Talk:Tsar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old talk

Re tsar vs czar: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "The spelling with cz- is against the usage of all slavonic languages; the word was so spelt by Heberstein, Rerum Moscovit. Commentarii 1549, ... whence it passed into Western languages generally... French adopted tsar during the 19th century. This also became frequent in English towards the end of that century, having been adopted by the Times newspaper as the most suitable English spelling."

It (the OED) also defines tsar, czar as "Romanised spellings of Russian tsari."

This seems to pretty comprehensively support tsar as the correct usage. Graham Chapman

---

Many thanks for that, Graham: I've taken out a small bit (it's car in Polish), and I hope you don't mind my adding it to the "Czar" entry. User:David Parker.

OK. I'm not a linguist, I relied on the OED for the information. They provide many examples, including Polish:

• tsar, tsari - Russian
• tsisari - 11th Century Russian, from Old Slavonic (at least I think that's what their abbreviation means) tsesari
• tsar - Bulgarian
• tsar - Serbian
• car - Polish, but they add the note =tsar, c in the Roman Slavonic orthography = Tse in Cyrillic, being pronounced ts or German z.

That is their argument for saying that Herberstein was wrong, and why English and French have corrected themselves since the 19th century. I included the sentence about all slavonic languages using ts (which I got from OED) because I wanted to show why English got it wrong to start with from 16 - 19th centuries, but then adopted the ts spelling.

However, as I said, I'm not a linguist, so I'm not in a position to say any more. Perhaps someone who is a linguist could take it a little further. Graham Chapman

---

Hi Graham. I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, I just removed one sentence because it might be confusing to people, as below:

However this contrasts with the ts spelling in all slavonic languages; for example, the English tsar comes from the Russian tsari.

The problem with "the ts spelling in all slavonic languages" is not only the Polish exception, but more fundamentally that those countries which had tsars used only the cyrillic script until more recent times, hence the whole confusion over "czar" (also properly pronounced "tsar") as a transliteration: to say that "tsar" is the Slavonic form is a bit of a circular argument, because it's only the Slavic form since modern transliteration from the cyrillic original renders it as the correct form.

I hope I've resolved this problem by putting the word's evolution in an earlier paragraph: if you think I've missed something, by all means feel free to correct it. Cheers, User:David Parker

---

David, you have resolved the problem excellently. I have only made minor changes and haven't changed the content at all because I think it is good. I capitalised Rerum Moscvovit. Commentarii because my references also do that (undo it if you think I'm wrong), and made a link of it because I think historically it is worth an article in itself. Thanks for your patient efforts. Graham Chapman

---

I was just indulging my preference for minimal capitalisation (I tend to think the italics suffice), but I'm happy to leave it as you prefer: a fine tribute to collective wikipedianship. User:David Parker

---

Not that it matters, but I spotted the error in my original changes. I said:

contrasts with the ts spelling in all slavonic languages

but the OED extract I based it on said:

The spelling with cz is against the usage of all slavonic languages

Note they say usage, I said spelling. My mistake made my sentence quite misleading. The OED also appears to say that where the Romanised form of the word is tsar or its derivates, it is pronounced 'ts' or German 'z'. The Polish car is spelt car but (the OED says, correct me, Polish speakers) is pronounced tsar.

Darn tricky stuff, eytmology and linguistics. I'll have to be more careful in future. Graham Chapman

I don't speak Polish, but I believe that czar would be pronounced shar. -Smack 06:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Almost there:-) It is pronounced char Mikkalai 00:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I wouldn't worry, "spelling" could be substituted perfectly correctly for "usage" in the OED comment; it's all a useful reminder of how very recent regular romanisation from cyrillic is (I'm still not sure of Ekaterinburg/Yekaterinburg). Polish car is indeed pronounced "tsar" - see szopen's earlier correction to me at my talk (third chunk from the bottom). Thanks for resolving this question, which had been bugging a few of us lately (see Talk:Czar). Oh, and a belated welcome from me too. - DP

---

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary of the American Language (1961 Ed.) spells it: czar. user:H.J.

