Category Archives: Customs

Christianus

Published Post author

The following comes from the Anonymous Christian Monk‘s Vita et passio sancti Wenceslai et sanctae Ludmilae avae eius that is “The Life and Passion of Saint Wenceslaus and His Grandmother Saint Ludmilla” aka Legenda Christiani aka Kristiánova legenda. The monk claimed to be the uncle of St. Vojtech (Adalbert) which would make this work significantly older than Cosmas’ “Chronicle of the Czechs”. There isn’t much new here but since Meyer threw this in into his compilation of Suav religious sources, we give it here as well.

Chapter 2

“At vero Sclavi Boemi, ipso sub Arcturo positi, cultibus ydolatrie dediti, velut equus infrenis sine lege, sine ullo principe vel rectore vel urbe, uti bruta animalia sparsim vagantes, terram solam incolebant. Tandem pestilencie cladibus attriti, quandam phitonissam, ut fama fertur, adeunt, postulantes spiritum consilii responsumque divinacionis. Quo accepto civitatem statuunt, nomenque inponunt Pragam. Post hinc invento quodam sagacissimo atque prudentissimo viro, cui tantum agriculture officium erat, responsione phitonisse principem seu gubernatorem sibi statuunt, vocitatum cognomine Premizl, iuncta ei in matrimonio supramemorata phitonissa virgine.”

“But indeed the Bohemian Slavs, placed under Arcturus himself, devoted to idolatrous worship, like hellish horses without law, without any duke or governor or city, like brute animals roaming about scattered, inhabited the Earth alone. Finally, worn down by pestilence, they went to a certain soothsayer witch [this is a reference to Libuše, daughter of Krok], as the story goes, demanding the counsel of spirits and the answers of divination. After receiving this, they set up a city, and gave it the name Prague. Having found there a certain most shrewd and prudent man called by the name of Premizl, whose only vocation was agriculture; they set him up as a prince or governor over them and had him unite in marriage with the aforesaid soothsayer maiden.”

“Sicque a clade et multiplici peste tandem eruti, dehinc a supra memorato principe ex sobole eius rectores seu duces preposuere sibi, servientes demoniorum simulacris et prophanis sacrificiorum ritibus bachantes, donec ad extremum dominatus eiusdem regni pervenit ad unum ex eisdem principibus ortum, vocitatum Borivoi.”

“And thus finally rescued from the disaster and the manifold pestilence, thenceforth the above-mentioned prince appointed from among his sons governors or leaders, serving demon idols and profane sacrificial rites, until at last dominion of the same kingdom came to one of the same princes, called Borivoi.”

“Hic cum excellentissime forme et egregie iuventutis flore nitesceret, quodam tempore negocii sui populique sibi commissi causa ducem suum vel regem Zuentepulc Moravie adiit, a quo benigne suscipitur et ad convivium pariter cum reliquis adsciscitur. Verum sessionis ei locus inter Christicolas minime conceditur, sed ritu paganorum ante mensam pavimento iubetur insidere. Cuius presul Metudius iniurie condolens, fertur dixisse ad eum: Ve, inquit, quod tu talis tantusque haut erubescis a principalibus repelli sedibus, cum et ipse in fascibus ducatum obtineas, sed magis cupias ob nefandam ydolorum culturam cum subulcis humotenus incubare. At ille: Quid, inquit, ob huiuscemodi rem pericli pacior vel quid boni michi conferet Christianitatis ritus? Si, inquit presul Metudius, abrenunciaveris ydolis et inhabitantibus in eis demonibus, dominus dominorum tuorum efficieris, cunctique hostes tui subicientur dicioni tue et progenies tua cottidie augmentabitur velut fluvius maximus, in quo diversorum confluunt fluenta rivulorum. Et si, inquit Borivoi, res se ita habet, que mora est baptizandi? Nulla, inquit pontifex, tantum paratus esto ex integro corde credere in Deum patrem omnipotentem eiusque unigenitum, dominum nostrum Iesum Christum et in Spiritum paraclitum, illuminatorem omnium fidelium, non tantum mundialis causa substancie, verum eciam capessende salutis tue anime pro aquirenda perhennitatis gloriosa palma atque percipienda societate sanctorum ineffabili leticia.”

