Talk:Litvin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Possible updates

I suggest adding some facts from the Belarusian (be-x-old) Wiki, as the current English article is a little bit stupid, it's not about the historical phenomenon of Litvins (as the name implies), but about those who nowadays are called Lietuviai, transposed into past (with viewing the "Lithuanian Statute" (in the Belarusian language) as their heritage... and other stupid things...). So I suggest adding something relevant. I'd do it myself, but last time I did it, there was a lot of shouting...

So I suggest that all the participants present here would choose some points and agree before it's added, to prevent quarrelling. Then I'll translate them from Belarusian, and will add them. So here they are:

• 1) A statement from the Statute of 1566, that Samogitians were not considered a political nation in the GDL (only Litvins and Russian were, until 1588). Samogitians are a consistent part of present-day Lietuviai, so it is important.
• 2) An extract from Vilna parliament session in 1554, where Samogitians noblemen asked not to send Litvins as officials to Samogotia. It is very suspicious, once you think that Litvins presumably were "Lietuviai"... This passage can only be understood, if you realize that Litvins were a totally different nation from Samogitians, and Samogitians were afraid of them and totally did not see them as a cognate folk.
• 3) Several testimonies by scholars in the 19th and beg. of 20th century, that even in those times "Litvin" was the name of Belarusians as far as Gomel region (Eastern Belarus). I'm also ready to bring testimonies from scholars, that even by the end of the 19th century, dwellers of central and even Eastern Lietuva called themselves Samogitians.
• 4) Testimonies by chronicles about the Polock duke Vasil (1162), that he was a "Litvin"; about Minsk dukes Vseslav, Andrey and Vasilko in 1180 (who were called "litva"); and about the nobleman Luka Litvin in 1267 in Pskov (Luka is a Russian Christian name).
• 5) Western denominations of Litvins as "litowini, litwini" as early as 1221. Also in the act by duke Mindoug (a.1255) - "Litwinorum". Compared to Russian sources (Литвин) - it is obvious, that the original form of the name was "Litvin", no other.
• 6) Important!: a document from the Papal court (!) of 1257: states that the border between Poles and Litvins (confinio Letwanorum) at those times lied near river Bug, between Łuków and Brest. It is obvious, that Litvins of those times - it were the people who lived immediately near and to north and east of Brest - i.d. Brest region and to the north and east. This is the territory of South-West Belarus, which is more than 200 km far from Lietuva.
• 7) Three Vilna martyrs of 1347, who were (according to chronicles and their vita) "Lithuanians by birth", had obvious Slavic names: Kruglec, Kumec and Niezhilo. By the way, all three of them were officers at Olgerd's court.
• 8) The head of the Orthodox-Christian "Lithuanian" archdiocese (metropolitanate), which existed since around 1317 (since 1300, according to exact sources), named himself in his letters "metropolitan of Lithuania" (of the land, or of the folk) (μητροπολίτης Λιτβων). It is impossible, that he meant some kind of "pagan ethnic Baltic folk", as Litvins of the 14th century are presented now. The Lithuanian metropolitanate embraced territories of Navahradak, Vilna, Polock and Turau in 14th century, i.d. exactly the territory of the present-day Belarus plus Vilna region (i.e. = GDL).
• 9) Chronicles give a range of obvious Slavic names and patronymics, listing "Lithuanian" dukes under the year of 1399. Also numerous dukes with Slavic names are known as "Lithuanian" dukes as early as 14th century.
• 10) Byzantian Emperor John V and Patriarch Theophil were called "Litvins" (литвинъ) by the Russian source of 1378. This was obviously due to their support of the Lithuanian metropolitanate.
• 11) Important!: In 1416, Vitaut's nobleman named Andrey (the Lithuanian chronicle itself says that Andrey was a "LITVIN"), cried to Vitaut: "Nie miri, Vitovte, nie miri" (Don't reconcile, o Vitovt, don't reconcile), as according to the chroncler's narration. Due to this fact, Vitaut gave Andrey the nickname Niemira, and the chronicle says, that the Lithuanian noble family of Niemirovicz were issued of this Andrey Niemira. As we see, Vitaut and Litvin Andrey Niemira had their conversation in the vernacular Belarusian language. There are many examples like this one. And there are never-ever any examples of a Baltic language in the lips of Litvins and Grand Dukes; or even allusions of a fact of such language's existance.
