# Russian: Honorifics (вы) in post revolutionary Russia/early USSR



## SandoM

It is not a strictly word related question but rather about the cultural context of language usage. So does anyone know whether the honorifics or polite form was canceled after the Revolution in Russia? I have certainly come across something similar about Barcelona during the Civil war. The idea was that since everyone is equal and no classes exist anymore, no one should be addressed in a way that makes him/her seem in a higher position. All people were supposed to be comrades. 
So again - was it abolished in Russia after the 1917 Revolution?


----------



## Deem-A

Well I believe that the use of вы was still used in USSR(I didn't live in USSR,I was born in new the independent state of Ukraine),but my parents,who lived in USSR(they were born in today's territory of what they call the  independent state of Moldova) told me that вы was used. People in USSR continued to adress to those who they didn't know or to those they respected  with вы.


----------



## Gita-Etymology

> So again - was it abolished in Russia after the 1917 Revolution?


No Вы [vy] was and still is used to address people with whom one is not on familiar terms or as a sign of respect. I believe that господин [gospodin] "mister" was replaced with товарищ [tovarishch] "comrade" at that time.


----------



## Selyd

I can not judge as in before military time, but never *ты* were norm.
To the grown-up or to unfamiliar the reference on *вы* was considered by norm.
*ты *was perceived as impoliteness or bad manners. Replacement of the forms the reference has created inconveniences in dialogue.
Женщина, сколько это стоит? /The woman, how much it costs?/


----------



## апопумоуs

Of course a comrade is addressed with thou and everyone is addressed as comrade while we are in the Soviet 1920s. Have this famous Blok poem:
Революционный держите шаг!
Неугомонный не дремлет враг!
Товарищ, *винтовку держи, не трусь!*
Пальнём-ка пулей в Святую Русь —

       В кондовую,
       В избяную,
    В толстозадую!

Or take the agitprop poster from the wikipedian article on Mayakovsky. 

In the literature from the 20s you mostly see Tsar era intellectuals using Вы (occassionally adding a courteous -s suffix to the verbs) clashing with rude and flamboyant bolsheviks calling everyone a товарищ (and never ever сотоварка). 
In Stalin era _thou _disappeared again and made room for ostentatious honorifics used for senior party members which is still high fashion in the Communist Party of Russia.
How do the Bulgarian communists do it? I also wonder if the Western European Leftists aren't more Bolshevik by now than those of the former Socialist Bloc.


----------



## SandoM

Well thank you all!
And mostly - thank you апопумоуs - this is just what I was looking for. 
Eastern Leftists aren't Bolshevik either (except for some really marginal small groups) so I really don't know.
In Bulgaria the propaganda slogans and the revolutionary poetry after 1944 was of course devoid of polite forms and was mostly addressing the comrades in a most direct way as in: Хей другарю, ти какво решил си с чука?...
However I could only make guesses about how people were speaking in their everyday lives.


----------



## Ёж!

апопумоуs said:


> Of course a comrade is addressed with thou and everyone is addressed as comrade while we are in the Soviet 1920s. Have this famous Blok poem:


The poem and the agitprop examples do not prove that 'everyone was addressed with «ты»'. You misunderstand the usage of the direct form of address in the passage from the poem: it is said by a soldier to a soldier, and in such case the form of address had always been «ты». Also, it is very natural for any agitprop to use «ты», since it is intended to be the most direct form of call (compare: 'America wants you for U.S. army', and also your own 'have' without any additional words), but it has nothing to do with overall language use. And, 'of course' is not a proof for anything.


> In the literature from the 20s you mostly see Tsar era intellectuals  using Вы (occassionally adding a courteous -s suffix to the verbs)  clashing with rude and flamboyant bolsheviks calling everyone a товарищ  (and never ever сотоварка).


Just a note on the word… The meaning of the word «товарищ», as you see, pretty much coincides with the meaning of the word 'companion'. So, the word itself is neutral, and whether it is to be perceived as rude or not, depends on the personality of the one who is talking to you and your readiness to consider him as your companion in doing something while you're listening. The word «сотоварка» does not have such general meaning, so it would be inappropriate. Now «товарищ» in address is perceived as one's companion either just in living in general or in doing something very specific, so usually it is not rude at all, sometimes friendly, but not always appropriate; back then, it might seem too informal to some ('how do you know I'm your companion'), but I doubt the majority would consider it rude, since they used it.