If that means anything, it most likely means that they found more people spelling it that way, in whatever body of written material they draw from. This has nothing to do with what comes closer to the Russian pronunciation. Vicki Rosenzweig

---

Interesting article. Well Done. One question - often the term 'tsarevich' was applied in textbooks to the son of Nicholas II as indicating 'Crown Prince'. You speak of it being the title of a son. Was 'tsarevich' a title giving to all sons of the Tsar, or was it only possessed by the heir? If possessed by all princes, was there another term used to indicate the heir apparent? JTD 01:48 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Tsarevitch is the heir - other sons would be Grand Duke [name] - e.g. Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch

PMelvilleAustin 13:58 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

While tsarevitch formally is the title of the heir only, informally (at least in Serbia) it is used for any child, it could be used in plural etc. Nikola 08:36, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I think this article could use some info on czar/tsar as an (informal?) title given to political appointees in some non-Russian countries. E.g. a Privacy Czar, Drug Czar, etc. -- stewacide

---

Not to mention the oh so popular, Porn Czar right?

---

I think that the corrections by the anonymous user 145.253.32.3 are not quite right. Even if it is true that the word somehow has been loaned from Turkish languages, there it was loaned from Old Russian. And the origin of the word anyway is the name "Caesar".

Let me present information from the authoritative Max Vasmer's etymological dictionary of Russian language.

The Russian word царь (tsar) is a title adopted by Ivan IV.

Cognates in other Slavic languages: Ukrainian цар (tsar), Old Russian цьсарь (tsisari) referring to the Byzantian Emperor (11th century), Old Russian царь (tsari) (ruler, lord; Tatar khan (1267 for the last time)), Bulgarian цар as the title of Old Bulgarian rulers beginning from the tsar Simeon (917), Serbo-Croatian цар/car (tsar).

Later loans from Russian are Czech car (tsar) and Polish car (tsar).

The source of these forms is the form *cěsarь (tsesari): Old Russian cěsarь (tsesari), Old Slavonic cěsarь (tsesari) (counterpart of Greek βασιλεύς (basileus 'king') and κύριος (kyrios 'lord'), Serbo-Croatian цесар/cesar (tsesar; 'emperor'), Slovenian cesar, Czech císař, Slovak cisár, Polish cesarz.

This form derives from Latin Caesar via Gothic Káisar.

The ending has been secondarily perceived as the suffix -arь.

Less probable is a direct loan from Latin Caesar.

The Latin word has no counterpart in Romanian and in Albanian.

The shortening process cěsarь > cьsarь has parallels in other similar cases and titles, for instance English king, Swedish kung. Andres 12:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why then the title first was used by Tatars and then borrowed by Muscovy rulers? How tatars became Tsars?

Probably Tatars loaned that word from Old Russian or Old Bulgarian. If we assume that this wasn't the case, then what is the provenience of the word?

I don't deny that Tatar khans were called tsars by Eastern Slavs before there were any Russian emperor-tsars. But it does not follow that there was no word tsar in old Russian before their contsct with Tatars. On the other hand, in Bulgaria, kings were called Tsars long before Tatars. Andres 01:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that all references to Tatar and even Bulgarian leaders as tsars originate from manuscrips written much later than times described in them.

For example, Boris I of Bulgaria is also called tsar in many texts, whreas it is firmly known that for the most of his reign he was khan, and after baptism he was called 'prince'.

A pretty convincing etymology of the word 'tsar' is known to me, based on authentic documents, rather than on guesswork (yes, it is from 'caesar'). I will try to do some supporting research and then put it in here.Mikkalai 01:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

>> (also sometimes spelt Czar in English borrowed from Hungarian) <<

From Hungarian? The Hungarian for tsar is császár (pronounced approximately chassar). Let's just face it that "czar" is simply an invented English spelling that has stuck in some quarters. -- 81.129.174.49 20:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Hungarian császár is a "native" derivation from "Caesar", *not* the translation of "Tsar". Czar was invented for "tsar" by an Austrian guy, not by an Englishman. Mikkalai 20:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Scholarly form

