian as well as Russian philosopher and we may not ignore this fact and just choose one of identities, because the problem of his ethnicity is very close connected with the subject of the national consciousness of 18 Century imperial Russia. I suggest, that the version of the preamble (Gregory Skovoroda – was a Ukrainian[2] and Russian[3] philosopher, poet, teacher and composer) is the best way to come to consensus, which existed in this article till the last time. The information about Skovoroda's ethnicity is in details described in this article in the topic of his life, the best solution is not to debate here again about Ukrainian/Russian-problem, but to use both Ethno-cultural labels with respect to the sources. Ушкуйник (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There is much information contained in your discussion post, which I respect.

The fundamental qualities in improving this article about Skovoroda are: description, accuracy, objectiveness, detail.

One concern I have about the statement "Gregory Skovoroda – was a Ukrainian[2] and Russian[3] philosopher, poet, teacher and composer" is that it is unclear with respect to the Ukrainian and Russian word choice. These words are ambiguous, they can mean ethnicity or nationality. This is subtle but it is important to be precise.

I propose: "Skovoroda was an ethnically Ukrainian philosopher, poet, teacher and composer. Skovoroda was of a Cossack background in current day Ukraine, who lived in the then newly formed Russian Empire and whose work influenced Russian philosophy and culture."

This is more clear on his ethnicity (Ukrainian) and his influence on a school of Philosophy (Russian). He himself (during his life) was not part of the general field of Russian philosophy: he was a wandering scholar. Svyat208.66.130.43 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Faustian (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Svyat, I agree with you, that the words "Ukrainian" and "Russian" in context of 18. Century have not the same meanings with the modern Ethno-cultural labels, but it is not the subject of the preamble to describe all these Ukrainian/Russian-problems in the article about Skovoroda. It is just enough to use in the preamble both labels to demonstrate two main historiographical conceptions, i.e. Ukrainian (Bagaley, Sumcov, Chizhevsky, Mirchuk etc.) and Russian (Zelenogorsky, Ern, Bobrinsky, Zen'kovsky etc). We may not choose only one of them, even if we are agree with only one: Ethno-cultural labels should not be used to emphasize ethnicity, if the cultural contributions of the person could not be reduced to only one culture. Skovoroda is one of such thinkers, which contributions couldn't be reduced to only Ukrainian or only Russian culture.

It is clear, that Skovoroda's contributions in the Ukrainian and Russian culture are so distinguished, that with respect to the sources we should describe him as Ukrainan and Russian philosopher and not reduce his notability to his ethnicity. You write, (citation): "He himself (during his life) was not part of the general field of Russian philosophy: he was a wandering scholar". But it should be said, that in 18. Century there was not some kind of "the general field of Russian philosophy" at all. Secondly, it is true, that he lived many years as a wandering scholar, but it should be also clear, that the most part of his works of the wandering period he has written not only in Charkov, but also in Voronezh Governorate in the house of his friend Tevyashov, who had one of the largest libraries in Russia and had different connections with Russian thinkers. So even here we can see, that he was in Ukrainian and at the same time in Russian cultural context. It was also very typical for this period in the history of philosophy in imperial Russia, to write and then to rewrite the MS somewhere in the village.

