During the past decades, it has increasingly become uncommon to refer to issues pertaining to Medieval Rus’ as “Old Russian”, instead of “Old Rusan”. At the sime time, first of all Russian scholars usually insist on using the term “древнерусский”, arguing that russkij has two “closely related” meanings: 1. ‘Russian’, 2. ‘pertaining to Medieval Rus’. However, the difference between these meanings is in fact enormous, let alone the fact that many Old Rusan texts do not belong to the history of the Russian language as such, but rather to the history of the Ukrainian or Belarusan language (let alone the issue of Church Slavonic). Furthermore, based on the widespread notion of some imagined quasi-unified “Old Russian” language, a number of striking territorial differences within the territories—and even the former territories—of Medieval Rus’ get lost against the background of the “larger picture”. To give just one example: various lexical entries in the SRJa XI–XIV lead users to the erroneous conclusion that they are typical of “Old Russian” in general. A closer look reveals that they are testified in documents from comparatively small regions only (Moser, 2011: 19–39). The situation is the same at all other linguistic levels.

While fully sharing the enthusiasm about the language of medieval Novgorod (Zaliznjak, 2004),Footnote 1 it remains a mystery how the uniqueness of this language has not yet erased the traditional views of a (more or less) unitarian “Old Russian” language.Footnote 2 Mere logic based on a combination of the findings of George Shevelov (1979) and Andrei Zaliznjak (2004) barely allows for any other conclusion than the following: A unitarian language of Medieval Rus’ never existed. What is at stake are Slavic dialects that were divided at a quite early stage (see the palatalization of velars etc.) and then developed some common or closely related features, but at the same time split up increasingly. These Slavic dialects were later used as a basis for the formation of separate languages, namely Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusan and earlier written varieties. It is only misleading to label these dialects “Old Russian” as long as we are not only dealing with dialects that actually served as a foundation for the formation of the Russian (and not the Ukrainian or Belarusan) language. As primarily scholars of Ukrainian studies have been arguing for decades, such dialects can be reasonably labeled Proto-Russian, Proto-Ukrainian, or Proto-Belarusan (see Shevelov, 1979 or also Schaller, 1990, who opts for the term “Altostslavisch”, i.e.: Old East Slavic). At least in the beginnings, the superregional vernacular-based written varieties of medieval Rus’ were obviously oriented toward the language of Kyiv (and were thus not Russian by origin; for a discussion see Zaliznjak, 2004: 7 and Moser, 2016: 6–13).

Aside from that, it should be considered that even the glottonomy of the early centuries does not offer any justification for the traditional approach. It is of course true that to our knowledge, nobody used the term “Ukrainian language” in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, it is much less well known when precisely the term rusьskъјь jazykъ (< językъ) referring to Slavic varieties came into being. An examination of electronic editions of the Rus chronicles (Hyp., Laur, Novg.), electronically edited anthologies of written texts of Medieval Rus’ (Bilec’kyj, 1952) (these sources are edited on the site http://litopys.org.ua/),Footnote 3 historical dictionaries (SRJa 11–17, 1975; Sreznevskij, 1958), and other sources (see below) reveals results that might come as a surprise: The term was never employed to refer to a Slavic dialect of Rusʼ in medieval written sources up to the mid-13th century, i.e., the aftermath of the collapse of this medieval state under the pressure of the Mongols (who conquered Kyiv in 1240).Footnote 4

The following well-known entry in the Rusʼ chronicle for the year of 898 could serve as a possible counterexample at first sight:

(Hyp.: s. a. 898).

But the Slavs and the Russes are one people, for it is because of the Varangians that the latter became known as Rus’, though originally they were Slavs. While some Slavs were termed Polyanians, their speech was still Slavic, for they were known as Polyanians because they lived in the fields. But they had the same Slavic language (RPC, 1953, 63).

We fully agree with by Samuel Hazard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, the translators of the 1953 English-language edition of the Primary Chronicle, that the term “ [...] ” obviously does not refer to a language here.Footnote 5 What the chronicler actually told us was that the “Slavic people” and the “Rusʼ” people (i.e., the Varangians and their closest allies) were together “as one”, and that the latter were called “Rusʼ” from the “Varangians”.Footnote 6 The vernacular language of the Slavs of Rus’ is unequivocally labelled “Slavic”.

We will not elaborate on the development of the term “Rusʼ” here again (see Hens’ors’kyj, 1962 [with some exaggerations, M. M.]; Moser & Vakoulenko, 2019).Footnote 7 Instead, we continue our focus on glottonymic issues and start with a reference to Constantine VII Porphyrogennētos (Porphyrogenitus) (Greek: Κωνσταντῖνος Πορφυρογέννητος; 905–959), who, in his De administrando imperio, listed almost all names of the Dnipro rapids in two languages, as in ‘Ρωσιστì μèν, Οὐλβορσì, Σκλαβενιστì δè, ’Οστροβουνíπραχ (Rhōsisti men, Oulvorsi, Sklavenisti de, Ostroouniprach) (cf. Šaxmatov & Kryms’kyj, 1924: 11; CP, 1967: 58); “called in RusanFootnote 8 Oulvorsi, and in Slavonic Ostrovouniprach” (CP, 1967: 59). As in this example, all “Rusan” names are Scandinavic (here: Ulvorsi = Holmfors), which is in perfect accordance with the semantic development of the term Rus’ itself. The Slavic name is Ostrovuniprah (оstrovьnyjь pragъ), whereby the rendering of the Slavic name as in pragъ (instead of East Slavic porogъ) obviously betrays the South Slavic background of Constantineʼs Slavic-speaking officials (Struminsky, 1996; see also RPC, 1953: 41–42).

