lable to the general public in the Slavic and Baltic Division of the New York Public Library as a gift from Bishop Michael J. Dudick.
Carpatho-Rusyns belong to the Slavic branch of Indo-European peoples. They speak a series of distinct but related dialects which are classified as East Slavic. The Rusyns' Carpathian homeland is a boundary region in many ways. As a result of the historical process of contact, Carpatho-Rusyn dialects are heavily influenced by Polish, Slovak and Hungarian vocabulary. These influences, together with numerous terms from the Church Slavonic liturgical language and dialectical words unique to Carpatho-Rusyns, are what distinguish their spoken language from other East Slavic languages.
The question of formulating a literary language was most challenging for Carpatho-Rusyns. It was closely relayed to the question of an ethnonational identity. The Carpatho-Rusyn intelligentsia was troubled by divisions over these two questions and attempted to resolve them.
Hence, these ethnonational debates were often conducted in the context and form of ethnonational debates. Paul R. Magocsi 3 divides the disputants into five groups.
The described below typology will be used to organize the following discussion.
In the collection, one can find examples of the writings of the first four groups, and of one more, which was not described above. That oldest group called upon Carpatho-Rusyns to use in their writings Church Slavonic (or more precisely Subcarpathian recession of Church Slavonic, called Slaveno-Rusyn). It was, among others, Michael Luchkai 4 (1789-1843) who argued for the use of Church Slavonic in Subcarpathian cultural life. This language was favored by Carpatho-Rusyns in the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, but increasingly lost its influence after 1848.
The first standardization of the common-Russian (obshcherusskii) language for use in Subcarpathian Rus' appeared in Kirill A. Sabov's (1838-1914) grammar and Aleksander Mitrak's (1837-1913) dictionary. Works by Illarion S. Svientsitskii (1876-1956), Semen IU. Bendasiuk (1877-1965), Ivan G. Borukh (1872-after 1940), Ioann Gr. Dzvonchik, Stefan F. Telep (1885-1965) an Ivan Vantsa were also written in what was basically standard literary Russian.
This orientation was best represented by the interwar cultural leader Evmenii Iv. Sabov (1859-1934). His grammar became the symbol of the Russophile orientation. In his other pronouncements on the subject, however, Sabov cited local writers like Ivan Sil'vai (183-1904), IUlii Stavrovskii-Popradov (1850-1899) and Evgenii Fentsik (1844-1903), as the best guides for Carpatho-Rusyns. Sabov also believed that "the Carpathians separate us from the East" (that is from the influence of the Ukrainian national movement). The uncodified local recession of Russian was very popular among Carpatho-Rusyn writers and journalists. It was used, among others, by: Peter Maczkov ( 1880-1965), Ivan Dobosh and Pavel Fedor (1884-1952)
Works by John Slivka (1899-1986) and Joseph Hanulya (1874-1962), among others, best represent this group of nationally-conscious Rusyns. These two American-Rusyn activists believed that it is not good for Carpatho-Rusyns to use either Russian or Ukrainian, because they are neither Russian nor Ukrainian. Both of them expressed and interest in formulating a separate Carpatho-Rusyn literary language. Mykhal Vrabel's (1866-1923) primers were also written in vernacular based language.
The collection includes fourteen works of Avhustyn Voloshyn (1874-1945). His tremendous effort in the field of producing school text books is a perfect example of the activity of this group. His 1919 grammar, along with the Mitrak's dictionary were favored by a teacher's congress held at Berehovo in 1923. It was stated there, that these two positions well conform to the character of the Carpatho-Russian language. The 1923 Congress attended by about 550 teachers from Subcarpathian Rus' was depicted as a victory by the Russophile orientation, even though Voloshyn's 1919 text was actually more dialectically ori