# Hansa and Novgorod (by Alexey Khrustalyov)



## Sasyexa (Jan 20, 2022)

A translation of an interesting chapter from A. Khrustalyov's second part of the book "Галльское Евангелие":

*Hansa and Novgorod*​There is such an interesting study by E.R. Squire and S.N. Ferdinand called "Hansa and Novgorod: Linguistic Aspects of Historical Contacts". It's quite amusing! The authors shoveled through a significant layer of documents from the archives of Lübeck and РГАДА and painted a very colorful picture of the linguistic interpenetration of the Old Russian and Middle Low German languages. Particular attention in the book is given to Russian words and phrases borrowed into the German language. Squire and Ferdinand, focusing on pure philology, avoid far-reaching conclusions, however, the unique linguistic material collected and analyzed by scientists can push the reader to a very unorthodox assessment of medieval Europe.

But first things first. First, about the dates. It is curious that the first trade agreement, testifying to Russian-Hanseatic contacts, dates back to the end of the 12th century and was written in Old Russian. Not in Latin, not in German, but in Old Russian. But the first surviving sources in the Hansa languages date back only to the 60s of the XIII century. At the same time, throughout the 13th century, Latin in the documents of the Hansa still competes with German. The authors of the book rightly point out that until that time all office work in German cities and magistrates was carried out exclusively in Latin, and "folk" German was still in its infancy. In contrast to Old Russian, which was not only spoken, but was also used in written laws and drafted treaty letters. How, after stating this fact, one can take seriously the "etymologies" of Fasmer and his followers, Squire and Ferdinand do not specify, which is a pity.

However, it is not the dates in the document flow between the Hansa and Novgorod that are most interesting, not the dates at all. It is curious what figures of speech are used to build contracts between Russian and Hanseatic guests, what formulas are used by various contracting parties, what vocabulary they use, what monetary and weight equivalents are taken into account. It would seem that behind the shoulders of the German comrades - all the power and history of Roman law with its clear and understandable definitions and refined formulas.

Yes, and the language of the Hansa until the XIII century, it seems, was exclusively Latin. After all, the trading brethren did not live in Novgorod alone until the end of the 12th century!? German merchants traded in Holland, and in England, and in Denmark, and in Scotland, and everywhere the language of contracts was Latin, and in Holland right up to 1380, and in Denmark - until the middle of the 15th century. And everywhere - the same means of payment, conditions, lists, formulas of exchange and guarantee. And suddenly, for the sake of trade with some provincial Novgorod, everything turns upside down. Old Russian becomes the main language of letters (and translations into Latin and German are already being made from it), Russian formulas of obligation, cross-kissing, petitions, etc. are introduced into all letters, torn into Latin and German. A huge number of new words and terms related to trade and settlements are borrowed into the German language.

However, why am I speaking only in slogans?! It's time to give examples from the book. Fortunately, Squire and Ferdinand did a great job and created a unique reference book for those interested in the topic of linguistic contacts between the Hansa and Novogrod.

So, firstly about the formulas. For example, about the formula of cross-kissing, one of the most significant in the legal practice of Rus'. For the Hanseatic people, brought up in a different legal field, this formula simply did not exist before contacts with Novgorod. However, for Russians, the reference to the kissing of the cross was strictly obligatory, as a result of which the phrase dat kruze küssen (to kiss the cross, to seal with an oath) appears in German. And this phrase began to be used not only in trade, but also in diplomatic documents. No less widespread are the Russian formulas of guarantee - _на княжей руке _[on the hand of a knyaz'] (uppe des koninges hant) and _выдать/взять на поруки _(de hant don/nemen). The Russian formula _бить челом_ [to bow, literally - to beat with a forehead] (syn/eren houet slan) entered the clerical circulation, and the formula of the beginning _к нам приехали_ [(someone) drove to us] (hir sint gekommen), and the formula _докончать (мир) _[to establish peace, literally - to end peace] - endigen+... Idioms like that existed neither in Roman law, nor in the German law which grew up on its basis. However, the Hanseatic people not only put up with the presence of foreign legal formulas in business and diplomatic documents, but also began to use some of them themselves. This raises an interesting question: who, in fact, ordered music in bilateral trade? And whose legal field was more prepared and familiar for agreements of the type that were concluded between the Hansa and Novgorod? Given the fact that the translation was always carried out from Russian into Latin or German, and not vice versa, it can be assumed that the contractors adjusted to a more convenient and well-functioning system of Russian law, and did not seek adventures on their own fifth point in the troubled waters of Roman law. Or the Roman law in the form in which we know it today simply did not exist yet, and trading people exchanged guarantees and formulas that were familiar and understandable at that time, most clearly formulated in the Old Russian language.