>>in scholarly transliteration respectively car and car' << This is only occasionally the case. Nowadays there's more of a tendency for English-speaking academics to use the Library of Congress system, which gives tsar' Garik 11:43, 3 May 2006 (BST)

No, "scholarly transliteration" refers to a specific unambiguous and reversible transliteration convention which is in fact the complete opposite to the cumbersome and inexact, though popular, Library of Congress system. Just because scholars use Library of Congress "tsar" in English-language books does not mean that the scholarly transliteration itself includes that form. Other examples of divergence between Library of Congress and scholarly transliteration would include, e.g., Chernigov vs. Černigov, Iaroslav vs. Jaroslav, Vasily vs. Vasilij, etc. Why the form "tsar" (as opposed to car) should persevere in English usage in particular, is obvious on several grounds. But that does not make it the correct scholarly transliteration form. Imladjov 14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Full Title

An anon put the following:

Bozhiyeyu Milostiyu, Imperator i Samodyerzhets Vserossiysky (By the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, of Moscow, Kiew, Wladimir, Novogorod, Czar of Cazan, Czar of Astracan, Czar of Siberia, Czar of the Chersonese of Tauria, Lord of Plescou, and Grand Duke of Smolensko, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia and of Finlande, Duke of Estonia, of Livonie, of Courland and Semigalle, of Samogitia, Carelia, Twer, Jugoria, Permia, Vyatka, Bulgaria and of others: Lord and Grand Duke of Novgorod inferior, of Chernigovia, Resan, Polozk, Rostow, Jaroslaw, White Osoria, Udoria, Obdoria, Condinia, Witepsk, Mstislaw, Ruler of the North Coast, Lord of Iveria, of Cartalinia, Grusinie and of Cabardinia, Prince Heir and Sovereign of Princes of Chercessia, Gorsky and others; Heir of Norway, Duke of Slesvig-Hollstein, of Stormaria and of Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst &c. &c.)

I am wondering where did he get it from; plenty of typos.

From data for descendants of Holy Roman Empire

The Ruling Houses & Rulers in the Holy Roman Empire says:

Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov/ Russia} @

(until 1773 Imperial Estate and Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp.

1762-1762 and 1796-1917 Emperors of Russia.

1796-1807, 1813-1816 immediate Lords of Jever)

(Emperors of Russia, 1809 Grand Prince of Finland,

1815 Kings of Poland)

1762-1777(Imperial Crown Prince, Throne heir & Grand Prince of the whole of Russia [Kaiserl. Kronprinz, Thronfolger und Grossfürst aller Reussen], Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen, Count of Oldenburg & Delmenhorst)

1777-1796 (Imperial Crown Prince, Throne heir & Grand Prince of the whole of Russia, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg)

1796-1801(Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod, Czar/Tsar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, Lord[Gosudar] of Pskov & Grand Prince[Velikiy Kniaz] of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Prince[Kniaz] of Estonia, Livonia, Courland & Semigalia, Samogitia[Zhemaytia, Zhmud], Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, Sovereign & Lord of the Land of Iveria, of the Czars of Kartly & Georgia, of the Land of Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, & Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen & Oldenburg etc., Lord of Jever)

1801-1808(Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, Lord of Pskov & Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland & Semigalia, Samogitia, Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, Sovereign & Lord of the Lands of Iveria, Kartly,Georgia, Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, & Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen & Oldenburg etc., Lord of Jever)

1808-1815 (Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, Lord of Pskov & Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland & Semigalia, Bialystok, Samogitia, Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, Sovereign & Lord of the Lands of Iveria, Kartly,Georgia, Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, & Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen & Oldenburg etc.)

