# князь



## ewie

Could anyone tell me if this word has any 'unfortunate' meanings other than the one given by my very small dictionary?
Reason: I'm using it as the title of a painting (the word actually appears large in the painting) and want to be prepared if someone says, "But don't you know that КНЯЗЬ also means X?"
NB: I only know about 10 words of Russian so would appreciate a response in English.
thanks ~ ewie


----------



## Q-cumber

ewie said:


> Could anyone tell me if this word has any 'unfortunate' meanings other than the one given by my very small dictionary?
> Reason: I'm using it as the title of a painting (the word actually appears large in the painting) and want to be prepared if someone says, "But don't you know that КНЯЗЬ also means X?"
> NB: I only know about 10 words of Russian so would appreciate a response in English.
> thanks ~ ewie



Hi *ewie*!

Although *КНЯЗЬ* is often translated as prince, it doesn't actually mean neither "a son of a king",  nor "a sovereign" (at least, for the last few centuries). *КНЯЗЬ* is kinda equal to duke - a highest heritable title of nobility.


----------



## Maroseika

Actually, to offer you the most appropriate word, we need know what is this painting about.


----------



## ewie

Thanks for your responses, Q-cumber and Maroseika.
It's a male nude.  In fact the subject isn't particularly relevant to the title (I just needed a short Russian word that would fit in the space available).
Does *КНЯЗЬ* have any slang meanings in modern Russian?


----------



## Ptak

ewie said:


> Does *КНЯЗЬ* have any slang meanings in modern Russian?


I don't think so.


----------



## Athaulf

Q-cumber said:


> Hi *ewie*!
> 
> Although *КНЯЗЬ* is often translated as prince, it doesn't actually mean neither "a son of a king",  nor "a sovereign" (at least, for the last few centuries).



Actually, it never mean "sovereign" -- in fact, it implied the recognition of suzerainty of some king or emperor, at least theoretical.  The pre-historical origins of the title are obscure (it probably comes from the title of some sort of tribal chief), but once the Slavic peoples were Christianized and the European nobility system was institutionalized among them, their historical _knyazes_ who wanted to proclaim their full formal independence would assume the title of a king or emperor (most famously Ivan the Terrible -- and in fact, even his grandfather Ivan III started calling himself emperor once he asserted Muscovy's independence from the Golden Horde, although he was never formally crowned as such). 



> *КНЯЗЬ* is kinda equal to duke - a highest heritable title of nobility.


It's higher than a duke, and there isn't really an equivalent title in the British system. The closest non-Slavic equivalent I can think of would be the German _Fürst_.


----------



## Q-cumber

Athaulf said:


> Actually, it never mean "sovereign" -- in fact, it implied the recognition of suzerainty of some king or emperor, at least theoretical.



Hi Athaulf!

Which word do you keep in mind - *князь* or *prince*?



> It's higher than a duke, and there isn't really an equivalent title in the British system. The closest non-Slavic equivalent I can think of would be the German _Fürst_.



I agree.


----------



## ewie

Thanks for all your contributions ~ I think I can safely assume it doesn't mean _male prostitute_ or _pimp_ or anything.
Incidentally, _prince_ is a fairly vague word in English, or can at least be used fairly vaguely: in _All the princes of Europe attended the wedding of Prince Albrecht of Saxony in Dresden_, the first use might cover sons of reigning kings or emperors, _Fürsten_, Russian grand dukes, etc. while the second would be _son of the King of Saxony _OR _member of the royal house of Saxony_


----------



## Etcetera

ewie said:


> Thanks for all your contributions ~ I think I can safely assume it doesn't mean _male prostitute_ or _pimp_ or anything.


It certainly doesn't. The word has no negative connotations, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Athaulf

Q-cumber said:


> Athaulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it never mean "sovereign" -- in fact, it implied the recognition of suzerainty of some king or emperor, at least theoretical.
> 
> 
> 
> Which word do you keep in mind - *князь* or *prince*?
Click to expand...


_Князь_ and its equivalents in other Slavic languages. In Croatia, the situation was analogous to Russia in this regard. The rulers of early medieval Croatian states had the title of _knez_, and they recognized the suzerainty of Byzantium or Frankish rulers. Later, more powerful rulers, who didn't swear allegiance to any foreign powers, called themselves kings.