By the way, a slight non-lyrical digression about translations and translators. Both words that are now available in German to designate a translator, by an amazing coincidence, came either directly from the Russian language, or through Russian. The first word is tolk, the second is tolmetzer. In Old Russian _толкъ_ is a translator [In Russian _толк_ also means sense, the verb _толковать _means to explain] (here even Fasmer does not sternly object that the Germans grabbed the word from Russian). The noun _толмач _(interpreter), borrowed by the Russians from the Turkic peoples, ended up with the Germans through the Russian language. Did the Germans really not have such a thing as translation, that they were forced to take words to designate this kind of activity from the Russians? Or did the Germans not have a language barrier as a class before meeting with the Russians? Or was the German language in such an embryonic state that it could not really be transferred to another language? In fact, it is very likely that such a civilizational phenomenon as translation turned out to be a curiosity for many German-speaking people and a symbol of the new time. Otherwise, how can one explain that the Russian _толкъ_ has been fixed as the main word not only in German, but also in Dutch, Old Norse and other languages? Didn't they know a single dialect other than their own? Have they even heard of Latin? Yes-Yes. I believe. How not to believe?! But the funniest transformation happened with the word _толкъ_ in English. There, as you know, talk means _conversation_ (if it's a noun) or _speaking_ (if it's a verb). English etymologists, without blinking their shameless eyes, report that the word _talk _appeared in their native language exactly in the 13th century, but they refuse to bring the details of the magical appearance to the general public. Indeed, who admits that he learned to _talk _at an age when a normal person is already supposed to think in abstract categories?! But this is exactly what happens with the English gentlemen. If only in the thirteenth century they found out that they could talk, what were they doing before that? Apparently, Ulyan the Conqueror had such an effect on their fragile brains that they sat with water in their mouths, right up to the very Hanseatic coming, when they got the opportunity to join the orderly ranks of European merchants. Or was the native language of the islanders not quite English?

Well, okay, let's get back from talking to practice. Let me remind you that the point was that the Hansa did not disdain the achievements of the Novgorod legal school at all, despite the rich experience of Roman law, which should have hovered over German cities and villages. What is the area of law! As Squire and Ferdinand convincingly show, the Germans, with a feeling of deep satisfaction, drew from the Russian civilizational piggy bank concepts hitherto unknown to them. And if such borrowings as _соболь_ (sable) or _ласка _(weasel) can still be somehow justified (these animals were not found in Europe), then explaining why the Germans fished out other Russian words into their language, within the framework of traditional linguistics and history is almost impossible. Tell me, why did the Hanseatics need such words as borane (Old Russian боранъ) to denote sheepskin, teletein for _calfskin_ [_телёнок_ (telyonok) is a calf and _телятина _(telyatina) is calf meat] and kunnini to describe _horse skin _[_конь_ (kon') is a male horse and _конина _(konina) is horse meat]? Did they not have their own words for this? Or have they never seen horses in their lives? Why would they need terms for such mundane things? Or were they (the Germans) so wild that they did not have any technology for processing leather? If the latter, then what is to be done with the kulturtrager theory of great civilizers bringing enlightenment to backward Russia? And why did the Hanseatic guests need to borrow the word _деньга _[(den'ga), money)]? Have they never heard of denarii and denier? But what about the stories about the fact that almost from the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, these coins were in use throughout Europe, especially in the territories of the empire of Charlemagne? Or did they not yet know about this outstanding Charlemagne?