“[Bořivoj I of Bohemia], in the most excellent shape and in the splendid bloom of his youth, at a certain time went to his ruler Svatopluk I King of Moravia, on account of the business committed to him and his people by whom he was kindly received and he went to a banquet together with the others. But he was not allowed a place among the Christians but ordered to sit on the floor by the table according to pagan custom [similar story in the Conversion of the Carantanians]. The Bishop Methodius, sympathizing with him, is reported to have said: ‘Alas, that you sit with scum and being a man of importance you are embarassed at not being given a place at the table, [simply] because you prefer the unholy rites of idolatry.’ And he [Bořivoj] said: ‘Why would I brave the danger [of renouncing pagan rites], or what good will the rite of Christianity confer on me?’ Bishop Methodius answered: ‘If you destroy the idols and the demons that dwell in them, you will become the master of your masters, and all your enemies will be subject to your rule, and your descendants will multiply daily like a great river in which the streams of different streams converge.’ To which Bořivoj answered ‘If, this be so, what [then] prevents me from being baptized?’ ‘Nothing at all’ said the bishop. ‘Be ready only to believe with all your heart in God the Almighty Father and His only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ and [too] in the Holy Spirit, the enlightener of all the faithful, and not as exchange for [earthly] things but rather to achieve the salvation of your soul, to acquire the glorious palm of eternity and to perceive the company of the saints in an ineffable joy.'”

“Populum cunctum Boemorum in furorem principis accendit, eo quod paternos mores relinqueret et novam atque inauditam sanctitatis legem Christianorum arriperet. Surgunt adversus eum uno animo eademque sentencia suisque eum a finibus perturbare conantur, seu eciam vitam auferre moliuntur. Quo agnito princeps sese ab eis removit rursusque regem zuentepulc seu pontificem Metudium Moravie repetivit.”

“The Czechs believed that he [Bořivoj I of Bohemia] abandoned the old customs of [their] fathers and accepted the unknown customs of Christainity so they rioted against him, […] and hounded him abroad and even intended to kill him; and thus, [when] the prince learned [about it], he left them and returned to the king Świętopełk, or Bishop Methodius in Moravia.”

From chapter 5

Chapter 6

“Quia vero radicitus necdum avulsi fuerant paganorum supersticiosi ritus, dum plurimi ad immolandum demoniis nefanda properarent sacrificia, cibisque ex ipsis potibusque simul inquinarentur, verum in cunctis se subtraxit, occasione facta qualibet. Carceres destruxit, patibula suppliciaque, que usque adhuc inerant ad excruciandos homines, funditus sua pietate evulsit fanaque profanorum terre coequavit.”

“But because the superstitious rites of the pagans had not yet been rooted out, while many hurried to perform evil sacrifices to demons, and their food and drink were polluted at the same time, he [Saint Wenceslaus] himself was never defiled by following these, but he withdrew himself from all, on every occasion. He destroyed the prisons, the gallows, [ended?] the executions, which up to this time had been used to torture men, completely uprooted by his piety, and razed the profane to the ground.”

Copyright ©2023 jassa.org All Rights Reserved.

August 9, 2023

Green Holiday Celebrations From the Collection of Piotr from Miłosław

Published Post author

Here are some quotes from the Sermones dominicales et festivales cum glossis Polonicis (from the so-called Collection of Piotr from Miłosław)

Aleksander Brueckner brought this to the scholarly world’s attention finding cantica lascivia wherein ladies “saltant ad sonum chori et cytharae concinnando swathky lyecze” (Archiv für slavische Philologie,14, 481 at 505),

Here are different versions of the same:

Jasna Góra Monastery Manuscript

“Sed quid locusta nisi fatuas virgines et mulieres signat, saltatrices, cantatrices et coreatrices, que hodie adinstar locuste saltant ad sonitum cytare concinantes szwanthki lecze, sed sunt immemores future hiemis vernis et dire, si quando dira mors eos.”