----------



## Q-cumber

Athaulf said:


> _Князь_ and its equivalents in other Slavic languages. In Croatia, the situation was analogous to Russia in this regard. The rulers of early medieval Croatian states had the title of _knez_, and they recognized the suzerainty of Byzantium or Frankish rulers. Later, more powerful rulers, who didn't swear allegiance to any foreign powers, called themselves kings.




As a matter of fact,  *Иван (Иоанн) IV Васильевич Грозный* - Ivan IV Vasilyevich (The Terrible) - was the first Russian tzar ever. He was a son of Moscow "князь" Василий (Vasily) III and had the title of "князь" himself before his coronation in 1547.  By this moment, Russia was pretty independent....


----------



## Athaulf

Q-cumber said:


> As a matter of fact,  *Иван (Иоанн) IV Васильевич Грозный* - Ivan IV Vasilyevich (The Terrible) - was the first Russian tzar ever. He was a son of Moscow "князь" Василий (Vasily) III and had the title of "князь" himself before his coronation in 1547.  By this moment, Russia was pretty independent....



The situation was a bit more complicated than that. 

Although Ivan IV was the first Russian ruler formally crowned as _tsar_, he was not the first to use this title at least occasionally. From the disastrous Mongol invasions in the 13th century until the 1480s, the _княжество_ of Muscovy was both _de facto_ and _de jure_ a dependency of the Mongols. When _князь_ Ivan III finally secured Muscovy's _de facto_ independence from the Golden Horde, he started using different titles, including that of _tsar _(see, for example, here for more details). His son Vasily III did similarly, although he wasn't formally crowned either, and his grandson Ivan IV finally formalized the title by his coronation in 1547. 

What I'm trying to argue is that in medieval Slavic lands, after their Christianization, the title of _князь_ implied at least formal recognition of the suzerainty of some foreign power, and rulers with this title who wanted to assert their full formal independence always assumed different titles. In the case of Russia, several decades had to pass from securing the _de facto _independence of Muscovy under Ivan III until the foreign relations were favorable enough for Ivan IV to be able to formally assume the title of _tsar _and be internationally recognized as such  (and even he had much trouble getting this title recognized abroad). But I don't think it's disputable that as long as any ruler used the title of _князь_, it meant that he swore at least theoretical allegiance to some higher sovereign. Even the _князья_ of the Kievan Rus at the height of their power, while completely independent in practice, were theoretically subordinated to the Byzantine Emperor (remember that according to the popular legend, Vladimir Monomakh received the famous crown from the Emperor in Constantinople).


----------



## Q-cumber

Hi *Athaulf*! 


> What I'm trying to argue is that in medieval Slavic lands, after their Christianization, the title of князь implied at least formal recognition of the suzerainty of some foreign power, and rulers with this title who wanted to assert their full formal independence always assumed different titles.


Sorry, I but I don't agree with this statement.  At least, I don't accept it as a rule. I could mention, for instance, the knyaz Oleg (the founder of the Kievan Rus'), who led an attack against Constantinople in 941 (or 971?) that resulted a peace/commercial treaty with Byzantium Empire. The parties signed the contact as equal partners...and so on. The circumstances had been permanenty changing, periods of independency followed by periods of foreign control. However <I think this is important from the standpoint of semantics>, a subordination to a foreign power was generally compulsory. 
     Although Vasily III could occasionally call himself tzar (I suggest it was actually Государь - sovereign), his official title was "великий князь Московский и всея Руси" <the Great Prince>. I am sure his _official_ title didn't imply any recognition of the suzerainty. 
 As far as I know, one of the primary reasons why the Ivan IV decided to become the tzar was that his original title "великий князь" was formally lower in rank, comparing to an European "king". 
    By the way, the first Russian knyaz ever was *Рюрик* (Ryuric)
Getting back to the semantics: I dare say that *князь* initially meant a leader of a Slavic tribe; then it was a sovereign of a feudal state and so on.  

All the above is IMHO only.


----------



## OldAvatar

> I dare say that *князь* initially meant a leader of a Slavic tribe; then it was a sovereign of a feudal state and so on.


I agree. _Cneaz _has an interesting story in Romanian, too. In early middle ages, the word _cneaz _was adopted by Romanians also. It slightly replaced the proto-Romanian traditional _jude _(_The judge_). And it was adopted because the new title, unlike _jude_, meant that the leader also owned a lot of lands.