----------



## swintok

I have to agree with anonymous.  I remember reading an academic article back in the 1990s about this topic.  In the immediate post-revolutionary period, the use of the вы as a formal mode of address along with the use of the patronymic to address others were actively discouraged by the new authorities.  Thus, Иван Иванович, вы куда идете? became Товарищ (surname or profession), ты куда идешь?  This was especially true in official procedings, such as courtroom processes, encounters with officialdom, etc.  How deeply this penetrated society, however, it is difficult to tell.  Certainly more so in the urban than in the rural areas.  The policy ebbed somewhat in the late 20s, but came back again with the Red Terror in the 30s, especially in the show trials.  It was still maintained semi-officially within the ranks of the Communist Party, but woe betide the person who addressed Stalin as ты.


----------



## rdimd

swintok said:


> It was still maintained semi-officially within the ranks of the Communist Party, but woe betide the person who addressed Stalin as ты.


Except poets, or it just looks like. 
*Товарищ Сталин*, слышишь ли *ты* нас? (Comrade Stalin, do you hear us?)

And Central Commitee of the Communist Party and Council of Ministers:
Вместе с Лениным *ты*, *товарищ Сталин*, был вдохновителем и вождем Великой ...
Kopā ar Ļeņinu tu, biedri Staļin ... (Together with Lenin you, Comrade Stalin)

Others used "Вы" - Supreme Council of the USSR and Central Commitee of the Communist Party of Latvia (then, Soviet republic)

These excerpts were taken from old newspapers found using Google, December, 1949, Stalin's 70th birthday.

Just a question, did those who cried after Stalin's death, also use "Вы"?


----------



## Ben Jamin

swintok said:


> I have to agree with anonymous.  I remember reading an academic article back in the 1990s about this topic.  In the immediate post-revolutionary period, the use of the вы as a formal mode of address along with the use of the patronymic to address others were actively discouraged by the new authorities.  Thus, Иван Иванович, вы куда идете? became Товарищ (surname or profession), ты куда идешь?  This was especially true in official procedings, such as courtroom processes, encounters with officialdom, etc.  How deeply this penetrated society, however, it is difficult to tell.  Certainly more so in the urban than in the rural areas.  The policy ebbed somewhat in the late 20s, but came back again with the Red Terror in the 30s, especially in the show trials.  It was still maintained semi-officially within the ranks of the Communist Party, but woe betide the person who addressed Stalin as ты.



Could you give any references for this article? I have seen many films about the time of revolution in Russia, and read some books, butI never encountered the "thou" used to people not being private friends or family members.


----------



## Ben Jamin

SandoM said:


> It is not a strictly word related question but rather about the cultural context of language usage. So does anyone know whether the honorifics or polite form was canceled after the Revolution in Russia? I have certainly come across something similar about Barcelona during the Civil war. The idea was that since everyone is equal and no classes exist anymore, no one should be addressed in a way that makes him/her seem in a higher position. All people were supposed to be comrades.
> So again - was it abolished in Russia after the 1917 Revolution?


I doubt if it is correct to call the use of "vy" a honorific. _Gospodin_, _Barin_, "_vashe blagorodiye_" were honorifics. "vy" is simply a formal address form.


----------



## Ben Jamin

rdimd said:


> Except poets, or it just looks like.
> *Товарищ Сталин*, слышишь ли *ты* нас? (Comrade Stalin, do you hear us?)
> 
> And Central Commitee of the Communist Party and Council of Ministers:
> Вместе с Лениным *ты*, *товарищ Сталин*, был вдохновителем и вождем Великой ...
> Kopā ar Ļeņinu tu, biedri Staļin ... (Together with Lenin you, Comrade Stalin)
> 
> Others used "Вы" - Supreme Council of the USSR and Central Commitee of the Communist Party of Latvia (then, Soviet republic)
> 
> These excerpts were taken from old newspapers found using Google, December, 1949, Stalin's 70th birthday.
> 
> Just a question, did those who cried after Stalin's death, also use "Вы"?