Polish National Library

“Sed quid locusta nisi fatuos viros  et mulieres signat, saltatrices, cantatrices et coreatrices, que hodie adinstar locuste saltant ad sonitum cytare concinantes, sed sunt immemores future hiemis vernis et dire, si quando dira mors eos constriget.”

Another Manuscript
(as per Słownik pojęciowy języka staropolskiego)

“Sed quid locusta nisi fatuas virgines et mulieres significat saltatrices, cantatrices…, que hodie adinstar locuste saltant ad sonitum cithare concinantes wszytky latą [wszytki lata], sed sunt immemores future hiemis et dure, scilicest quando mors constringet swyaze [zwiąże]

Copyright ©2022 jassa.org All Rights Reserved.

December 26, 2022

Czech Gods Part III

Published Post author

Here is a list of the remaining sources that appear in Meyer’s compilation and that we have not yet covered. The translations come (mostly) from Juan Antonio Álvarez- Pedrosa, Julia Mendoza Tuñón, and Sandra Romano Martín (“Sources of Slavic Pre-Christian Religion.”)


Legenda Bohemica “Oportet Nos Fratres”

[section 1]

“For the inhabitants of this region lived without law until the time of the Roman-Germanic Caesar Henry [the Fowler],* knew not the king of heaven, as if they were deprvied of reason, and, forgetting that creation is the work of such a great Creator, served deaf and mute idols, straying far from the truth… After… the illustrious male Spytihnev became leader of the principality and took firm hold of the throne of this kingdom for himself and at the same time, by the will of God, began to love in earnest the cult of the Christian religion, to observe with devotion the law of God, to feel hatred for the followers of the idols and to love all those who believe in the one true God as if they were the children of his own loins. And without more delay, regenerated with the mystery of the holy baptism, wisely edified in the faith of the most Holy Trinity, he destroyed the majority of the temples of the idols and with the greatest veneration built many temples and chapels in honor of the Holy King of Kings.”

* note: Henry was a king, not an emperor.

Ilius enim regionis incole usque ad tempora Romani Cesaris Heinrici sine lege uiuebant, celi regem, quasi ratione carentes, nesciebant, seque facturam tanti factoris esse negligentes, surdis et mutis ydolis seruiebant, a ueritate longe deuiantes (…). Postquam (…) preclarus uir Zpitigneus peruenit ad ducatus principatum et eiusdem regni solium sibi subiecit bene subiugatum, statim Deo predestinante christiane religionis cultum studiose cepit amare, legem Dei deuotus obseruare, sectatores autem ydolorum odio habere et omnes in unum uerum Deum credentes quasi filios uterinos diligere. Nec mora, sacri baptismatis mysterio regeneratus, in fide sancte Trinitatis sapienter edificatus, plurima idolorum templa destruxit, regi regum eiusque sanctis perplures domos et oratoria cum summa ueneratione construxit.

[section 3]

“As proof of his goodwill, the exalted emperor of the Romans, Otto I… granted this happy son Wenceslaus the enjoyment of the duchy and advised him with great emphasis to be, like his father Vratislaus*, a dedicated soldier of the imperial army, to act with loyalty like a good leader all the days of his life and to always stay far away from the cult of the perverse idols.”

* note: Vratislaus I of Bohemia (circa 888-921), duke of Bohemia from 915.

Summus autem Romanorum imperator,scilicet primus Otto(…) beatum puerum Wenzezlaum bona uoluntate constituit ad ducatus dominationem et monuit eum summis ammonitionibus patri suo Wratizlao similem esse regali militie strennuum militem et bonum ducem omnibus diebus uite sue fideliter interesse et a peruersis ydolorum culturis semper abesse.

[section 13]

“All that which he (Wenceslaus) dared not do openly before his semi-pagan subjects to serve God, he performed in full over the course of the night at desired intervals. Because there existed a pledge among the pagan subjects, and confirmed by criminal analogy, whereby, should they find a clergyman or a Christian anywhere with the Servant of God, they would immediately cut off his head or subject him to another cruel death with no possibility of defense. For this reason, the pious Wenceslaus built hidden passages.”