----------



## werrr

Q-cumber said:


> Getting back to the semantics: I dare say that *князь* initially meant a leader of a Slavic tribe; then it was a sovereign of a feudal state and so on.


Yes, that corresponds to the Czech usage.

Initially, “kníže” (I use the modern form) was a generic term for any member of tribal leader’s family. It was often associated with the cognate “kněz” (= priest). Terms “vévoda/vojvoda” and “vladyka” were equivalent to “kníže”.

Later, Czech ruler subjugated all other Bohemian rulers and “kníže” became a generic term for a sovereign ruler (and members of his family). At that time, Czech rulers did use the Latin title “Dux”, but Western Europeans often reffered to them as to kings (thus “kníže Václav” became “King Wenceslas” in English). “Vévoda/vojvoda” was still equivalent.

Later, Roman Emperors recognized Czech rulers as Bohemian sovereigns, and Czech rulers started to use the title “král” which was always clearly identical to king. The term “kníže” was transformed to formal title equivalent to German “Fürst” and “vévoda/vojvoda” to duke.

For all the time, “kníže” was used in a symbolic way for all rulers, thus Lucifer could be called “kníže pekel” (= master of Hell), for example.


----------



## Q-cumber

werrr said:


> For all the time, “kníže” was used in a symbolic way for all rulers, thus Lucifer could be called “kníže pekel” (= master of Hell), for example.



Right, we also use knyaz this way in Russian. *Князь мира* or *Князь тьмы* means *Satan*.


----------



## Blacklack

Q-cumber said:


> ...I could mention, for instance, the knyaz Oleg (the founder of the Kievan Rus'), who led an attack against Constantinople in 941 (or 971?) that resulted a peace/commercial treaty with Byzantium Empire. The parties signed the contact as equal partners...and so on.


He led two attacks — in 907 and 911 (which resulted in the treaty) and died in 912 (all dates are as given by the Primary Chronicle). What is really interesting though is his relationship to Khazar state.
But overall you're totally right: 'князь' meant a sovereign ruler in IX-X centuries, then 'великий князь' appeared.



Q-cumber said:


> By the way, the first Russian knyaz ever was *Рюрик* (Ryuric)


Or Hrörekr. It's again according to the Primary Chronicle which states btw that he had control only over the northern part of East Slavic land. And he well could have been not the first. Byzantine sources tell us of plundering of Sudak (in Crimea) in 802 and Amastrida (Turkish Black Sea coast now) in 839 by people who were probably the antecedents of Kievan knyaz Askold's attackers on Constantinople in 860 and 867.


----------



## Q-cumber

Blacklack said:


> He led two attacks — in 907 and 911 (which resulted in the treaty) and died in 912 (all dates are as given by the Primary Chronicle). What is really interesting though is his relationship to Khazar state.



Right. My bad. I stand corrected.


----------



## scythosarmatian

No one actually wrote about the etymology of Russian "князь". 

The last letter has lost its sound, but in the medieval times there used to be a vowel sound there, so it would be pronounced something like "княже" or "knia'zhe". It seems that the word was used in dual/plural as a sign of respect to the bearer of this title. I believe the closest Germanic word would be "Koenig", or English "king", which have the same stem and structure. The final "g" is transformed into a "z/zh" like in "drug" (sing.) --> "druzi/druzhi" (pl.) 

Germanic/English/Slavic stem "KNG" has cognates in Turkic/Hunnic languages: "khan", "khennes".

Khazarian rulers were also called "kahan/kohan".


----------



## Athaulf

Q-cumber said:


> Sorry, I but I don't agree with this statement.  At least, I don't accept it as a rule. I could mention, for instance, the knyaz Oleg (the founder of the Kievan Rus'), who led an attack against Constantinople in 941 (or 971?) that resulted a peace/commercial treaty with Byzantium Empire. The parties signed the contact as equal partners...and so on.