Also, from the article it is absolute clear, that Skovoroda's ethnicity is Ukrainian and that he was of Cossack background, it is also clear from the redirect in preamble, that there is no any speech about Russian ethnicity of Skovorda. The redirect from "Russian" is not "Russian people", but "Russian philosophy". According to all these arguments I insist, that we should use both Ethno-cultural labels with respect to the sources, historiographical traditions and specific of Skovoroda's contributions in the intellectual culture. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ушкуйник: Would you please stop this slow edit warring. Every time you revert, you revert back to a version prior copy edit clean-ups, reference clean-ups, and nomenclature clean-ups (note that 'Muscovite' is the correct nomenclature in the English language, not 'Muscowite': you're using the German version of the English language 'v'). If there is any content regarding his Russian connection to be reinstated in the content, it needs to be discussed and added manually, not by reverting to an earlier version. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dear Iryna Harpy, I want to discuss with you and I would be glad to see your arguments. We are speaking here about the preamble of this article. I don't want to revert back your stylistic contributions, but I can not agree with this new version of preamble, which emphasizes the ethnicity of Skovoroda without any necessity. Ethnicity is not the subject of notability, we have already spoken with you about it (in case of the article Nikolay Gogol). If you have read my arguments on the talk page, then I am waiting for some kind of dialogue about the subject of discussion. Another way we are speaking about different problems. Ушкуйник (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ушкуйник, your comments here seem reasonable to me and I can live with your version; nevertheless, a brief unambiguous mention of Skovoroda's Ukrainian ethnicity seems to be better and more accurate (in essence, he was an ethnic Ukrainian not ethnic Russian, who lived in Russia as well as Ukraine and who contributed very much to Russian philosophy). So, for purposes of consensus, consider me in the group who prefer having his Ukrainian ethnicity explicitly and briefly noted in the lede. Joseph Conrad's Polish background is no more substantial than Skovoroda's Ukrainian one, yet his ethnicity is noted a lot in that article's lede. Faustian (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Dear Faustian, I think, that the best decision is, to emphasize his ethnicity in the second sentence. I have already made it: "Gregory Skovoroda – was a Ukrainian[2] and Russian[3] philosopher, poet, teacher and composer. Skovoroda was of a Ukrainian Cossack background, who lived in the then newly formed Russian Empire and who made important contributions to Russian philosophy and culture". From this version of preamble is absolutely clear, that he was of a Ukrainian Cossack ethnicity, and that he belongs to both, i.e. Ukrainian and Russian intellectual cultures. Ушкуйник (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, IMO this is good. It makes clear that he was of Ukrainian ethnicity while also making clear that he belongs to both intellectual cultures.Faustian (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ушкуйник, Faustian,

The words "Ukrainian and Russian Philosopher," visually and in the contemporary English language context are ambiguous. It is not an effective way to describe his ethnicity and cultural relationship.

I'm concerned about the muddling of peoples and their associations. It is inadequate to use sweeping labels like "Ukrainian and Russian." In the English language context these are not informative. They only suggest an ambiguous relationship to Ukrainian and Russian peoples and cultures. At first glance one cannot see that Russian directs to Russian philosophy. A link to Russian philosophy can be inserted where the words "Russian philosophy" appear in the next sentence. To describe Skovoroda, who is difficult to systematically classify, we must be precise.

I want to describe Skovoroda and his relations more clearly. Here are his fundamental qualities: He is strongly related to ethnic Ukrainians. He is strongly historically related to Russian philosophy. He had ethnically Ukrainian and Russian friends and scholars. He lived in Sloboda Ukraine cities and other cities in the territory of the Russian Empire.

The number of qualities and their complications makes it difficult to describe him in a general term, "Ukrainian and Russian philosopher." His qualities should be described specifically, explicitly: ethnic Ukrainian, work influenced later Russian philosophers.

The important principles in this article are to be accurate, detailed, objective. Also it is wise to view the article from an encyclopedic viewpoint, where ethnicity, nationality, and philosophical significance are all important and should be described. In essence an accurate description is: Skovoroda was a philosopher, poet, teacher and composer (his fundamental life work). Skovoroda was of a Ukrainian Cossack background (ethnicity), who lived in the then newly formed Russian Empire (nationality) and whose work influenced Russian philosophy and culture (culture).Svyat208.66.130.149 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Lute88, Faustian , Ушкуйник, Iryna Harpy,

Do you accept this sentence from above: "Skovoroda was a philosopher, poet, teacher and composer. Skovoroda was of a Ukrainian Cossack background, who lived in the then newly formed Russian Empire and whose work influenced Russian philosophy and culture."

It does not start with ethnicity-nationality-culture words which bring a lot of arguing.