Quicquid propter semipaganos ciues palam facere non ausus est in Dei seruitium, hoc pernox totum impleuit per desiderabile cuiusque noctis intersticium. Erat enim a paganis ciuibus constitutum et federatum celestaque conratione confirmatum, ut si quis clericorum aut ceterorum christianorum cum Dei seruo alicubi inueniretur, statim aut capite truncaretur aut alia seuissima morte sine contradictione puniretur. At beatusWenzezlaus fecit occultas posterulas.

[section 15]

“To them, the man of the Lord (Wenceslaus), moved for a brief time, answered them saying: ‘Oh incredulous fools, enemies of the Christian name… You are worshippers of loathsome idols and pagans who persecute nearly all Christians. What is more, that which at some moment was my wish for the service of God, was without doubt that which you wished for not… You established your ceremonies and festivals dedicated to the demons and not to God, you offered victims and burnt offerings to alien/strange gods, and reduced to nothing all those things connected with the true God. And on top of this, with threats and flattery you prohibited me from celebrating the divine mysteries.”

Quibus uir domini paulisper commotus respondit et dixit: “O increduli et insani, o inimici nominis christiani (…) Vos estis cultores inmundorum idolorum et profani persecutores omnium pene christianorum. Preterea quicquid umquam in Dei seruitium meum erat uelle, procul dubio uestrum erat nolle (…) Demonibus et non Deo solemnitates et ferias uestras constituistis, uictimas et holocausta diis alienis obtulistis, et omnia, que ueri Dei sunt, ad nichilum redegistis. Insuper minis et blandimentis me ipsum prohibuistis diuina mysteria celebrare.

Concilia Pragensia


sub anno 1366

“On the image of death (regarding those who bring death to the outskirts of town in the middle of Lent). It is known that in some cities, towns and villages the pernicious habit has taken root, on the part of clergy and laymen, of bringing images in the form of death around town to the river in the middle of Lent, accompanied by chants and superstitious representations and that there they sink said images vehemently arguing to their own shame that in this way death will not do them more harm because it has been destroyed and wiped out from the town’s boundaries. Therefore, it is ordered that each and every one of the heads of the diocesan churches, upon discovering that there are such people in their parishes, immediately remove them from divine functions, until said transgressors and superstitious fraudsters receive from the Archbishop a penitence that corresponds to their excesses and will free them from sin. Absolution for these excesses is especially reserved for the Reverend Father.”

De mortis ymagine (de his, qui in media quadragesimae portant mortem extra villam). Item quia in nonnullis civitatibus oppidis et villis prava clericorum et laicorum inolevit abusio , qui in medio quadragesimae ymagines in figura mortis per civitatem cum rithmis et ludis superstitionis ad flumen deferunt ibi quoque ipsas ymagines cum impetu submergunt, in eorum ignominiam asserentes quod mors eis ultra nocere non debeat tanquam ab ipsorum terminis sit ultra nocere non debeat tanquam ab ipsorum terminis sit consumata et totaliter exterminata. Quare omnibus et singulis ecclesiarum parochialum rectoribus precipitur quod cum tales in suis plebibus resciverint, mox a divinis officiis tam diu abstineant, donec dicti prevaricatores lusoresque superstitiosi a domino Archiepiscopo peniterntiam recipiant pro excessibus condignam et salutarem quorum absolutionem sibi reverendus pater specialiter reservat.

sub anno 1384

“It is also ordered that the parishioners or the leaders who represent them in the diocese of Prague should not allow superstitious representations in their parishes, and especially should not allow images representing death, which are made so as to be displayed, midway through Lent, on city outskirts, accompanied by music, on account of the bad custom that is established in some places.”

Item mandatur ne plebani seu eorum vices gerentes per diocesin Pragensem ludos superstitiosos in plebibus suis admittant specialiter ne in medio quadragesimae extra portas urbis vel ville ymaginem ad hoc factam in modum ortis cum rithmis sicut consuetudo prava in quibusdam locis inolevit, offerri permittant.

(another) sub anno 1384

“It is also ordered that all parishioners and the leaders who represent them shall not allow, on the anniversaries of their dead, for the parishioners in their own houses to make sacrifices with torches, on their behalf or the behalf of others, nor for them to sign the responses that are often used n such occasions. For this custom should be considered a bad habit.”

