The late origins of the glottonym “русский язык”

There is no evidence for the use of the glottonym “русский язык” as a name of the Slavic dialects of medieval Rus´ in medieval texts until the mid-13th century. In its beginnings, the term obviously referred to a Scandinavian language: the language of the Varangians.

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 andMoser, 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/), 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-13 th century, i.e., the aftermath of the collapse of this medieval state under the pressure of the Mongols (who conquered Kyiv in 1240). 4 The following well-known entry in the Rusʼ chronicle for the year of 898 could serve as a possible counterexample at first sight: Словѣнескъ ꙗзыкъ и Рускыи ѡдинъ. Ѿ Варѧгъ бо прозвашасѧ Русью. а пѣрвѣє бѣша Словѣне. аще и Полѧне звахусѧ. н о̑С ловѣньскаꙗ рѣчь бѣ. П о̑л ѧми же прозвашасѧ. занеже в полѣ сѣдѧху. ꙗзыкъ Словѣньскыи бѣ имъ єдинъ (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 "ꙗзыкъ [...] Рускыи" obviously does not refer to a language here. 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". 6 The vernacular language of the Slavs of Rus' is unequivocally labelled "Slavic".
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 кнѧзи 'dukes', вои 'warriors' 9 , or some territory, such as земля 'land' (very frequently), грады (городы) 'fortresses'. Only the entry s. a. 1252 reveals the first combinations with abstract nouns: самъ же ѣха подлѣ королѧ. по ѡбычаю Роускоу 'he himself went after the king according to Rus' habits' and ре ч̑е моу король не взѧлъ быхъ тъıсѧще серебра за то ѡже еси пришелъ. ѡбычаемь Роускимь ѡцв҃ ъ своихъ '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 устремленье 'striving').
[и] в послѣднии родъ внукъ твои х̑. и заповѣда єи ѡ цркв҃ нмь оуставѣ. ѡ м҃ лтвѣ и ѡ постѣ. ѡ милстни и ѡ въздержаньи тѣла чиста" (Laur. 61: s. a. 955): 'When Olga [or Ol'ha, M. M.] was enlightened, she rejoiced in soul and body. The Patriarch, who instructed her in the faith, said to her, 'Blessed art thou among the women of Rus', for thou hast loved the light, and quit the darkness. The sons of Rus' shall bless thee to the last generation of thy descendants.' He taught her the doctrine of the Church, and instructed her in prayer and fasting, in almsgiving, and in the maintenance of chastity' (RPC, 1953: 82).
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.
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 Пооученьѥ 'Instruction', pointed to the fact that his baptismal name (въ кр҃ щнїи) was Василии 'Vasilij', yet his name in the Rus' society was Volodymyr (Русьскъıмь именемь Володимиръ) (Laur.: s. a. 1096). This example is thus not a convincing proof that руськыи 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: ꙗкоже бо ѡц҃ ь мои дома сѣдѧ. изумѣꙗше. е҃ . ꙗзъıкъ; 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 нашь ꙗзъıкъ or something similar, but we lack any evidence for this expression from medieval sources.
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: иже и сказаємо гречьскыи, єже єсть гречьскы; єлиньскы [...] нарицаєть; єврѣискы [...] нарицається 'as it is called in Greek', 'as it is put in Hebrew', etc. (Nimčuk, 1980: 18 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 рускый ꙗзыкъ do not reveal it.
Only since the 13 th century the glottonym can be found in Old Rusan glossaries that were usually based on Greek models. The first glossary is labeled О именьхъ и гл҃ емыхъ жидовсьскымь ꙗзыкъмь. Сказано. И преложено неразоумноє на разоумъ (this glossary is part of a 13 th -century collection with no precise dating); the two following glossaries do use the glottonym that is at stake: А се имена жидовьская. роуськы тълкована; Рѣчь жидовьскаго. ꙗзыка. преложена на роускоую. Неразумно. На разоумъ, и въ єванг҃ лихъ. И въ ап҃ (с)лхъ. и въ псалтыри. и в пармиѣ. И въ прочихъ книгахъ (the last text is part of the Novgorod Kormčaja of 1282) (Nimčuk, 1980: 21-25). Another quite short glossary entitled Тол(ъ)кованїє языка половец(ъ)ко(г)[о] пер(ъ)віє половец(ъ)ки. А опослѣ роускы has been preserved in late copies of the 16 th 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 рускыи ꙗзыкъ denoting the Slavic language(s) of one of the Rus' realms' is that its first attestations stem from the late 13 th 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 16 th century. At the same time, it should be added that as soon as the glottonym рускыи ꙗзыкъ 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-13 th century, the label рускыи ꙗзыкъ is thus to a certain extent anachronistic.
Funding Open access funding provided by University of Vienna. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.