Talk:Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks

the game

someone should add that the painting is used on the cover of cossacks the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.72.115 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that this is so neccesesary. BTW, there are TWO versions of this painting and I can't recollect - what was in the game...

(SRY for my English, actually I'm Ukrainian :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.78.19 (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

wrong translations

1. „Не будеш ти, сукiн ти сину, синiв христiянських пiд собой мати“

is translated with„ever wilt thou be fit to have the sons of Christ under thee.“, but "сукiн ти сину" was forgotten (?), wich means "you son of a bitch"

1. "твойого вiйска ми не боiмось, землею i водою будем биться з тобою, распройоб твою мать."

in this →"Thy army we fear not, and by land and by sea in our chaikas we will do battle against thee." part was also forgotten (?) to translate "распройоб твою мать", wich has has a similar meaning like #1

1. "різницька собака, нехрещений лоб, мать твою в'йоб!"

this part was not tranlated at all, a (provisional) translation would be "a butcher's dog, unbaptised forehead (im 100% shure that is wrong, bur i don't know how was that word meant in this context)".i don't know what "мать твою в'йоб!" exactly means, but it has a similar meaning (a sexual profanity against the sultan's mother)

1. "за це поцілуй в сраку нас!" is wrongly translated with "and thou can kiss us thou knowest where!", but does mean "and thou can kiss our ass!"

--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"As the Sultan; son of Muhammad; ..." --> "son of ABRAHAM" !!! --109.193.57.96 (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

== Deза це поцілуй в сраку нас!" is wrongly translated with "and thou can kiss us thou knowest where!", but does mean "and thou can kiss our ass!" --[[user:Borisbaran|Baruch ben cency for Whom? ==Transalates to:"For this kiss our ass"

I came across this article courtesy of the Random Article link. A great story it is, and the painting is a wonderful illustration of the story. I'm glad I found this!

However, someone has written above the Russian original text "For the sake of decency, this letter is not translated literally". Just who is being protected here? If I could read Russian, I would not be spared this "indecency". So why should I be spared because none of the languages I speak are Russian? If it really is more vulgar literally translated, then I say, bring it on! Please. Unschool 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this is an information database, not FCC headquarters or some book-burning church! Decency should not be considered here, accuracy should. Every indecent concept has its own article on wikipedia for God sakes! Wikipedia is suppose to be for speakers of a variety of languages, its unfair for this to be censored because some uptight idiot doesn't like the words they use. It's history, you moron! I'm going to work on translating it online, but if anyone knows Russian, please translate this and add the actual text to this article --some guy 05:56, 01 June 2006

The language in which the letter was written originally is Ukrainian though, not Russian. While a Russian would be able to understand it without much trouble (I do, at least), translating it is a different thing - we wouldn't want to lose any nuances here, now would we? ;) int19h 08:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone translate this? Decency be damned, if we don't tell it as it is, we're not much of an Encyclopedia, are we? The Frederick 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am coming slowly to the conclusion that whoever wrote those words "For the sake of decency, this letter is not translated literally" was probably either bluffing--they don't really know themselves, and so therefore made this comment--or else they were just repeating something that they heard from some humanities professor they had once. Unschool 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that referred to an earlier version in this article, because I am reading the letter in Ukrainian, and all of the naughty words seem to be intact (although perhaps the original was naughtier still). I'll remove the decency remark. —Michael Z. 2006-06-28 15:50 Z

Ukrainian version is indeed uncensored, and always was. It is the English translation which lacks all the profanities. -- int19h 12:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

English translation

English translation along with detailed analysis is available at

http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/slavic/papers/Friedman-Zaporozhci.pdf

The letter is probably a fake, but it's an old and famous fake and it does reflect the spirit of the people. By the way, the version quoted in the Wikipedia article is quite distorted with extra swear words that do not appear in the original faked (?) text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.22.40 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 July 2006

I can, with some difficulty, understand the Ukrainian text, as the swear words in Polish are not much different :-) The English text is not only bowdlerized, but also completely incorrect in places: some parts are omitted, others (chaikas, for instance) added. I fail to see why the text should be mistranslated so; after all, the whole point of the letter was the insults. Omit the insults, and there is hardly anything left. Wikipedia is not a children's book, and it should include an accurate translation. Regrettably, the link mentioned above (while slightly more accurate) also leaves out some ruder phrases. My own best attempt follows:

Zaporozhyan Cossacs to the Turkish Sultan!

You, sultan, turkish devil, brother and comrade of the Devil, secretary of Lucifer himself. Some kind of damn knight you are, who cannot stick a pin into a bare ass! The devil shits, and your army eats. You will not, you son of a bitch, make sons of christians your subjects; we are not afraid of your soldiers, we will fight you on land and on sea, screw your mother.