This introduces his work first (which is most important), then ethnicity, nationality and culture relationships explicitly and one at a time. Svyat24.12.213.61 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this seems good to me.Faustian (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Svyat, I don't think so, that this is a good decision, to delete Ethno-cultural labels from the actual variant of preamble. Both labels are used in the sources and in the historiography, so there is no any sense to neglect them. Also, it is absolutely clear from the second sentence of preamble, that Skovoroda was of Ukrainian Cossack background, so I don't see any ethnicity problem. I don't think so, that the actual version of preamble should be changed. With respect to the historiography of philosophy of 18th Century the current version of preamble is absolutely neutral and clear. Ушкуйник (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Lute88, Faustian , Ушкуйник, Iryna Harpy,

I was waiting for other editors to respond and offer their knowledge. It's been a few days and I'm still concerned about the ambiguity of the labels.

This type of confusion is seen even in the sources. Fuhrmann, in Essays on Russian Intellectual History (1971), writes, "It is true, of course, that the 'Russian' philosopher Skovoroda was actually Ukrainian by birth, residence, and immediate area of influence."

The main idea is that the phrase "Ukrainian and Russian philosopher" offers some description but is shallow and can cause confusion. Ukrainian redirects to Ukraine, Russian redirects to Russian Philosophy, and the points to be described are: 1)Ukrainian ethnically, 2)membership in Ukrainian philosophy, 3)membership in Russian philosophy.

Faustian (**typo, should be: Ушкуйник -sv) didn't think it was a good idea to delete the labels. There is still the ambiguity that I want to address and improve the clarity of the descriptions. 1) Ukrainian redirects to Ukrainians (should also include Ukrainian philosophy, 2) Russian redirects to Russian philosophy (should include philosophy after Russian to make the redirect consistent).

This new phrasing includes the labels and offers specific descriptions: "Ukrainian-born philosopher, poet, teacher and composer. Skovoroda was of a Ukrainian Cossack background(1), who lived in the then newly formed Russian Empire. He is often regarded as a Ukrainian philosopher(2) as well as a Russian philosopher(3) since his work influenced both cultures and fields of study."

This addresses the 3 points from above: 1)Ukrainian ethnically, 2)membership in Ukrainian philosophy, 3)membership in Russian philosophy.

Let me know if this makes sense, Svyatver (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me and is my preference. Both you and Ушкуйник are more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.Faustian (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Svyatver (talk, I think, you are absolutely right, that it would be better, if in the article the sentence "Ukrainian and Russian philosopher" will have two redirects to philosophy, i.e. Ukrainian and Russian, because we are speaking here about these labels in context of historiography of philosophy. The clarity on ethnicity, philosophy and cultural influence is given in the second phrase: "Skovoroda was of a Ukrainian Cossack background, who lived in the then newly formed Russian Empire and who made important contributions to Russian philosophy and culture". So I think, that if it's still could be not clear for somebody, what does it mean, we can use the colon ( : ). So it will be clear: "Skovoroda was a Ukrainian and Russian philosopher, poet, teacher and composer: Skovoroda was of a Ukrainian Cossack background, who lived in the then newly formed Russian Empire and who made important contributions to Russian philosophy and culture". Best regards and happy New Year! Ушкуйник (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ушкуйник, I agree.

To be specific and come closer to a consensus, we can state the philosophy descriptions first.

I like this phrasing better because with this sentence structure we can link Ukrainian philosophy to itself and Russian philosophy to itself (more direct than Ukrainian -> philosophy, Russian -> philosophy).

"Skovoroda is regarded as a Ukrainian philosopher(2) as well as a Russian philosopher(3) since his work influenced both cultures and fields of study. He was also a poet, teacher and composer." (This also addresses the influence on both cultures, and keeps it within one sentence.) (Using (1),(2),(3) from the post above.)

Then his birth, ethnicity, nationality can be described.

"Skovoroda was of a Ukrainian Cossack background(1), who lived and worked in the then newly formed Russian Empire, in the region of Sloboda Ukraine, which is today partly in Ukraine and partly in Russia."