Notice that is not a "normal" address form, when you speak to a person directly, it is a "ceremonial" or "religious" thou, liek speaking to God. God is not addressed "vy" in Russian, but "Gospodi, day mnye ..." is used in prayers.


----------



## SandoM

Ёж! said:


> The poem and the agitprop examples do not prove that 'everyone was addressed with «ты»'. You misunderstand the usage of the direct form of address in the passage from the poem: it is said by a soldier to a soldier, and in such case the form of address had always been «ты». Also, it is very natural for any agitprop to use «ты», since it is intended to be the most direct form of call (compare: 'America wants you for U.S. army', and also your own 'have' without any additional words), but it has nothing to do with overall language use. And, 'of course' is not a proof for anything.


Ёж!, thank you for the answer, but i am afraid it is you who misunderstands the context we're talking about. It is not at all about being rude. It is about a total change in all spheres of life taking place suddenly. The new power ruling with totally new ideological pretences will of course have a new language. The idea in revolutionary times is that all old must vanish to make place for the bright future of equality and happiness for everybody. Polite forms were seen in those times as remnants from this old hipocritical pretentious tzarist past with its priviledged classes and its vast masses of deprived. The formerly deprived were now supposed to be in power so they were "changing everything", including language. Thus they were imposing their hegemony and their ideology of equality.





Ёж! said:


> Just a note on the word… The meaning of the word «товарищ», as you see, pretty much coincides with the meaning of the word 'companion'. So, the word itself is neutral, and whether it is to be perceived as rude or not, depends on the personality of the one who is talking to you and your readiness to consider him as your companion in doing something while you're listening. The word «сотоварка» does not have such general meaning, so it would be inappropriate. Now «товарищ» in address is perceived as one's companion either just in living in general or in doing something very specific, so usually it is not rude at all, sometimes friendly, but not always appropriate; back then, it might seem too informal to some ('how do you know I'm your companion'), but I doubt the majority would consider it rude, since they used it.



And here again it is not about rudeness but about the pretence of equality. «Tоварищ» means comrade and all people were supposed to be comrades and equal in those times. This pretence carried on on an official propaganda level until 1989 and the demise of the Warsaw pact. Back to Revolution times - politeness itself was percieved as a danerous remnant from the past. This doesn't mean that everybody was expected to be rude, but that everybody was supposed to be equal with everybody else.


----------



## SandoM

Ben Jamin said:


> Could you give any references for this article? I have seen many films about the time of revolution in Russia, and read some books, butI never encountered the "thou" used to people not being private friends or family members.


I don't know what article has Ben Jamin read, but you can check Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" for a description of Spain during the civil war. In the first pages he talks about his arrival in Barcelona just taken by the republicans. He talks about red and red and black flags everywhere, workers clothing weared even by the bourgeois and polite forms ('usted' or whatever it is in Catalan) being abolished...


----------



## Ben Jamin

SandoM said:


> I don't know what article has Ben Jamin read, but you can check Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" for a description of Spain during the civil war. In the first pages he talks about his arrival in Barcelona just taken by the republicans. He talks about red and red and black flags everywhere, workers clothing weared even by the bourgeois and polite forms ('usted' or whatever it is in Catalan) being abolished...


Now, we are speaking about Russia, not Catalonia.


----------



## SandoM

Ben Jamin said:


> Now, we are speaking about Russia, not Catalonia.



First of all, pardon for my previous comment - the academic text has been read by swintok, not by you.
Second, yes, we are talking about Russia indeed, but about Russia in a very particular time. And revolutionary times are surprisingly similar in many ways in Catalonia, Russia, France ... you name it. I guess you will agree that in the years of the Revolution and the civil war there were great many radical changes going on in the former Kingdom - both officially imposed by the party (by soviets first) or "naturally" springing from the circumstances. And, апопумоуs', swintok's and my point here is that language was also a subject of an immense change - deliberate as well as uncontious.
And of course with the party well established and secure at the head and with years passing, things got more and more mellow. So the polite form was at some point allowed to return in official language as well as in everyday life.