Item mandator omnibus plebanis et eorum uices gerentibus ut in anniuersariis mortuorum in domibus plebizanorum ipsorum non permittant ut faiant fieri aliqua offertoria cum luminibus per se uel alios nec eciam cantent responsoria in talibus consueta fieri. Nam hec consuetudo uel potius abusio dicenda est.

sub anno 1407

“Against money-lenders and fortune-tellers. In addition, oh! It has been reported before the tribunal of our Lord that many money-lenders, fortune-tellers, sorcerers and sorceresses are appearing in different parishes and this is publicly tolerated by the parishioners, who, free from all censure, openly practice different spells, disregarding and setting aside the one holy Christian faith. Thus, it is ordered that each and every parishoiner should no longer tolerate such sorcerers and sorceresses any longer in their parishes but rather they should condemn them and expel them and send them before the tribunal of the authority so that they may complete the punishment imposed upon them for their salvation. Moreover, any parishioner who does not heed this must be reported by the prior of that place to the higher prelates, and must be punished by them with aseverity as a prticipant in a crime that has been condemned and is condemned.”

Contra usurarios (et) sortilegos. Item heu ad nostri domini audienciam est deductum quod multi usurarii sortileges incantatores et incantatrices in diversis parochiis commorantur et publice tolerantur per plebanos absque omni correccione libere diversa sortilegia exercentes in sancte et (et) unite christiane contemptum fidei et scissuram. Igitur mandatur plebanis universis et singulis quatenus tales sortilegos et sortilegas non tolerent ulterius in parochiis eorum, sed corrigant et expellant tales pro poenitencia peragenda ad superiorum audienciam remittant eis salubirr imponendo alias quicunque plebanus circa hoc negligens fure debet per loci decanum denunciari prelats superioribusi.

Copyright ©2021 jassa.org All Rights Reserved.

August 9, 2021

Some Musings on Suavic Beliefs Regarding the Earth’s Satellites

Published Post author

A few years ago a reader asked about the cult of the Sun among the Suavs. Back then I was dismissive. I thought (and still do) that neither the Sun nor the Moon were worshipped as Gods among the Suavs. That said, I had not been entirely fair. While the Sun and Moon were clearly not Deities in Suavic tales, they had been revered and divine tales had been spun around them. It feels, though I can’t prove it, that at some point at least some Suavs anthropomorphized the Sun and the Moon and then may have developed Divinities that, while not themselves these celestial bodies, were represented by them. Alternatively, this may have occurred in reverse such that the worship of Divinities was associated over time with the Sun and Moon.

Let’s start with the Sun.

I do not intend to write about Dadzhbog as that “tale” such as it is, has been exhaustively discussed. Let’s rather touch on some other aspects of the reverence for the Sun. Perhaps the most famous example of the veneration of the Sun is the “swearing on the Sun” – the act of swearing by raising your hand and, specifically, extending two fingers towards the Sun. This was a ritual present in Poland but also in the Czech lands and portions of Germany. Here the bibliography includes most notably:

  • Władysław Aleksander Semkowicz, Przysięga na słońce: studyum porównawcze prawno-etnologiczne (1916) in: Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Bolesława Orzechowicza, t. 2, Lwów 1916, pages 304-377.
  • Władysław Aleksander Semkowicz, Jeszcze o przysiędze na słońce w Polsce, in: Studia historyczne ku czci Stanisława Kutrzeby, t. I, Kraków 1938, pages 429-444.
  • Stanisław Szczotka, Stosowanie przysięgi na słońce w polskim sądownictwie wiejskim w XVIII wieku in: Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 2 (1949), pages 452-458.
  • Waldemar Bukowski, O przysiędze na słońce raz jeszcze. Przysięga w postępowaniu granicznym w księstwie zatorskim w 1529 roku, in: Memoria viva. Studia historyczne poświęcone pamięci Izabeli Skierskiej (1967-2014), red. G. Rutkowska, A. Gąsiorowski, Warszawa–Poznań 2015, pages 789-804.
  • Entry for Przysięga (by Wojciech Hejnosz) in the “Dictionary of Suavic Antiquities” (Słownik starożytności słowiańskich), volume 4, p. 402 and the following.