In the oldest entries of the Hypatios Chronicle and other manuscripts the adjectival form rusьskyjь almost exclusively refers to nouns designing social roles such as ‘dukes’, ‘warriors’Footnote 9, or some territory, such as ‘land’ (very frequently), () ‘fortresses’. Only the entry s. a. 1252 reveals the first combinations with abstract nouns: ‘he himself went after the king according to Rus’ habits’ and ‘and the king told him, ‘I would not have taken one thousand of silber pieces only because you have come according to the Rus’ habits of your forefathers’ (both examples from Hyp. 814: s. a. 1252; afterwards we encounter a combination with the nomen actionis ‘striving’).

The entry for the year 945 in the Laurentius Chronicle cites the treaties between Constantinople and Rus’ and refers to the law and statutes of Rus’ as opposed to Greek law:

“” (Laur.: s. a. 945).

The Chronicle also tells us something about Jaroslav “the Wise” and his qualities and activities:

(Laur.: s. a. 1037)

Yaroslav loved religious establishments and was devoted to priests, especially to monks. He applied himself to books, and read them continually day and night. He assembled many scribes and, and translated from Greek into Slavic. He wrote and collected many books through which true believers are instructed and enjoy religious education (RPC, 1953: 137).

Although the language referred to as “the Slavic language” was in fact Church Slavonic it deserves to be mentioned that the word Rusan was not used in this context either.

All other entries for in the Laurentius Chronicle refer to territories, rulers, etc. There are only few exceptions. A reference to Ol’ha mentions “Rusan cognizance”, but the other manuscripts have a more convincing wording: , i.e., “cognizance of the land of Rus’”:

(Laur.: s. a. 969).

Thus we say to her, “Rejoice in the Russes’ knowledge of God” [or rather: in the cognizance of the Rus’ land, M. M.]”, for we were the first fruits of their reconciliation with Him. She was the first from Rus’ to enter the kingdom of God, and the sons of Rus’ thus praise her as their leader, for since her death she has interceded with God in their behalf” (RPC, 1953: 86–87).

Volodymyr Monomakh, in his ‘Instruction’, pointed to the fact that his baptismal name () was ‘Vasilij’, yet his name in the Rus’ society was Volodymyr () (Laur.: s. a. 1096). This example is thus not a convincing proof that was used in a linguistic meaning either. Aside from that, Monomakh emphasized that his father, because he had been sitting at home, had acquired a command of five languages: ; Laur.: s. a. 1096), yet unfortunately, nothing can be read about which particular languages the chronicler had in mind. Most probably, he would have referred to the vernacular varieties and Church Slavonic in the same way, employing the term ‘Slavic’. He might also have written or something similar, but we lack any evidence for this expression from medieval sources.

The entry for 1243 again unequivocally refers to the people, not to the language:

[most likely erroneously for: (Laur.: s. a. 1243).

Grand Duke Jaroslav went to the Tatars to Batu and sent his son Konstantin to the Khan. And Batu greatly honored Jaroslav and his men. And he released him and said to him: “Jaroslav, be the eldest of all dukes among the Rus’ people!” And Jaroslav returned to his land with great honor (my own translation).

Only the Slavic, not the “Rusan” language was thus mentioned in the oldest texts (first of all, in the chronicles). Aside, not surprisingly, some foreign languages were mentioned, particularly Greek and Hebrew, which were also referred to in Old Rusan glosses: , ; [...] ; [...] ‘as it is called in Greek’, ‘as it is put in Hebrew’, etc. (Nimčuk, 1980: 18). Other peoples were regarded as mute, as mentioned in reference to Finno-Ugrian peoples of Rus’: (Hyp.: s. a. 1096) ‘[The Yugra] are an alien [literally: mute, M. M.] people dwelling with the Samoyedes’ (RPC, 1953: 184).

But since when was the expression employed with reference to the Slavic dialects of Rus’? The oldest examples can be encountered in quite late entries. One of them could be found s. a. 1261; at the same time, this is the only example of the noun in the Galician-Wolhynian Chronicle altogether:

[Chlebnikov und Pogodin manuscripts: ]. (Hyp.: s. a. 1261).Footnote 10

And with Vasyl’ko he sent three Tatars named Kujčyj, Ašyk, and Boliuk, and, in addition, a translator who understood the Rus’ language (my own translation).

Obviously, it comes not as a surprise that glottonyms are first and foremost employed when an opposition to other languages makes a difference, but even those fragments of medieval chronicles and law texts which might have given an opportunity to employ the term do not reveal it.

Only since the 13th century the glottonym can be found in Old Rusan glossaries that were usually based on Greek models. The first glossary is labeled (this glossary is part of a 13th-century collection with no precise dating); the two following glossaries do use the glottonym that is at stake: ; (the last text is part of the Novgorod Kormčaja of 1282) (Nimčuk, 1980: 21–25). Another quite short glossary entitled has been preserved in late copies of the 16th century only; Vasyl’ Nimčuk and others concurred that its original probably stems from late medieval Rusʼ too (Nimčuk, 1980).

An examination of a broad sample of medieval Rusan texts and all extant historical dictionaries of the Russian and the Ukrainian languages thus leads us to the conclusion that everything we can say with some certainty about the glottonym denoting the Slavic language(s) of one of the Rus’ realms’ is that its first attestations stem from the late 13th century only: In SRJa 11–17 (1975), e.g., the oldest entries for the adjective and the adverb with reference to language stem from the 16th century. At the same time, it should be added that as soon as the glottonym was coined it did not only refer to the vernacular dialects of Rusʼ, but also to the Church Slavonic language. In reference to medieval Rusʼ prior to the mid-13th century, the label is thus to a certain extent anachronistic.