1815 (Emperor & Autocrat of the whole of Russia, of Moscow, Kiev, Wladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland, Siberia, Tauric Chersonese, Lord of Pskov & Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wolyn, Podolia, Finland, Prince of Estland, Livland, Courland & Semigalia, Samogitia, Bialystok, Karelia, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria & other countries, Lord and Grand Prince of Novgorod of the Lower Lands, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislavl and of all the Northern Countries, Sovereign & Lord of the Lands of Iveria, Kartly, Georgia & Kabarda, of the Princes of the Cherkasses & the Mountaineers, Hereditary Lord & Owner of the other lands, Heir in Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stornmarn, Dithmarschen and Oldenburg)

[Holstein] 1773(- )(Holstein-Glückstadt/Denmark)

[Jever] 1796(+ ), 1807(- )(Holland), ^ (+ ), 1818(- )(Oldenburg)

Paul (I) (1754-1801) [1762-1773, 1796-1801]

// 1762-1773 Duke of Holstein-Gottorp

// 1796-1801 Lord of Jever

// 1796-1801 Emperor of Russia

// 1798-1801 Grand Master of the St. John Order

Alexander (I) (1777-1825) [1801-1807, 1813-1818]

// 1801-1807, 1813-1818 Lord of Jever

// 1801-1825 Emperor of Russia

From Russian Constitution of 1906

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Const.html says:

Extracts from the Russian Constitution of April 23, 1906 [excerpted from Readings in Modern European History, James Harvey Robinson and Charles Beard, eds., vol. 2 (Boston:Ginn and Company, 1908), pp. 378-381]

ART. 59. The full title of His Imperial Majesty is as follows: We, ------ by the grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kasan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Khersones, Tsar of Grusia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Esthonia, Livonia, Courland and Semgallia, Samogitia, Bielostok, Korelia, Tver, Jugor, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Novgorod, Chernigov; Ruler of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Jaroslav, Bielozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all northern territories ; Ruler of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories - hereditary Ruler and Lord of the Tcherkess and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir to the throne of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarsch, Oldenburg, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.

• Obdoria: Obdorsk is Salekhard today.
• Udoria?
• Kondia?

All Russias vs whole Russia

Wouldn't Самодержец Всероссийский be better translated as "autocrat pan-Russian"?

No. First, there is a tradition. Second, "All Russias" vs. "Whole Russia" issue. Mikkalai 18:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but wasn't Tsar's intention exactly that the title could mean both? Nikola 03:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"All the Russias" meaning is largely misleading, provided that there's no explanation what the multiple Russias it refers to. "Всероссийский" is simply "all-Russian" or "whole-Russian"; let's use either until the article is expanded with pre-Empire title which does mention "Great, White and Lesser Russias" (essentially Russia, Belarus and Ukraine). No point to artifically implement a meaning that is simply undistinguishable in Russian language title. DmitryKo 18:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the tradition of English language usage, provided by native English speaking editors, and has nothing to do with logic. Mikkalai 21:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

False impression (Emperor, and not Tsar)

Given that the official principal title of Russia's monarchs between 1721 and 1917 was not Tsar, but Emperor (different in Russian), shouldn't the distinction be noted in this article? Also, should we really have the "Russian tsars" category, when in fact these people largely used the title "Emperor." The tsar title really only came back into fashion in Russia during Nicholas II's archaizing reign, and even then he was still officially Emperor rather than Tsar. The term "Tsar" seems to have been more used in the west than in Russia itself. What do others think? john k 05:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In fact, Tsar never fell out of use, and common people always preferred it. — Monedula 07:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that addresses one point. But not most of them. Elites in Russia, as far as I know, generally used "Emperor", and this term was preferred by the Emperors prior to Nicholas II. john k 23:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(It always amazed me how "democrats" of all over the world, including the very Land of Liberty, lay low before the looks and says of "elite", "aristocracy" &c,&c.)