Even funnier is the borrowing of the Russian word _пяток_ (pettken) to refer to 50 handfuls of flax or hemp. One wonders, did the word _fifty _not exist in German at that time? Or, after 50 handfuls of hemp, is it easier to say "pettken" than anything else? It becomes fun when it turns out that the Germans, unable to resist, capitalized the word _рядъ _[(ryad), a row] in their lexically rich and syntactically developed language. No, it’s clear that the further reide (raid, that is, a row for ships) has nothing to do with the Russian word, according to linguists, but thanks already that the fact of borrowing the word row is recognized at least at some level. And if we are talking about ships, then here is an example on this topic: from the Russian _лодия _[(lodia), a boat], the German loddie turned out, and then loddienman (rooksman, helmsman). It is curious that the _ладья_ also migrated to the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, as if these guys had never worked as Vikings and Varangians and knew about the ships only from the sagas.

But most of all, of course, I was pleased with the borrowing of the Russian word _боярин_ [boyar] into German. Pleased not with the fact that it happened as such, but with the way it happened, that is, in what form. For example, in the singular it looks like this: boyerne. Nice. It’s just curious, but did the Germans never confuse the Russian boyars with their native Bavaria? The Bavaria in German is Bayern. Moreover, etymologically, this toponym is erected to the semi-mythical Celtic tribe of the Boii - immigrants from Bohemia. Or maybe everything is easier? And the Bavarians are just boyar children? That is, the same boyars, only in profile? And the land belongs to them by the right of high origin, and not because some Boii came from somewhere? However, this is already out of the realm of conjecture.

And the facts... the facts show that a considerable number of Russian words and concepts migrated to the German language _free of charge (that is, for nothing)_ as a result of trade interaction between the Hansa and Russia. However, as linguistic data show, borrowings went not only into German, but also into Latin. An excellent example of this kind of wandering of the Russian word into Romano-Germanic dialects is the transition of the lexeme _мордка_ (marten skin) into English _marten_, French _martre_, Italian _martora_, German _Marder_, Latin _capita martarorum_, etc. In any etymological dictionary, you will read that all of the above words rest on a Germanic root of unknown origin. And they will rest until gentlemen Western etymologists learn the Russian language and find out that the Germans borrowed the word _мордка _[морда means muzzle] from the Novgorodians. After all, even authors writing in Russian every time seem to apologize for the fact that the Germans borrowed something from the Old Russian language, and try to belittle the significance of words that have passed into the Germanic languages. The creators of the monograph on linguistic contacts between Novgorod and the Hansa are no exception. Frightened by the huge number of borrowings discovered, Squire and Ferdinand do not refrain from commenting at the end that, they say, of course, there are many borrowings, but not as many as from German to Russian (according to Fasmer, of course), and their significance is not so great, as it may seem at first, second, third and even fifty-ninth glance. In short, we have dug up a lot of things here and the facts are there, but do not worry too much, because where is Germany and where are we! On this optimistic note, the authors wind up, almost without starting, a discussion about the role of Slavic influence on the German language. And yet - the work turned out excellent. Albeit without far-reaching conclusions, but with a huge amount of factual material that can be used. For which I give huge respect to Squire and Ferdinand.


----------



## iseidon (Jan 20, 2022)

In general, as far as our language is concerned... There's a lot of work to be done. And the most important thing is to open people's eyes. In our country they don't even see how beautiful our language is. We have almost entirely (compared to Western and other languages) the principle of "an audible sound - a writable letter. The rules of the Russian language (which I am sure were written by the forces that want to destroy the Russian language) are just aimed at breaking this connection. (Жи-Жы, Ши-Шы, Ци-Цы, Что-Што, Его-Ево etc.).

I have two options about the Russian language. Either it is closest to the conditional proto-language. Or it is an evolution of European languages. Either way, its position is one of the key ones.

I am not saying that we have all natural basic single sounds represented in the alphabet. As a consequence, we do not need to make letters out of letters.