Semkowicz gives the following examples of this act from Mazovia, Greater Poland and Silesia:

  • On May 3, 1466, Conrad III, the Duke of Czersk certifies in Łomża that Jacob and Alex Szczodruch of Zalesie (coat of arms Trzaska) established in his presence their nobility with witnesses delivering sworn testimony by raising two fingers towards the Sun:
    • errectis versus solem duobus digitis
    • source: Wywody szlachectwa w Polsce XIV-XVII, page 38, number 138 in Rocznik Towarzystwa Heraldycznego, volume III
  • On June 22, 1468, six brothers, the heirs of Tykiewki (coat of arms Kościesza) established their nobility relying on sworn witness testimony which witnesses attested to that fact by raising two fingers towards the Sun:
    • duobus digitis in solem elevatis et errectis
    • Wywody szlachectwa w Polsce XIV-XVII, number 141 in Rocznik Towarzystwa Heraldycznego, volume III
  • On March 21, 1471 Bolesuav V, the duke of Warsaw confirms the nobility claim of Jan of Kutyłów  (coat of arms Doliwa), who presented witnesses attesting to this with fingers raised towards the Sun:
    • errectis versus solem duobus digitis
    • Wywody szlachectwa w Polsce XIV-XVII, number 142 in Rocznik Towarzystwa Heraldycznego, volume III

Semkowicz notes the following additional examples from F. Stanisław Kozierowski:

  • Under 1450, Kościan (Greater Poland) books list three knights being cleared of theft charges and, in court proceedings, swearing to their innocence by raising, in accordance with chivalric custom, two fingers of their right hands towards the Sun:
    • debent iurare iuxta ius militare, intuendo solem, elevatis duobus digitis dextrae manus

The Poznań court official present (subcamerarius) notes that such two -finger oath was done in appropriate fashion:

    • spectato sole (solem inspiciendo), duobus digitis dextrae manus elevatis 

These citations are from:

    • F. Stanisław Kozierowski, Nieznane zapiski heraldyczne from Roczniki Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk Poznańskiego, 1915, numbers 45, 46, 60, 81
  • In 1484, in Poznań Piotr Więckowski swore to his innocence again by raising two fingers towards the Sun:
    • erectis duobus versus solem (in solem) digitis
    • F. Kozierowski, l c. number 60
  • In 1456, John duke of Oświęcim confirms the nobility of Jan Nowowiejski whose witnesses were his relatives and who testified with two fingers raised towards the Sun
    • mit vfgeracten czweyen fingern kegen der zonnen nachritterlichen lowfe
    • in German from the Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, v. 1 CXXVIII

Curiously, to this day, Polish officers salute using two fingers. Now, this custom supposedly derives from the much later Napoleonic era but making a connection might be tempting…

Why two fingers?

Here let’s indulge in some speculation. The Polish (and Suavic more generally) word for the Sun is słońce. This is a bit unusual because the -ce (or -cie or sometimes -cy) suffix indicates the presence of either something that isn’t really present in today’s Suavic languages – the dual noun form – or, sometimes, of the plural noun. Thus, we have, to give a few examples:

  • miesiące
  • skrzypce
  • lejce
  • łapcie

The singular would have the -iec suffix. Thus, skrzypiec, lejec, łapiec and so forth.

Could słońce itself be a plural?

Brückner does not even consider that, instead pushing the theory that this is a diminutive:

Vasmer is not that far off from Brückner:

And yet what examples does Brückner give to justify his view?

He brings up serce meaning “heart” (from an earlier sierce) and miejsce meaning”place.” And yet are these other examples diminutives? Anyone supportive of Brückner’s view here must wince at the example of serce – at least anyone aware of the heart’s four chambers, that is the two atria and two ventricles.

As to miejsce, the earlier mieśćce or miestce, that is supposedly a diminutive of miasto which in Polish means “town” but in other Suavic languages may just mean a “place” – a concept that in Polish is expressed in miejsce. If this is correct and if we disregard serce – as per the above obsevation – then this, it seems to me, would be about the only example I am aware of a singular diminutive with the -ce suffix.