With the wording structure "Ukrainian and Russian philosopher" its harder to see the link "Ukrainian philosophy" (the viewer has to move a mouse over it to see).

One small detail is that I wanted to use the wording "influenced culture and study" instead of "contributed to the field of study." There was no Ukrainian or Russian philosophy field back then (education, scholarly study was significantly tied with the church), it was secularly developed after Skovoroda's life and I'm describing the influence from the view point that

"Skovoroda was active in work for the sake of himself and his immediate friends, and later his work was built upon by the newer generation and developing fields of study."

Happy New Year to you too Svyatver (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Svyatver, I agree. I think, it is really good decision. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Very happy about this, I'll change the text now. Svyatver (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Information on Skovoroda's relation to church heresy

Sentences about Skovoroda and the church's view were removed recently:

The Muscovite Orthodox clergy was intolerant to Skovoroda's teachings [and] considered them heretical. & Skovoroda defended the right of the individual in each person, but translated this into concrete political language of the time. This meant a strong democratic trend that was associated with sympathy for enslaved peasant masses, with sharp hostility to the Muscovite oppressors.

I found a mention of heresy in Chopyk's biography.

"... Skovoroda, in defference [could this be difference? I assume this is deference, or respect] to the Orthodox Church, equated God with Nature. Although the idea of equating God with Nature suggests a heretical pantheism, the Church did not declare him a heretic and to the last days of Skovoroda's life he maintained close relationship with his friends, many of whom were priests, prelates and high officials..."

"Yet in College, as Skovoroda has related in his letter of clarification to its Rector Jobe Bazilevich and to his friend V. Maksimovich, he was falsely accused and slandered as a heretic."

reference: Skovoroda, Gregory S. Fables and Aphorisms. Translation, biography, and analysis by Dan B. Chopyk (New York: Peter Lang, 1990)

It seems like there were some in the Kharkiv College (in the last years that he was teaching there) that spread a rumor about "heresy" but in general Skovoroda was in very favorable, friendly relations with many influential church members.

Does anyone have knowledge of Skovoroda's ideas and the church's stance on them during or after his life? Svyat24.12.213.61 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Svyat, this is a big problem, what can we really say about connections between Skovoroda and church. On the one hand it is well known, that he stayed in contacts with many of Orthodox clerics, for example in Kursk with Amvrosy of Kursk, in Moscow with Kirill Lyashchevetsky, in Belgorod with Ivan Savchenkov etc. On the other hand, it is well known, that he didn't wanted to be a part of clerisy. Especially from his late messages to friends it is clear, that he was influenced by German Pietism. Heresy in the Legacy of Skovoroda saw Samuil Mislavsky from Nizhyn, who didn't let Skovoroda to be a teacher in Char'kover Collegium. Ушкуйник (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ушкуйник on trying to decipher this relationship on the grounds of no original research. We have various testimonials as to his behaviour by peers/eye witnesses, later researchers and interpretations, but what can be said of it in the end?... That he took to eating only one simple meal per day after sundown and slept outdoors? Unless this article is to be developed into a thoroughly researched and attributed 'according to' piece giving due weight to each variable, it's best to refrain from trying to be overly thorough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition of description of teachings, beliefs in the "Works Section"

I found a well written description of Skovoroda's beliefs and stances on political and church system qualities. This is from Chopyk's biography and would provide information about his beliefs and teachings and a setting/context for them.

It adds some clarity to the opposition of "church scholasticism" as mentioned in the Works section and briefly connects his ideas to the epitaph. Also this adds a reference to a section without any.

Pg. 35 from Chopyk's Fables and Aphorisms (1990). Turning to the society of his time, Skovoroda strongly opposed the drone-like existence of Orthodox black clergy (monks), as well as the "birthright" of the nobility to occupy high positions in society and government. He also objected to nobleman's unscrupulous striving for privileges which lead them to meanness, banality, cruelty, and hypocrisy. Skovoroda was able to observe an acute state of human baseness in Russia's newly acquired lands in the Ukraine, where the old cossack establishment had to compete in a life-and-death struggle for the right to retain their former privileges in opposition to those officials from Russia who were now claiming these rights for themselves as renumeration [remuneration] for services rendered to Her Majesty [Catherine II]. ... Skovoroda loathed unscrupulous striving for riches and power. He personally fought against their worldly magnetism and expressed this struggle in his epitaph: "The world tried to catch me, but in vain." Neither bishop's mitre, nor marraige, nor high administrative positions were worth the freedom to which Skovoroda was dedicated."