Yes, but in my above posts, I clearly stated that I was talking about what the title of _knyaz_ meant _after the Christianization_ of Slavic peoples.  Oleg was a pagan ruler, and as such, he obviously didn't recognize the feudal systems of nobility and monarchy that were the norm in the Christian Europe at the time; the same was the case for other medieval pagan rulers, Slavic as well as Norse, Baltic, etc. However, as the rulers of each country were Christianized, they also accepted, at least in theory, the political arrangements that were the standard in the Christian Europe of that time. This normally meant that the local traditional titles would be somehow mapped onto the standard European ranks of nobles and monarchs (and often also expanded by importing additional titles). The title of _knyaz_ was subsequently interpreted as a powerful ruler of a large dominion, who is however still subjected to a higher monarch, like _Fürst _in Germany. Later Christian _knyazes _of Kiev did recognize the theoretical supremacy of the Byzantine Emperor, even though they were fully independent for all practical purposes (much like numerous _de facto_ independent rulers in Western Europe theoretically acknowledged the supremacy of the Holy Roman Emperor). 



> The circumstances had been permanenty changing, periods of independency followed by periods of foreign control. However <I think this is important from the standpoint of semantics>, a subordination to a foreign power was generally compulsory.
> Although Vasily III could occasionally call himself tzar (I suggest it was actually Государь - sovereign), his official title was "великий князь Московский и всея Руси" <the Great Prince>. I am sure his _official_ title didn't imply any recognition of the suzerainty.


In medieval times, it was very difficult for a ruler to change his formal title and get this change recognized by other rulers, even if the practical circumstances changed greatly. (In fact, there is great inertia in _de jure_ political arrangements even today -- for example, Australia and Canada are still theoretically ruled by the British monarch.) The inherited title of Ivan III and Vasily III implied theoretical subjugation to the Mongols, and even though Ivan III put an end to this subjugation in practice, it took several decades for this practical change to be reflected in the formal titles of his heirs. A nearly identical course of events took place when Serbs won their _de facto_ indepdendence from the Ottoman Empire (more details about that below).


> As far as I know, one of the primary reasons why the Ivan IV decided to become the tzar was that his original title "великий князь" was formally lower in rank, comparing to an European "king".


Exactly -- as long as he called himself _knyaz_, foreign rulers would consider that he was still at least theoretically a subject of some higher sovereign. That's why it was important for him to be able to use a higher title in foreign relations, and why even his father and grandfather sometimes found their title of _knyaz_ inadequate in foreign correspondence.

There have been several analogous cases in different Slavic nations that clearly show that any _knyaz_ who wanted to assert formal independence would strive to change the title into that of a king or emperor. _Książ_ of Poland was at least theoretically subjected to the Holy Roman Emperor, until Bolesław I and his successors started crowning themselves as kings. I've already mentioned the Croatian rulers who used the title of _knez_ while they still recognized the supremacy of Franks or Byzantium, until they asserted independence and began calling themselves kings, starting sometime in the 920s. 

Even as late as the 19th century, the rulers of newly independent Serbia used the title _knez_ as long as they were still theoretically subjected to the Ottoman Sultan. Again, it took several decades of _de facto_ Serbian independence from the Turks until _knez_ Milan I of Serbia was able to assert full formal independence and start calling himself a king (this is in fact a strikingly accurate parallel to the situation of Muscovite _knyazes_ after Ivan III secured _de facto_ independence of Muscovy from the Mongols). A similar course of events also took place in Bulgaria in late 19th/early 20th century.


----------



## Athaulf

scythosarmatian said:


> Germanic/English/Slavic stem "KNG" has cognates in Turkic/Hunnic languages: "khan", "khennes".



Are you sure? Could you please give a bit more detail on where exactly these cognates came from in each language family? As far as I know, English "king" doesn't have any known history earlier than its Proto-Germanic root, and various Asian titles like _khan_/_kagan_ are too old to have come from a Germanic language, directly or indirectly. (I might be wrong, though, so I'm really curious to see more details about this.)


----------



## Blacklack

scythosarmatian said:


> The last letter has lost its sound, but in the medieval times there used to be a vowel sound there, so it would be pronounced something like "княже" or "knia'zhe".


"Княже" is Vocative case (звательный падеж) of "князь" like "друже" of is "друг".



scythosarmatian said:


> It seems that the word was used in dual/plural as a sign of respect to the bearer of this title.


Что за траву вы курите, уважаемый собеседник? As of XVII century Russians used to say "ты" (ty — thou) even to God and Czar.



scythosarmatian said:


> I believe the closest Germanic word would be "Koenig", or English "king", which have the same stem and structure. The final "g" is transformed into a "z/zh" like in "drug" (sing.) --> "druzi/druzhi" (pl.)