In papers and in official or simply solemn speech, it was "Emperor", but in vernacular "tsar" was far from uncommon. BTW, to a Russian ear, "tsar" sounds no less important than "Emperor". Gor example a synonym for "God" is "Sky Tsar" ("tsar nebesny")(and never "Sky Emperor"). Mikkalai 00:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for "archaizing", where did you pick that? It was rather "de-Germanizing"; the idea of "Russness" (Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and National Character) was put forth after a long chain of emperors who spoke German better than Russian. Mikkalai 00:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, except the unnecessary swipe at me to begin with. Elizabeth II is commonly referred to as "Queen of England" in the vernacular. This remains incorrect. Similarly, to call anyone from Peter I on "Tsar of Russia" may have been common (and was used by Nicholas II as part of an archaizing or de-Germanizing, or whatever, movement), but it was just as incorrect - Tsar was used as a lesser title for lesser territories such as Poland, Kazan, Astrakhan, and so forth. All I have said is that this ought to be made clear in the article (which surely you cannot object to), and that I think the category header ought to be changed, so that Category:Russian tsars, or some such, refers to Tsars between 1547 and 1721, and Category:Russian emperors refers to rulers between 1721 and 1917. john k 07:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your point about vernacular is convincing. The rest is agreed as well. Formal issues, e.g., categories, should be kept formal. Mikkalai 16:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm rather stunned that John at all has to make this argument. I think it's rather self-evident. The article and the categories must explain, set the record right and be correct. Sloppy usage in contemporary English is no excuse for a wikipedia with encyclopedic ambitions. (If someone wonders, the Finns did of course call the Emperor for the Emperor, although they officially were Emperors of Russia and Grand Dukes of Finland, regardless of in Swedish or Finnish tongue.) /Tuomas 13:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing stunning in carrying on a discussion. It is questionable, whether the English usage is sloppy or simply "English". BTW, your Finnish example serves you wrong: Since they called him "emperor", the usage was incorrect, since he was "duke" for them. Mikkalai 16:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By using the "greater" of the ruler's titles, one does not only display respect, but also an implicit acceptance of one's belonging in the greater unit, i.e. the empire. /Tuomas 00:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In terms of Finland, it's not necessarily incorrect, is it? In Canada, for instance, Elizabeth II is referred to as "Elizabeth II of the UK", even though she is Queen of Canada, except when she is actually in Canada. So, similarly, it might be the Emperor, except when he was in Finland, when he was the Grand Duke. But I know nothing of this, so can't comment if this is correct or not. john k 19:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, as you all say, correctness depends on the context, and hence there might be no reason to say that "tsar" usage is incorrect. Do we really always use full formal specification, like in "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron"? Mikkalai 20:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree. To use "Tsar" informally is fine. "The Tsar did this". But, for instance, in the openings to articles, we should say that Alexander II was "Emperor of Russia" (although that, too, is not the precise title, of course), rather than "Tsar of Russia", because in such contexts we are trying to be precise. We should do the same for the category. As to Byron, calling a Baron Byron "Lord Byron" is actually a completely correct short hand usage, just as it is appropriate to call me "Mr. Kenney," although my full name is John Lowenstein Kenney. The case of Tsar is different - while commonly used, it is technically incorrect, since "Tsar" was a lesser title of the Russian Emperors in the 18th and 19th centuries. That's quite a different situation. But I would certainly agree that there is no problem using "Tsar" in article text. john k 07:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re Finland, actually Finland WAS then a part of Russia, not an independent country, and it is wrong to say that they (e.g my ancestors) only were in personal union. The case is not the same as UK - Canada today, rather is is closer to UK - Scotland today. The contemporaries regarded Finland as a clear part of Russia. It had autonomy (own administrative machinery etc). But certainly no independence ever for foreign policy nor military policy. Depending on the time, Finnish internal affairs were sometimes regulated from Russia a bit heavily, sometimes only mildly. Peaceful times and loyalty of Finns led to situation where Finns were allowed to take care of their own administration rather independently most of the time - but this was practical result, not juridical right (let me remind of a citation from Tsar Nicholas I when some Russian minister bugged him to decree something re Finland: "Let the Finns remain in peace. They are the only corner of my huge realm that has never ever caused even a minute of concern and bother to me"). Some Finns themselves then, more of them in the last 20-30 years of Russian rule, and later explainers in the independent Finland, have stressed the autonomy, explaining it to almost unrecognizable extent - theorizing of it being just a personal union, deriving a bit too much of Alexander I's speeches to Porvoo diet (apparently when he said Finland is elevated among nations, he meant as one nation of the Russian empire such as Tatars or Belorusians, like a tribe, not an independent nation), and reading a bit too much from the practical self-rule quite often allowed to Finland. Juridically, in administrative etc usage of Finland, the monarch was Emperor and Grand Duke when in Finland - and Emperor (etc) when in other parts of Russia. Nicholas II was particularly desiring the use of Tsar, which was at that era a bit more common in use in Finland too ("Tsar and Grand Duke", "Tsaari ja suuriruhtinas", "Tsar och storfurste"), earlier rulers were almost always "Kejsare och Storfurste, Keisari ja Suuriruhtinas". In loose parlance, the ruler quite often was Tsar "tsaari" anyway. The only university was "Keisarillinen Aleksanterin-yliopisto" (Imperial Alexander University),no mention of "grand ducal" there. 217.140.193.123 13:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Shar