Svyatver (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting passage. Ушкуйник (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition to Language Section

Another source matches the mixed language description that Shevlov gives.

Pg 35 of Chopyk's Fables and Aphorisms. "Christian Wolf by teaching philosophy in the German vernacular (rather than Latin) influenced Skovoroda (and before him Lomonosov) to teach and write his philosophical works in the Ukrainian vernacular (which was then heavily Russified)." Christian Wolf was a professor in the University of Halle who Skovoroda studied with.

Pg 36. "Skovoroda expressed his social views most effectively in his parables and fables. In them he conveyed not only the lessons of good living, but also revealed himself. His fables, written in a mixed Russian-Ukrainian-Church Slavonic language were, according to Gorkij and Tolstoy, very effective and, judging by the number of extant copies, were equally liked by gentry and commoners."

I'd like to add these to improve the description of Skovoroda's writing and mention his relationship to Wolff. Svyatver (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dear Svyatver, I'm not sure, that Wolf influenced Skovoroda. It's only an opinion of Chopyk, which based on the hypotheses (sic!), that Skovoroda could studied in Halle. Although there is no any document or any real proof, which could argue this hypotheses. Leonid Ushkalov for example insists, that this is a myth, that Skovoroda was in Halle. The history about Skovoroda in Halle is based on the Skovoroda's life according to Gustav Hess de Calve. On the other hand, it seems to be quite possible, that Leibniz influenced Skovoroda, because we know, that during Skovoroda's travel to Moscow he was in journey together with Vladimir Kaligraph, who had some works of Leibniz along. In case of Wolf, I am not so sure, that Skovoroda could read any of his works. Ушкуйник (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I did come across mentions to others references that says he studied in Halle. After a new evaluation of the chronology in Skovoroda's biography (I think Chopyk is using M. Kovalinsky's biography), there was an acceptance of the report in Pierre Larousse's dictionary referencing Skovoroda's three year studies in Halle.

Chopyk writes (pg 33), "Recently, after the reappraisal of chronology in Skovoroda's biography, a full credence has been afforded to the report in Pierre Larousse's dictionary referencing Skovoroda's three year studies in Halle under the famous scholar-philosopher Christian Wolff, who died in 1753."

The Grand Dictionnaire Universel du XIX siecle by Pierre Larousse. 1875. Paris. pp. 781-782

"When he [Skovoroda] was twelve he entered the Ecclesiastical Academy of Kiev as a domestic servant. Because of his intelligence, he was permitted to take courses and soon became one of the most brilliant students of the Academy. Having unsuccessfully sought permission to complete his studies abroad, he departed on foot to Pest without his superiors' knowledge. There he learned German and then went to Halle, where the teachings of Wolff were then at their zenith. For three years Skovoroda studied metaphysics and theology. During this time he wrote his translations of Homilies by St. John Chrysostomus, as well as some moral fables which have been preserved to our day in Ukrainian oral traditions. Upon his return to Kiev after four years' absence, he was not readmitted to the Academy and was unable to obtain employment..."

I think it could be that he studied there. In a very recent source, a connection to Halle was mentioned in: "Григорій Сковорода В Угорщині." Переяславські Сковородинівські студії. Випуск 2,2013. This is a journal of Skovoroda studies in Pereyaslav. ("Grigoriy Skovoroda in Hungary." Pereyaslav Skovoroda studies. Volume 2, 2013.)