It is also curious that:

  • słońce is obviously related to Sun

while

  • serce could be mistaken (?) for being a cognate of sur (south, also the Kern of our solar system),

while

  • miejsce, the (meeting? compare with Lithuanian mietas) place, appears cognate with miesiąc meaning “Moon”

Putting that aside, what would this singular of słońce be?

Here the answer must be słoniec which itself would have to be a diminutive of, what, słoń?

Well, this is not to suggest that Suavs thought of the Sun as being pulled by elephants (rather the elephant is more likely to have been named after the large beasts pulling the Sun).

But the Suavs may have believed that the Sun was pulled by  multiple creatures – horses? dragons?

But were these creatures – that we project deep into the PIE times – really called individually a słoń? Or was a słoniec simply a derivative of another Name that sounded like the Sun? In other words, was the Sun driven around by the słońce, that is “servants of the Sun” (an interesting exercise too in light of the above would be an examination of the etymology of this term – PIE *seruo- “guardian” – of what? of the Sun – Sur – maybe?).

But then what was the Sun? In Suavic languages this term is the purportedly neuter singular słońce. Neither he nor she. But as shown above, the term may have originated in a plural concept for those creatures which pull the Sun across the sky. So what was the Name of the Sun itself? Could it have been Sune or Suna – a Name that was preserved only in obscure Norse tales?

In fact, the Suavic word sunąć meaning, roughly, “to glide along at a fast but steady pace” may itself be derived from “Sun”. (Curiously, in Greek stories Ladas is the name of two very fast runners – why are runners called Ladas?)

If this is the case then we would have to show that the Sun – or rather the Deity of the Sun – was a female in Suavic beliefs. That is not like Helios a God but a Goddess. Is this possible?

Here we have very scant, though not immaterial, evidence for this claim.

The first and only constant in our quest to assign gender to the heavenly bodies is that the Moon is (almost) always male, that is księżyc or miesiąc. Thus, implicitly, you’d think that the Sun should be female.

An immediate objection is that – at least in Polish – księżyc means “little primce” such that the “big” prince must surely be the Sun. This, however, has been shown many years ago to be no more than scientific folklore by Kazimierz Moszyński who pointed out that Polish peasants only referred to the waxing crescent of the new Moon as księżyc, that is the “young” moon (młody księżyc). Thus, ksiądz, meaning “ruler” refers to the full Moon and not to the Sun.

Having dispensed with the above objection, we still have to show positive proof of the Sun being associated with the female. This does happen in Polish belief but it is rare. Apparently, there is evidence that newlyweds in parts of Poland have traditionally called upon the Sun and the Moon to bless their marriage. That, however, is, again, circumstantial evidence.

Well, again, there seemingly is some evidence for this belief but only in Eastern Poland. Specifically, you have to go to the PhD dissertation written by Wanda Drabik – “The Customs of Podlachia” (Obrzędy Podlasia) to come upon a claim that in wedding songs found in that part of Poland, folk refer to the Sun as the bride and to the Moon as the bridegroom.

Traces of this appear further West as reported in, for example, the Silesian Józef Lompa’s Bajki i podania (being the compendium of his work Sitten und Gebräuche des schlesisch-slavischen Volkes).

Curiously, the work of another Silesian Nicolaus Magni de Iawor – the ever popular party hit Tractatus de supersticionibus – contains the story of an old woman who called the Sun the Holy Lady, spoke to Her, performed blessings in Her name and, the old lady claimed, healed many a sickness in the Sun’s name over the course of forty years. Here is that text as given by Krzysztof Bracha:

Sic aliquam vetulam novi, que credidit solem esse quasi deam vocans eam sanctam dominam et alloquendo solem benedixit per eum sub certis verbis cum observancia quadam supersticiosam, que dixit: se plus quam 40 annis se credidisse hoc et multas infirmitates curasse

What was the source of this anecdote? A Suavic Bohemian or Silesian tale or a German story? Bracha notes that the same story appears in the Kommentar zur Dekalog written by the German preacher Gottschalk Hollen.