You are the Babylonian scullion, Macedonian cart-driver, Jerusalem brewer, Alexandrian goat-fucker, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, Armenian pig, Podolian thief, Tartar catamite, Kamyanets hangman, and the fool of all the world and underworld. An idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and a bend in the dick. You have a pig's face, a mare's arse, you're a butcher's dog, an unbaptized head, fuck your mother!

That is what the Cossacs say to you, asshole. You're not even fit to feed pigs of christians. Now we end, we know not the date and have no calendar, the moon is in the sky, the year the Lord knows, the day is the same with us here as with you over there, now you can kiss our arses.

I have replaced the bowdlerized text with this version, rather than wait until someone else musters the guts to do so. Some fragments are uncertain; in particular the phrase “распройоб твою мать” which I lamely rendered “screw your mother”, although I think the original meaning is different and more violent. I am also unsure if “и нашого хуя крюк” which I rendered as “a bend in the dick”, and “коли голою сракою їжака не вб'єш” which I rendered “who cannot stick a pin into a bare ass” are correct. Can somebody who knows Ukrainian better review the text, please. Freederick 14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

am also unsure if “и нашого хуя крюк” which I rendered as “a bend in the dick”, that is translated wrong. The context makes it seem a lot less explicit.

I've edited out the cusswords because --1. The letter is fake and there are many versions of it. --2. We are trying to protect the decency and reputation of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to read the actual translation they can visit the talk page. By the way, there is a big difference between Russian and Ukrainian. I am fluebnt in both, I should know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.37.115.197 (talk • contribs) .

Please don't edit out vulgar language, for either of the cited reasons. 2. We are not trying to protect Wikipedia's "decency", and bowdlerizing the text is certainly not good for an encyclopedia's reputation—Wikipedia is not censored. 1. Many historic documents—both real and fake—are known from several versions: that is no excuse to censor them.  —Michael Z. 2006-11-13 23:21 Z

Some minor corrections. "Якiй ти в чорта лицар" means 'What a hell you're <called> a knight'. And 'to slay/to scare the hedgehog with a bare ass' is a firm idiome in Russian and Ukraininan. Also, "плюгавче" doesn't mean 'asshole'. Garret Beaumain 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Garret Beaumain

Good job, everyone. I hope you don't mind that I've further refined the translation. "Распройоб" is something like "screw over", but not perfectly translatable, or "ravage", but more vulgar—perhaps "go fuck over your mother".

"Плюгавче": would a plyuhavets’ be a plough boy? Or someone worthy of being spat at? I've translated it as lowlife for now. —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 01:01 Z

If the letter was translated a bit more loosely, it could better convey the original meter and rhyme. But then, I'm no poet: "...for numbers we lack, and having no almanac,... but the date over here is the same over there; so give us a kiss, you know where!" —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 01:22 Z

Your corrections to my translation are right on the money, thanks Mzajac! It is much better. The only thing I changed was “...the devil excretes...” back to “...the devil shits...” both because it renders the original connotation more closely and because it rhymes with “eats” better. I believe it would be hard to improve the translation any more now. Freederick 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shit doesn't rhyme with eat.

It does have a rhythm which reflects the rhyme in the original. But a closer translation would probably be "the devil shits it out and your army shovels it in", "wolfs it down", or "gobbles it up". Požyraty has the sense of eating like an animal, rather than ïsty like a person. —Michael Z. 2008-05-14 08:58 z

Transposing the original document into modern english doesn't do anyone a service. Adding Fuck and Shit every other sentence for shock value doesn't actually make the document any better, it just makes it look like a bunch of kids from 2007 wrote it rather than a group of Cossacks from the 17th century. You don't need to interpret the words for everyone and the actual insults (ex: excretes instead of shits) held a lot more weight as insults back then than they did now.

I disagree. The Cossacks used plain Slavic words and the translation, not "transposition", uses plain Anglo-Saxon ones, without adding anything. What exactly do you think 17th-c Cossacks were like? They drank a lot of horilka and told the Sultan to go fuck himself, crafting the reply in loving detail (and they probably bcc'd all of Christendom). It captures the original sense of the most vulgar note in the history of diplomatic relations. Bowdlerizing it with "crook in our maleness" and "sexual relations with your mother" wouldn't exactly make us look adult. —Michael Z. 2008-05-14 08:51 z

Inconsistency

The result of the conflict between the Ottomans & the Cossacks has been reported inconsistently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_IV suggests, the Ottomans won; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks suggests, the Cossacks won.

The incorrect one needs to be corrected.

Eberber 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)eberber

The Cossacks were in a constant fight with the Ottomans (and also with the Moscovites and Poles), with some temporary alliances being formed with either side from time to time. There were victories and times when each party was defeated. Since we are not clear to which battle these letters refer, we could keep both sources.