REcently an anon added this etymology: it is more likely to be derived from the old East Iranian title Shar, which coresponds with the East Iranian origin of the Bulgarians, the first users of the title in Europe. It is either a prank or a fantasy of those who don't know bulgarian history: old Bulgarian rulers were khans, not sultans, beys, shars (the latter could be a version of spelling of shah, i.e., the native word actually ends in a long vowel, and R or H are artifacts of English transcription, but I've never heard it as applied to Iranian rulers. It was in use by Kurds AFAIK, but I am not that big an iranist. Mikkalai 23:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking strictly about the word (and not about peoples) now, is Tsar akin to shah and kshatriya? --Theodore Kloba 16:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No. It is a shortening of the name "Caesar." john k 18:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It is neither a prank nor fantasy, it is possibility. The title of old Bulgarian rulers still remains uncertain. There were only 3 comparatively late of them using the title "canasjubigi". This gave ‘reason’ to some scholars to invent the title ‘khan’, only to fit in the Turkic theory. Definitely not enough, I’m afraid, to pronounce them khans. No historical document denotes any Bulgarian ruler as khan. That’s why the title ‘khan’ actually is fictitious. 14:50, 19.05.2006

Giving the pronunciation

Tsar#Etymology and spelling says:

Correct pronunciation of tsar is /tsarʲ/ in IPA though many if not most English-speaking people pronounce it /zɑr/ or /zɑ:/.

I see several issues with this:

1. The first line says the word is both Bulgarian and Russian. So it is not clear what correct means:

• normal in Russian (yes, the given transcription is ok for Russian)
• normal in Bulgarian (I don't know the Bulgarian pronunciation, not sure about the soft [rʲ] because of the spelling)
• or the the suggested correct pronunciation in English (but who sets the English norm?).

I'd reformulate it as either

The original Russian pronunciation of tsar is...

or

According to (some authority on English language), the correct English pronunciation is...

(If we have a confirmation of the Bulgarian pronunciation, could give it, too.)

1. Why is phonemic transcription used (in / /)? (See #Types of transcriptions). Wouldn't it be better just to notate it as a phonetic transcription (in [ ])? By using / / you commit yourself to phonological analyses of the involved languages, and mixing and comparing sequences of phonemes in different languages is not neat: in this particular case, there is hardly a /rʲ/ phoneme in English. A phonetic transcription could be a good common ground for comparing pronunciations in 2 languages. Perhaps, change / / to [ ]?

Further:

This is because although English has ts in words like cats it is unusual for this sound to start an English word.

I'd write the sound in brackets: [ts].--Imz 21:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Committed the suggested changes.--Imz 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please name examples

Of Slavic Languages using the term tsar towards other rulers besides those using the title.I think the example(Japan)given is wrong.It probably refers only to Russian naming. --Molobo 18:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