• 12) A big passage is devoted to Litvins in the University of Krakow in 1469—1536. There are many examples of Litvins' names there. They were: Sien'ko Horynsky, duke Andrey Svirski, Maciey Litvin and other Slavic names. And all of them were registered as "Litvins" at Krakow university. A tavern near the Lithuanian hostel in Krakow was kept by Litvins: Mikola Litvin and his wife Agneszka Litvinova. Their names are also clearly Slavic. The last doubts of who were Litvins in those times, and who were not, are dissoluted by the fact, that only one student from Samogitia was enrolled into Krakow University in those times, and he WAS NOT registered as "Litvin". :) While numerous Litvins with Slavic names, as mentioned above, from Vilna, Minsk, Melnik, Svierzhen' and other Belarusian towns were all registered as Litvins. :)
• 13) By the way, someone said here, that Sapiehas were not regarded Litvins, and were Russians. This stereotype is broken by the act of 7 September, 1503 by Grand Duke Alexander, which stated that Ivan Sapeha (Grand Duke's secretary) was a Litvin: «Joanne Sopiha secretario nostro Litvano». By the way, Ivan Sapieha was then also a member of Pany-Rada (Lithuanian parliament - the name of the office is also in Belarusian).
• 14) Francysk Skaryna also enrolled Krakow University in 1505 as "Litvin". We shall note that.
• 15) There are numerous testimonies by Polish, Moscovite and Western scolars in 15-16 centuries, that Litvins are a Slavic folk, and Lithuanian language is a Slavic one. Already Aeneus Sylvius in 1430 wrote that the language of the Lithuanian nation is Slavonic (Lituania... Sermo gentis Sclavonicus est). There are such testimonies by Hertman Schedel (1493), John Noric (1511), John of Bohemia (1538) and Sigismund Herberstein (1549). Herberstein provides examples.
• 16) Important!: The FIRST EVER KNOWN notice of Lithuanian language (1351) - is vernacular Belarusian! Duke Keystut and his Litvins (soldiers from Belarusian towns Berestie, Dorogiczyn, Horodno and Troki) pronounced words, as noted by the chronicler as Lithuanian (!) (lithwanice) language. The Latin translation (provided immediately) gives an almost exact translation of this Belarusian phrase. Almost all modern scholars agree, that this phrase was in Ruthenian (i.e. Old Belarusian). And this language was called Lithuanian (lithwanice) by the contemporary (1351!) source!!! As it is widely known, the Belarusian language was known as "Lithuanian" in GDL, before Jesuits appearance in Vilna in 1569, who started to promote an idea that the "real" Lithuanian language was Samogotian. Still, the Belarusian language continued to be known as "Lithunian" in GDL and in the official sources of neighbouring countries even centuries later. There are many examples of it during 15-19th centuries.
• 17) Grand Duke Yagailo in 1387 called "the language of Lithuanian nation" the language in which chase was named "pogonia" ("pogonia" is chase in Russian, as well as in Belarusian). Vilna bishop Andrey Vasila in 1398 gave examples of Slavic phrases and wrote that this was the language of common Lithuanian folk.
• 18) Moscovites called the language of correspondence with Krakow "the Lithuanian language". This correspondence, as it is very well known, was in Belarusian until the end of 17th century.
• 19) The Lithuanian Statutes (of 1529, 1566, 1588) were written in the Belarussian language, and this very Statute states that it is written "in our own language". And these very Statutes did not regard Samogotians (an essential part of nowadays Lietuviai, at least the half) as the political nation up to 1588! Still this won't keep crazy Lietuviai from beleiving that the Lithuanian Statute was "THEIR" masterpiece of law; and they even have a coin, where a "Lietuvis" (presumably it must be one of the Statute's creators: Lev Sapieha of Martyn Volovicz - both were Belarusians) who is serving up the book of Statute to the Grand Duke! and it even has an inscription of some "lietuvos statutos"! This is crazy shit, man! Mind that the Statutes WERE NEVER translated from Belarusian into Samogitian (nowadays "Lithuanian") language, during GDL times!!! And Samogitians even, as we know, in 1554 were afraid of Litvins' occupying positions in Samogotia, and begged Grand Duke to prohibit Litvins to occupy official positions in Samogitia!
• 20) important: citations by contemporary scholars, that the name "Litvins" (Litviny) STILL EXISTS (1990-s!!) fractionally in Southern Belarus as a self-designation of rural dwellers.
• 21) Also IMPORTANT: statements by scholars. Someone here asked for statements by scholars, instead of citations from original sources. So, I've got something. Citations by Belarusian historians Nasievicz, Czakvin and Hryckiewicz, who in 1990-s claimed, that the nation of Litvins existed in GDL times, and it mostly was a designation of nowadays Belarusians. Citations by Y.Yukho, Dr.Sc., who claimed, that Litvins was the self-designation of the WHOLE Belarusian nation in GDL times (in 16-18 centuries or earlier), and in this very sense it existed in the legal documents, such as Statutes. By the Polish historian A.Brueckner, who claimed that Litvins was a designation of the whole Belarusian nation, already in the beginning of 16th century. And there were no other "Lithuanians" besides those.