----------



## Ёж!

SandoM said:


> And here again it is not about rudeness but about the pretence of equality. «Tоварищ» means comrade and all people were supposed to be comrades and equal in those times. This pretence carried on on an official propaganda level until 1989 and the demise of the Warsaw pact. Back to Revolution times - politeness itself was percieved as a danerous remnant from the past. This doesn't mean that everybody was expected to be rude, but that everybody was supposed to be equal with everybody else.


I am not sure what is the point of your arguing. The Russian people were never exceptionally polite, if you take the whole society. So, in this respect nothing really changed. As for my remarks on «товарищ» – well, I was exactly saying that the word «товарищ» is broader in scope than "comrade", it is rather "a companion". As far as I understand 'comrade', it has a military subtext in it; for «товарищ» the military meaning is not at all necessary, although possible. As for equality – I agree. Probably, everyone was supposed to be unequal deep in the soul, and this is why terms of equality were expected by people.

Now, the rest of our talking is not to the point. 'Everything changed' is never true, it is a commonplace. 'Nothing changed at all' is also a commonplace; the forms of the language use could not escape changing when one empire falls and another rises, with all the other ideas or lack thereof. As for «ты» in that era, we agreed that we don't know, but what is true is that «вы» is not a honorific and, if it was abolished somewhere for short time, then certainly not for its being one. All it implies is lack of intimacy, not lack of equality.


----------



## mugibil

From my experience with literature from and about the 1920's - no, what SandoM and Swintok are saying is not exactly true. The academic article cited by Swintok above must have been at least partly wrong or incorrectly remembered. Sure, Communist comrades such as Lenin and Trotsky conversing would address each other with "thou", but that was not extended to everybody precisely because not everybody was a communist. Compare Собачье сердце, where even the fictional epitome of the revolutionary insolence of the rabble, the dog-turned-man Sharikov, addresses Professor Preobrazhensky as "вы" rather than "ты", even when he inappropriately refers to him as "comrade": for example Вы что на это выразите, товарищ? ("What could You object to this, comrade?"; http://www.vehi.net/mbulgakov/sobach.html). (Preobrazhensky immediately retorts "я вам не товарищ" "I am not Your comrade"). Sharikov's Bolshevik tutor, Shvonder, who is also depicted as being impertinent and unceremonious, and who acts as a representative of Bolshevik authority, likewise very consistently addresses Preobrazhensky as "вы", even when he commands him: "Пишите удостоверение, гражданин профессор" "Write (2nd plural) a letter-certificatory, Citizen Professor!" The same applies to the Moscow trials: Vyshinsky could refer to Bukharin as a "damnable cross of a fox and swine", but he would nevertheless address him as "вы": e.g. "Я вас спрашиваю. Отвечайте на вопрос." "I'm asking You a question. Answer the question." (http://magister.msk.ru/library/trotsky/trotlsud.htm)

Concerning addressing everyone as "Comrade" - that wasn't actually typical of the revolutionary years or of the 1920s, because the term was still reserved for actual revolutionaries or people assumed sympathetic to the revolution, whereas others would be neutrally addressed as "Citizen" (the pre-revolutionary formal terms such as "господин" - "Mister" were indeed abandoned as being "bourgeois"). Since it could be offensive or even dangerous not to be recognised as a fellow-loyal member of the new revolutionary society, the meaning of "Comrade" was gradually expanded and "debased" during the 30s and 40s until it became the neutral term of address to pretty much everyone, though it still retained a somewhat official nuance, and yes, it was very much combined with "вы" rather than "ты". This expansion of the term wasn't offensive - on the contrary, it was a way to soften previous ideological divisions in society. (On the other hand, the militsiya - police - did continue to address people as "Citizen" by default, and it was the normal term of address for prisoners and arrested suspects, which probably did little to increase the status of the term).


----------



## Ёж!

mungu said:


> Sure, Communist comrades such as Lenin and Trotsky conversing would address each other with "thou", but that was not extended to everybody precisely because not everybody was a communist.


Very likely because they knew one another well and were part of one organisation. At least now it happens, if not extremely commonly, then regularly enough, that coworkers switch to «ты» as they become more connected with each other by their common experience. Yes, I should have remembered «Собачье сердце».


----------