For Serbian example, compare [1] with [2]. Also, [3] with [4]. Nikola 11:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I don't know how it got that way, but the lead paragraph is now a complete shambles. It needs serious, serious work. I would have a go, but I despair as to what most of it means, and I don't want to perpetuate misinformation. JackofOz 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to change the lead myself, and I think it's good now. Arcarius' change is wrong - if Tsar meant King, what did Kral' meant? Nikola 11:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Terms like King and Emperor exist in nearly every language, and for various historical reasons the etymological genealogy is a labyrinth- e.g., Kral is authentic South Slav (notably Serbo-Croat) for King, as Krol is in Polish, while Tsar is adopted from Byzantine Latin into all three Slav languages using Tsar, alongside Autocrat (Byzantine Greek Autokrator) and Imperator (Latin, the first official language in Byzantium as in the first Rome) both at the higher, i.e. imperial level; it's all a game of diplomacy and rivalry, played over centuries and (sub)continents, confronting religions, conquests, dynastic and political reports... - for more extensive lists of (mainly European) terms (far from complete, in fact not een completely free of erors a,d misleading passages), see under individual titles suchy as Monarch, Prince, King, Emperor etcetera - Fastifex 12:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Now the article first says: King (the officially correct equivalent) or (informally customary in the Russian case) Emperor but then Even though the word tsar connoted the same as emperor - really? - it was used, indifferently of both emperors and kings, being regarded as the equivalent of the Slavonic krol, kral - WTF? Nikola 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Car equals Emperor, please do your research and apply corrections! The article misplaces the title in its hierarchical position. Check the history of obtaining the title Car too.

Just a hint.... When Simeon The Great of Bulgaria was crowned a Car he assumed the title "Emperor of Bulgarians and Greeks". Note pope Formosus. Vatican library. Do your research, please !

I tried on several occasions to insert that tsar = emperor, but Fastifex for some reason has a problem with that. Whether or not tsar was "rendered" outside their empire is irrelevant. For example, Byzantine Empire in the beginning of 15 century was just Constantinople and Morea - hardly an Empire, more like a principality. Or can HRE emperor be called emperor in the 18 century? Empire means universalism, an earthly manifestation of Kingdom of Heaven. When Simeon proclaimed his country as an Empire he wanted to replace the Byzantine Empire (which he failed, but that was his ultimate goal). Same thing with the Serbian Tsar Dushan. --Cigor 17:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tsar and Emperor

In view of the repeated introduction of the inaccurate equation of "tsar" and "king" by Fastifex, I am adding the following notes as justification for my corrections to the article:

Etymologically, car' is the contraction of cěsar' , which derives directly from Latin caesar.

By contrast, the subordinate title kesar' derives directly from the Greek kaisar.

In Slavic usage, car ' /cěsar' corresponds to Greek basileus and Latin imperator and is used as such in translations of Byzantine chronicles and other texts. The distinction from kesar' is maintained, as this term corresponds to the devaluated Byzantine court dignity of kaisar.

Therefore, "Tsar" (car' ) is as much equivalent to "Emperor", as is the German "Kaiser". Both terms were apparently derived from the title "Caesar" before its lost its connotation of fully-fledged imperial rank. (The Slavic term may have evolved via the Germanic usage.)

In terms of particular usage, we note as follows. According to Roman practice, only a legitimate emperor may create (or recognize) another legitimate emperor. At first this extended only within the Roman state, and it was supplemented or replaced by acclamation by the army, senate, and people, and eventually by the Church. In the early 9th and early 10th centuries, the Byzantine Empire extended reluctant recognition of the imperial titles of non-Roman emperors, in Francia and Bulgaria, respectively. The Byzantine emperor made up for these concessions by emphasizing his Roman heritage and his status as autocrat (basileus kai autokratōr tōn Rōmaiōn), while recognizing his counterparts in Francia and Bulgaria as merely emperors of the Franks (basileus Phrangōn) or Bulgarians (basileus Boulgarōn).

As noted above, the 10th century the Byzantine emperor reluctantly accepted the imperial title of the Bulgarian emperor (tsar), as "emperor of the Bulgarians" (basileus tōn Boulgarōn) or "emperor of Bulgaria" (basileus Boulgarias) (e.g., Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis, II, cap. 48). The title was recognized again when Bulgaria recovered its independence from Byzantine rule. It was also recognized by Bulgaria's neighbors and trading partners (e.g., Serbia, Hungary, Venice, Genoa, Dubrovnik, the Papacy), and was rendered in Latin as imperator Bulgarorum and the like. The Bulgarian imperial title read, in its final basic form, "emperor and autocrat of all Bulgarians and Greeks" (car i samodăržec na vsički bălgari i gărci in the modern vernacular). Here tsar = emperor.