On pg 323 there is (translated) : "Leonid Mahnovets, critically treating allegations of authors in Ukrainian Journal that Skovoroda traveled on foot in the countries listed, and rejecting the story of his secret visit to Pest, agrees that the philosopher visited these countries. However, since we now know that Skovoroda was abroad for five years, he considers it likely that he stayed for three years in Halle with Wolff.{26}"

The reference {26} to Leonid Mahnovets is: Махновець Л[еонід]. Григорій Сковорода. – К., 1972 С.58 - 59. (Leonid Mahnovets. Grigoriy Skovoroda. Kiev, 1972. Pg 58-59).

I think there is some uncertainty about Skovoroda's direct study with Christian Wolff, but these two references strongly suggest that he stayed for 3 years in Halle.

The second quote from Chopyk (pg 36) in the 1st post would be a nice addition to the Language section. Svyatver (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I found another source that has text very much like the French "The Grand Dictionnaire Universel du XIX siecle by Pierre Larousse. 1875. Paris" reference.

This English reference was published earlier, in 1857, and called "The English Cyclopædia: A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge."

Knight, Charles, ed. The English cyclopaedia: a new dictionary of universal knowledge. Biography. Vol. 5. Bradbury & Evans, 1857

The text of the two are almost identical, they may come from the same source, one may be a translation of the other. Svyatver (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

2011 Ushkalov full academic collection of works

I noticed Ушкуйник added a sentence about a full collection of Skovoroda's works and I wanted to add a reference to this.

There is a nice description of the publication from the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, a copublisher:

http://www.ciuspress.com/catalogue/philosophy/311/gherigheorii-skovorodea--povna-akadeiemichna-zbirka-tvoriv

"Compiled and edited by Leonid Ushkalov, one of Ukraine's foremost authorities on Ukrainian baroque culture, this book is the first ever scholarly edition of all extant writings by Ukraine's most famous philosopher Hryhorii Skovoroda. This 1,400-page hardbound volume contains the following groups of Skovoroda's writings: poetry, fables and philosophical treatises, dialogues, and parables, as well as his translations, letters, and miscellaneous writings. All texts have been painstakingly verified against Skovoroda's 18th-century original manuscripts and are accompanied by Professor Ushkalov's detailed notes and commentaries. Skovoroda's Latin writings have been translated by Professor Ushkalov into contemporary Ukrainian. He also wrote a preface and a sizable introduction to the book in which he provides an overview of Skovoroda's life and ideas. This historic edition was copublished by the CIUS Press and the Maidan Publishers in Kharkiv. It was was made possible by a generous donation of Mrs. Daria Mucak Kowalsky of Toronto, Ontario, and was facilitated by the cooperation of the Kowalsky Eastern Ukraine Institute at Kharkiv University."

The reference to the volume is: Skovoroda, Hryhorii, and Leonid Ushkalov. "Григорій Сковорода: повна академічна збірка творів." (2011).

Svyatver (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant description of Skovoroda's Socratic qualities

I found a few nice descriptions talking about the origin of the the phrase calling Skovoroda a Socrates.

The (1)first is: "[This] philosophical method of a strictly mathematical nature in argument-presentation was taken over and practiced by Skovoroda in his own philosophical dialogues. Since Skovoroda was also teaching the Greek language, this step-by-step method of presentation was interpreted as Socratic; hence he was called a ["Socrates"]. Chopyk, 1990. pg. 35.

The (2)second is a brilliant description from Gavriil: "Both Socrates and Skovoroda felt from Above the calling to be tutors of the people, and, accepting the calling, they became public teachers in the personal and elevated meaning of that word. ... Skovoroda, also like Socrates, not being limited by time or place, taught on the crossroads, at markets, by a cemetery, under church porticoes, during holidays, when his sharp word would articulate an intoxicated will - and in the hard days of the harvest, when a rainless sweat poured upon the earth." Archimandrite Gavriil, Istoria filosofii (History of Philosophy), Kazan', 1837. Vol. VI, pp. 60-61.

The two of these serve to describe Skovoroda's systematic method in philosophy dialogues and also very elegantly describe his way of life in his environment. I would like to add these briefly in the article.

Svyatver (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)