The idea behind this vulgar letter is hard to grasp but I'll try to explain. Imagine that you and your friend are walking in a narrow street in the middle of the night and come across a gang with knives. They tell you to give them your wallets. But you're brave guys and you want to fight, so you try to insult them as deep as possible to make them angry and provoke to false moves. Whether it is wise or not I do not know, but it is definitely not (only) because they drank so much horilka. They were fighting for every day of their lives, ready to fight for their freedom or die. When your lifestyle is so dangerous humor must be helping a lot. kura440 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The letter is not a fact

There is nothing about this letter in the Ottoman archives. Someone should add something like that: It is not certain that letter reached to the Mehmed Han 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.231.138 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about the article

My brother pointed me to this article as being highly enjoyable, and so it is. However, reading the talk page I do have some concerns.

First, there seems to be general agreement on the talk page here that the letter is "a fake". But as far as I can see, the article does not say so at all! The reader is mislead into thinking that this was an actual letter. The talk page is unclear as well: a fake by whom? when? Is the entire story apocryphal?

Second, the translation currently on the page differs from those given here on the talk page, and no source or explanation is given. If we need a high quality translation from Ukranian, I'm sure we can get that easily enough by asking some Ukranian Wikipedians to come help us out. But surely one exists in an academic source already?

My view is that the translation should attempt, in modern English, to properly convey to the reader the "tone" of the original. There's a big difference between "screw your mother", "fuck your mother" and, indeed, "fuck thy mother". "Screw" is more polite - did they use a polite word in Ukranian for humorous effect? "Your" versus "thy" suggests in modern English a bit of wry formality, the use of old fashioned formal langauge to convey a crude sentiment - is that in the original?

It's really important, as always, that we get it right!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like people were really just quoting one article, which looks very scholarly with its PDF formatting, but does not cite any reason why the letter might be a fake. Looking to the Russian-language sources linked here, I see that an actual copy of the letter was found by a fellow named Новицкий. However, no further detail is provided. If you want real proof that the letter is real, we will have to go deeper. Nobody seems to have done the research to determine whether the letter is in the Sultan's archives, if indeed he has any. Shii (tock) 12:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sultan's letter to Cossacks is a fake

The letter shown here was obviously not written by Sultan Mehmet IV. It says he's the "brother of the sun and moon" and "son of God." At no time in history did Turkic leaders claim such titles.96.55.169.186 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

21st century add-ons?

There are some expressions in this Wikiedia article which are missing in the translation given in reference [1]: That reference does not mention "slay a hedgehog with your naked ass" and "son of a bitch" and '"fuck thy mother" and "goat-fucker" and "screw thine own mother". I'm not a linguist, but I have the impression that "son of a bitch" and the f*** word are rather modern, anglo-saxon curses that may have been added lately. Reilinger (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

They are in the original version, which dates at least to the 18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.220.146.21 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ilja Jefimowitsch Repin - Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks - Yorck.jpg

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ilja Jefimowitsch Repin - Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks - Yorck.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 23, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-04-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks is an oil on canvas painting completed by Ilya Repin from 1880 to 1891. It depicts Cossacks of the Zaporozhian Host writing a reply filled with vulgarities and invectives to an ultimatum from Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV. The 203 cm × 358 cm (80 in × 141 in) work is now held at the Russian Museum in Saint Petersburg.Painting: Ilya Repin

A section on the Ukrainian article

There is a chart on the Ukrainian article that seems to describe specific characters in this painting. I myself only know extremely rudimentary Ukrainian, bits and pieces heard around the house, but perhaps someone who is more fluent could review the extra details on the Ukrainian articles about this painting and perhaps add them if they can be verified? Thank you very much. Sphecidae (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong painting name

The actual name of this painting in Russian is "Запорожцы", just a one word. The most proper translation in English would be "Zaporozhian Cossacks". Nothing else. The following link is an official site of the State Russian Museum (formerly the Russian Museum of His Imperial Majesty Alexander III) in Saint Petersburg. http://www.virtualrm.spb.ru/node/2522 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.218.50 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This article has many problems and the letters might be full hoax

Why doesn't anyone question this? The sources seem dubious, and no academic source reporting this. Not a single Turkish source reporting about these letters. Thoughts? Plus a lot of absurd expressions exist like son of Muhammad (what), brother of moon (huh?). @Kansas Bear: what do you think? Shouldn't this letter section be deleted completely? And this article is originally about a painting supposedly "Cossacks sending letter". Search this on google, a lot of internet people thinks this is actually real. Unbelievable. Beshogur (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah they probably are, but the painting exists. The article shouldn't be tagged for factual accuracy because the main statements of fact is that the painting exists, Repin painted it, Alexander bought it, and so forth. That stuff is probably all true.