In the mid-14th century the Byzantine emperor refused, but the Bulgarian emperor agreed to recognize the imperial title of the Serbian emperor (tsar). The title was recognized by most of Serbia's neighbors and trading partners but was of short duration (1345–1371). It was rendered in Greek as "emperor and autocrat of Serbia and Rōmania" (basileus kai autokratōr Serbias kai Rōmanias) and in Latin as imperator. The Serbian imperial title read, in its basic form, "emperor of Serbians and Greeks" (car srbljem i grkom in the modern vernacular). Here tsar = emperor.

After ending Muscovy's dependency on the Mongol Golden Horde in 1480, and marrying Sophia (Zōē) Palaiologina in 1472, Ivan III of Moscow encouraged his subjects to call him emperor and autocrat (car i samoderžec' ) and claimed the titles both as a sovereign ruler and perhaps also as heir to the now defunct Byzantine Empire. This sentiment is echoed more emphatically by the monk Filofej writing to Ivan III's son and successor Vasili III in the early 16th century. Ivan III had demanded recognition as emperor from the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III as early as 1489, and this recognition was finally granted in a treaty between Emperor Maximilian I and Vasili III in 1514. Therefore, the imperial status of the Russian emperor (tsar) was established by, among other things, recognition from a legitimate emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire). The emphatic coronation of Ivan IV as emperor (tsar) in 1547 had more to do with his ostentatious assumption of the reigns of government (end of his minority) and his determination to exercise effective rule over his boyars, than with the assumption of a new title. Here tsar = emperor, and to argue that the Russian emperor assumed the imperial title only in 1721 is tantamount to arguing that Queen Victoria did not become Empress of India until such time as her title was actually spelled in Latin (imperatrix). Modern Russian usage sometimes distinguishes between the terms "tsar" and "imperator", but this is largely a stylistic choice or a faithful reflection of the sources, rather than a distinction in meaning. By the same token Russian texts may refer to the Byzantine emperor as "vasilevs" (i.e., basileus) without implying that in this role he was anything less than "imperator".

Speaking of Byzantium, I also wish to note that Greek had been an official language of the Roman Empire (in the east) long before the foundation of Constantinople, and that it gradually replaced Latin as the official language of the court and government in the early Middle Ages. Justinian's Novellae and Herakleios' titles indicate stages in this gradual change. By the 10th century the few remaining Latin acclamations and titles used in the imperial ceremonial had become virtually meaningless, as indicated by their mangled usage in the official imperial books on protocol.

Note on informal usage. Slavic usage of the title "tsar" to designate Biblical and oriental monarchs has nothing to do with the inherent imperial connotation of the term. Our English usage "king" is technically accurate only within the bounds of European and largely "feudal" hierarchy, where it universally corresponds to Latin rex as opposed to the superior Latin imperator. Monarchs of Israel and Judah, of Assyria and Babylonia, of Egypt, etc, are in no way clearly distinguishable as "kings" or "emperors" or "tsars" (however a case may be made, both on logical grounds and Roman precedent, that the Persian "kings of kings" and Persian and some other eastern "great kings" could be equated with "emperor"). Therefore, this informal usage bears no impact on the actual meaning of "tsar". Similarly, the usage of "tsar" and "basileus" for the modern kings of Bulgaria and Greece, respectively, does not indicate that these terms are any less imperial, but rather the change in status of the monarchies that adopted them on the basis of tradition (the title of "king" being alien to both).

The above observations are based on the printed sources referenced in the article itself. Imladjov 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be accused of not having addressed the above arguments when making my edits. So, to be brief: this is a linguistic issue. If a term is used to denote a duck, to translate a duck, if the native speakers unanimously define it as a duck, then the only possible conclusion is that it presently means a duck. A term doesn't have any "inherent" meaning outside of the speakers' conscience and practice. One shouldn't confuse etymology (in other words, past speakers' conscience and practice) with "inherent meaning". This would be tantamount to saying that the true meaning of tsar is "a hairy guy". --85.187.44.131 12:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4