So you can see, that such claims are not some "fantasies by Belarusian nationalists", and not some "marginal delirium" - but clear historical facts, supported by many historians from different countries.

So, I suggest you all to choose something relevant from these points (or from whatsoever more), to add something to the article.

Also the article shall become more bulky and become divided into historical periods. And include more pictures, too, as on Belarusian (be-x-old) wiki. Rasool-3 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)~~And as all „licvins” you show us your incompetence in interpretation of the historical facts.

• 1. Yes, Samogotians was parts of today’s Lithuanians – But they were part not all. You can’t throw out part of nation. So they were included in the term of “Litvins”.
• 2. Nonsense, where were no such session. If was please show exact document or quotation of the document.
• 3. Romantics from the 19 century are not historical facts.
• 4. All these references are taken from the sources of 17-18 century, and can’t be view as historical facts.
• 5. In Russian, polish or even German chronic of the 12-14 century you can’t find any mention of the term “litvin”. The letter of Mindaugas, which you’re quoted, was officially identified as fake.
• 6. It’s not explanation.
• 7. This source is very dispute, because it can be also just a legend, and it was created by Russian monks.
• 8. And why this fact must explain belonging term “litvin” only to belorussians?
• 9. And why this fact must explain belonging term “litvin” only to belorussians?
• 10. And why this fact must explain belonging term “litvin” only to belorussians?
• 11. This quotation was taken from 2 different sources and both they are late 16-17century – just legend.
• 12. They not Slavic, they Christian names, written in polish style.
• 13. And same Sapega in other letter wrote: Proinde petis, ut Johannem Sopega, secretarius Ruthenicus, dilecti filii
• 14. Skorina in own book wrote, that he is rusin: „Особый экзамен по медицине господина магистра Франциска, русина. 1512 [год], во вторник, девятого ноября, в установленном месте епископского дворца в Падуе, экзамен.“ and "Я, Францишек, Скоринин сын с Полоцька, в лекарских науках доктор, повелел есми Псалтырю тиснути рускыми словами, а словенским языком… которыи суть в Псалтыри неразумным простым людем, найдуть е на боцех руским языком, что которое слово знаменуеть… казал есми тиснути книгу святого Иова рускым языком богу ко чти и людем посполитым к научению…"
• 15. Nor Sylvius nor other never been in Lithuania. And this not explain why other historical sources which was in Lithuania (Strikovskij, Mechovskij, Litvin, Gvanini i etc.) shows examples of today‘s Lithuanian language?
• 16. Nobody agreed. Is just premising not fact.
• 17. Yes, the letter which was written by polish. And it’s all known fact that Jagello with poles speaks only in rusin language, so pole just wrote rusin language of Jagello.
• 18. Muscovites just named language of the neighbour country.
• 19. First two Statutes were written by Lithuanians not Belarusian. A. Rotunda (one of the author) even called language of the Statutes language of evil enemy of Lithuania – Muscovite language.
• 20. Romantics are not historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.26.210 (talk • contribs)

Will repeat what I said before: these kind of "facts" are a prime example of original research. You really need to understand what the concept means before you post further. You need to cite reliable sources (e.g. articles/studies/monographs by academically recognized historians) that argued that "Litvins = Belarusians". Only examples and arguments used in those works are acceptable on Wikipedia. Anything else (including quotes from primary sources) is your own research, unpublished and unsupported by academics. Until you can cite that historian X argued Y in his book Z (on page 123), all of the above has no place on Wikipedia. In other words, you Wikipedia needs to summarize arguments already presented by recognized academics and not invent something new. Also, to maintain neutral point of view, you need to include historians that disagreed with that conclusion. Renata (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent change in the intro

The recnt change of the intro is an opinion not supported by references to to reliable sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)