"Druzi" only.
According to Vasmer's dictionary Proto-Slavic form *kъnęgъ is derived from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz or Gothic *kuniggs where the former is indeed direct ancestor of English "king" and German "König".


----------



## Q-cumber

Athaulf said:


> Yes, but in my above posts, I clearly stated that I was talking about what the title of _knyaz_ meant _after the Christianization_ of Slavic peoples.



   Right, I've noticed that.  I've mentioned earlier pagan "knyazes" in order to demonstrate that the title survived through the centuries, regardless on the particular circumstances. I would agree with your theory, if the title of "knyaz" were used only within periods of occupation or recognition of suzerainty of some foreign power. But this is not the case.
   Subjugation to the Mongols didn't mean actual occupation, incorporation or subordination.  It was sort of what we call today racketeering.   "Knyazes" were forced to pay tributes to the (pre-)Golden Horde, but they ruled their principalities on their own <and under their _original_ titles>.
   As to Ivan III, he not only finished with subjugation to the Mongols, but  even took the Kazan Khanate under control. So, how could his son and even grandson inherite "vassal title",  "implying theoretical subjugation to the Mongols"? 



> Exactly -- as long as he called himself knyaz, foreign rulers would consider that he was still at least theoretically a subject of some higher sovereign.



     The title of knyaz was considered "insufficient" for the ruler of Russia not because it could imply any submission to a higher sovereign, but only since 
Russia itself became "too big and unitary for the title" by that moment, so to speak.


----------



## Athaulf

Q-cumber said:


> Right, I've noticed that.  I've mentioned earlier pagan "knyazes" in order to demonstrate that the title survived through the centuries, regardless on the particular circumstances. I would agree with your theory, if the title of "knyaz" were used only within periods of occupation or recognition of suzerainty of some foreign power. But this is not the case.
> 
> Subjugation to the Mongols didn't mean actual occupation, incorporation or subordination.  It was sort of what we call today racketeering.   "Knyazes" were forced to pay tributes to the (pre-)Golden Horde, but they ruled their principalities on their own <and under their _original_ titles>.



Well, medieval states generally didn't function like modern centralized ones. A medieval king or emperor was not like a modern government, which exercises control over every part of its territory through a centrally managed police force and army that is present everywhere where its sovereignty reaches. Rather, a medieval ruler would merely extract oaths of allegiance and a fixed tribute in money, kind, and men  from his vassals, who were left with almost unlimited autonomy within their local dominions, as long as they swore allegiance, paid their tribute, and didn't attempt any unwanted foreign policy steps. The same was the case with Muscovy prior to Ivan III. And Tatars did in fact seriously threaten Moscow militarily on many occasions all until the mid-15th century. Even in 1480, Ivan III wasn't very comfortable standing up to them (although he eventually succeeded).



> As to Ivan III, he not only finished with subjugation to the Mongols, but  even took the Kazan Khanate under control. So, how could his son and even grandson inherite "vassal title",  "implying theoretical subjugation to the Mongols"?


Because of the great inertia in the international (and even domestic) recognition of formal political titles and procedures, of which you can see many examples in history and even nowadays. Formal titles and prerogatives often last for decades, or even centuries after they've lost all practical significance. 

Again, just observe the parallel between the Rurikid _княжество _of Moscow and the 19th century _kneževina_ of Serbia. Just like Russians under Ivan III, Serbs also won their _de facto_ independence against the Ottoman Empire in a series of uprisings in the early 19th century, but for decades -- all until 1882 -- the Serbian _knez_ was still theoretically a vassal of the Ottoman Sultan. And when the war between Russia and the Ottoman empire started in 1877, Serbia joined the war on the Russian side, even though it was still theoretically an Ottoman vassal state. (By the way, its _knez _at that time was _the fifth one_ in power since the Turks had been thrown out!) Obviously, the already fully independent Serbian rulers were stuck with an antiquated vassal title -- even though they were already independent enough to declare war on their theoretical suzerains, and fight it successfully and achieve territorial gains in it. It was only in 1882 that they finally managed to change their title to the fully sovereign one of king. 

Similarly, Ivan III and his successors were stuck with their vassal title for quite a while after it became antiquated. They would have definitely changed it much earlier if the circumstances had permitted it, and in fact they did try using different titles whenever they thought they could get away with it.


----------