Almost all modern borrowings are made with the violation of this key connection, which also indicates subversion. (Интернет-Интэрнэт, Менеджер-Мэнэджэр etc).

In fact, the only thing is to change the appearance of a number of letters to make them easier for the brain to perceive. (Ё, Й, Ы, Э).


----------



## Sasyexa (Jan 21, 2022)

iseidon said:


> We have almost entirely (compared to Western and other languages) the principle of "an audible sound - a writable letter





iseidon said:


> Almost all modern borrowings are made with the violation of this key connection, which also indicates subversion. (Интернет-Интэрнэт, Менеджер-Мэнэджэр etc).



The Slavonic language follows this principle more closely, although not perfectly as well. It has lost some of its vowel variation and nasal sounds in particular. An interesting fact is that Polish still retains nasal sounds. The foreign words (usually Greek) were also clearly marked in the Slavonic language by the increased use of Greek letters. I wonder how Glagolitic was pronounced. Considering that глаголить (glagolit') means to speak.

Allegedly, before the 1950s, the Boykos from the Carpathians could read and understand Old Russian script much better than the modern Ukrainian or Russian of that time. They speak what's called a Rusyn language. Makes sense if the written language was based on some Pannonian Slavic dialect.

It doesn't make the origin of Germanic languages any less mysterious though, and where did the more western Slavs go?


----------



## iseidon (Jan 21, 2022)

Sasyexa said:


> It has lost some of its vowel variation and nasal sounds in particular. An interesting fact is that Polish still retains nasal sounds.


 I am not sure that the derived nasal sounds from the pure "m" and "n" are pure and single and not some defect of the speakers. In my opinion, these defects are purposely put forward by members of the linguistic and phonetic community, in the vanguard of a number of languages, in order to further fragment languages. The same, I believe, has been done, for example, with the "th" sound in English, which many people pronounce differently even within the same language group. Some are closer to "s," some are closer to "f," and some are closer to "t."


----------



## Sasyexa (Jan 21, 2022)

iseidon said:


> I am not sure that the derived nasal sounds from the pure "m" and "n" are pure and single and not some defect of the speakers. In my opinion, these defects are purposely put forward by members of the linguistic and phonetic community, in the vanguard of a number of languages, in order to further fragment languages. The same, I believe, has been done, for example, with the "th" sound in English, which many people pronounce differently even within the same language group. Some are closer to "s," some are closer to "f," and some are closer to "t."


It's not a defect, there must have been a reason for letters such as this - *ѫ*, *ѧ*, *ѩ*, *ѭ *or *Ⱘ*, *Ⱔ*, *Ⱗ*, *Ⱙ *to exist, other than for decoration purposes. 

I agree that English orthography is horrible. "Th" sound has a better differentiation in other languages, for example in the form of *þ *or *Θ*. The first half of the book quoted in the OP talks about the falsification of the English history. The language seems new and unsuited for the Latin alphabet.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 21, 2022)

Sasyexa said:


> I agree that English orthography is horrible. "Th" sound has a better differentiation in other languages,



"Th"ere is a Russian Stolenhistory forum "th"at may not offend your sensibilities quite so much.


----------



## iseidon (Jan 21, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> "Th"ere is a Russian Stolenhistory forum "th"at may not offend your sensibilities quite so much.


It doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. 

We are merely stating a fact. In Western European languages there is often a situation where one sound is expressed using two or more letters. This is neither good nor bad. It is simply a fact. 

If someone ever does unify languages, such letter combinations will be gotten rid of in favor of single letters (their substitutes) anyway. 

But that is a thing of the very distant future. If it ever comes to that.

And on the Russian forum... Russians do not come to foreign sites to communicate with Russians. We have enough sites of our own. We (those who go beyond Runet) are interested in learning, sharing and exchanging opinions with all the nations of the world. I think the same is true for most of the nations and users here on the site.

It is just that in this case (concerning the spelling of English), on the part of Slavic (especially Cyrillic) languages, the inconvenience, of writing a number of sounds in Western European languages, seems obvious.


----------