As to the incident, the article does say "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks depicts a supposedly historical tableau, set in 1676, and based on the legend of Cossacks sending a reply to an ultimatum...". So that's getting pretty close to what you want I guess? It'd be reasonable to sprinkle in a couple more "supposedly"s and "according to the story"s in there I guess; have at it.

The thing that bother me is this passage:

The original reply, if it ever existed, has not survived; however, in the 1870s an amateur ethnographer from Yekaterinoslav (today Dnipro), Ya. Novitsky, found a copy made in the 18th century. He gave it to historian Dmytro Yavornytsky (1855–1940), who by chance read it to his guests, among whom was the painter Ilya Repin. Repin became curious about the story and in 1880 started the first of his studies.[citation needed]

We need the citation, and I'm skeptical that Novitsky's copy was necessarily authentic, he could have made it himself, or somebody earlier could have? Where is it now? If it's lost, how can it be authenticated?

Without a citation, we can't keep this passages. In the meantime, I've hedged the language of the passage around with some more hedging. Is this sufficient to remove the tag? Herostratus (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: The problem is, the content of the letters. It's so absurd claiming an Ottoman sultan would write this, I've never seen a similar text to that, doubt any other person saw it as well. Plus, why would you remove a cn tag on a sentence without a source? I don't care if the Cossacks wrote a letter back then, the problem is not with the painting but the context looks clearly fabricated. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not talking about removing the CN tag, I'm talking about removing the unsupported material. I don't think the entire should be tagged with the big tag at the top tho. But let's keep it until we can source a more definite ref that the story is probably fake, which is very likely. Herostratus (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: you could replace factual accuracy tag, if there is, to the context section. Don't know how to do it. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Alright, I fixed it, bringing in a long article from a scholarly journal. I noted that's no evidence that incident actually occurred. Then I removed both tags. OK now? (I did leave in one little bit that the matter is disputed; the ref for that is not great but it's OK I guess. Gogol might have just made the story up, but he might have heard it somewhere, and it's not impossible that the tale has some basis in reality; some old stories turn out to do.) Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

might be a bit late, but the original story paragraph does not have a citation or reference at all to atleast check that someone actually listed the story itself. let alone, if the letter is authentic or not. the rest of the article does note the lack of evidence supporting the version of events, but the actual paragraph looks filled with details with no inline citation to atleast verify the source of the legend/folk tale. DiztractedAnalcyst (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian MPs recreate “Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks” painting

Is this notable enough to be included among the cultural references? https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1414877329676021778

Ukrainian MPs have recreated the famous “Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks” painting by Ilya Repin as they pen a response to Vladimir Putin’s absurd “Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” essay

also relevant: ukrainian soldiers recreate the painting https://i.imgur.com/K0tFVjx.jpg 79.180.251.162 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

141.77.225.60 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Restored Repin's ethnic/nationality to opening line

I have restored the comment about Repin's ethnicity / nationality to the opening line, for three reasons. First, for a painting that has an ethnic / nationalism theme, knowing the background of the painter is important for context in appreciating and understanding the artwork. Second, Repin's background helps to illustrate the complex relationship between Russia and Ukraine, extending well into the past. Third, the painter's nationality is commonly included in other Wikipedia articles on paintings, such as The Last Supper (Leonardo), Lady Agnew of Lochnaw by Sargent, The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo, Assumption of the Virgin (El Greco), and Guernica (Picasso). The example of Guernica is particularly similar: a painting with clear political themes about Fascist Spain, painted by a Spaniard. That gives significant insights into the painting itself, in a way that may not have been the case about a painting about Guernica from a non-Spaniard. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the examples you cited proves your point. For example, neither Picasso is described in the Guernica article as an "Andalusian-born Spanish painter", nor Sargent in the Lady Agnew article as a "Tuscan-born American painter", even though they were.

Given the current contentiousness and nationalist jousting involving matters relating to "ownership" of Russian and Ukrainian cultural heritage, I thought it best to omit any mention of nationality in the lead lest my edit be incorrectly perceived as favoring one "side" over the other. According to sources in Repin's article, he regarded himself as being ethnically Russian, not Ukrainian. Your preferred wording implies he was a Russian citizen of Ukrainian ethnicity, which is misleading. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

French photographer has recreated a 2023 homage with a (complicated) photo

French photographer Émeric Lhuisset has recreated the painting "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks" (c. 1890, by Ukrainian artist Illia Repin) by using soldiers of the 112th Territorial Defense Brigade of Ukraine during the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, in 2023. Amazing detail. The photo has appeared on the photographer's Instagram page, but will await coverage in reliable source media before it could warrant mentioning in this article. — N2e (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)