Another potential Suavic female connection for the Sun is with the Goddess Lada. If the reference to Lada as Minerva is accurate and we know that Minerva was just the Roman Athena then we can connect Lada with Athena. Athena was not a solar goddess per se but she does have some solar connections. Most importantly, we are told that on the day that she was born Helios stopped the Sun chariot.

Of course, as previously noted, Lado was the Sun Eye of Piorun according to a Ruthenian saying and, though, the provenance here is unclear, apparently, in Lithuania, peasants sang Lado, Lado saule, duok jam sameziu per gałwe, that is, “Lado, Lado Sun, hit him [the wolf] on the head with a ladle*” (as this comes from Narbutt, we may be suspicious whether the song is genuine).

* note that, curiously, “ladle” comes from hlædel, itself from hladan “to load, to draw up water” (see also lade)

Turning to the Moon, what can be said unequivocally is that the Moon was (almost) always associated  with a Man. Of course the Moon was also associated with the Name Jasień, Who, in turn, seems to have been the youthful Sky Rider.

Incidentally, are miesiące also the creatures that pull the Moon or is the fact that the Moon is always a miesiąc while the Sun is always “a” słońce mean that the Moon has one horse but the Sun has multiple horses?

And remember our discussion about the strange “2” symbol (see here or on some of these spears)? The symbol that can, when duplicated, form a heart or horseshoes or the Ω Omega sign? Did you know that the horseshoe “luck” symbol may go back to the worship of the Moon (perhaps by the Chaldeans)?

Check these decorations out that were found in Piast Silesia and have been labeled “Scandinavian” (while similar motifs do appear in Scandinavia, they are hardly unique to that area).

Were these – so similar to some of these other designs – horses or other creatures? And were they pulling the Moon or, in fact, the Sun?

Let’s now look at Kazimierz Moszyński’s treatise on Suavic solar and lunar practices.

Moszyński mentions some Suavic tales that speak of multiple Suns. For example, he recalls the tales of the Smolensk Suavs and the Bulgarians who claimed that there had once been two (the former) or even three (the latter) Suns but a snake or a dragon had apparently either “drank” or stolen the other Suns.

Whether that dragon can be associated with the “Ladon” of the Argonauts* or Níðhöggr (Nya?) is another matter. Obviously, cold-blooded lizards like roasting themselves in the Sun so the myth may have its roots in that behavior as well as the daily disappearance and reappearance of the Sun. Alternativly, the many Suns may come from the sun dogs phenomenon.

* note that, interestingly, Diodorus Siculus suggested the name of Jason and the Argonauts’ ship, the Argo, was derived from an ancient Greek word for “swift” (IV.41.3: “The vessel was called Argo after Argus, as some writers of myths record, who was the master-builder of the ship and went along on the voyage in order to repair the parts of the vessel as they were strained from time to time, but, as some say, after its exceeding great swiftness, since the ancients called what is swift Argos.”) . This too is the meaning in Polish of jary – meaning “rushing” or “swift” as in “a rushing river” and jarki – meaning “fast moving”. For more on this rather intriguing subject see here. Were the Argonauts then “sailing” the Sky on the Moon as their vessel? It is also interesting that the Latin word for “silver” is argentum (hence the periodic table symbol Ar) and the Greek was ργυρός (which also referred to “money” regarding which see the various monetary customs below that involved the Moon). Of course, you also have ἀργός meaning “white” or “bright” or, in Sanskrit, árjuna, with all these meanings.

Moszyński also relates that peasants would, particularly on Saint John’s Eve come out to the borders of the village and stare at the Sun. The Sun would then be described as “dancing”, “playing, “laughing” or even “bathing”. This custom was generally limited to Central Europe but apparently also present in Bretagne (Veneti?) and some other unspecified parts of France. When associated with Easter the same custom appears too in Russia, Germany and the southern Caucasus. Other phenomena that were related by the peasantry, according to Moszyński also included a Sun that jumped up and down, rotated, broke into separate parts or recombined itself into a single body. Moszyński then brings up the work of D.O. Svyatskiy (perhaps Astronomiya Drevney Rusi) who methodically exclaims some of these optical phenomena as green flash and green ray illusions.

Moszyński also discusses the various customs associated with the Moon. Of particular note is the fact that Suavs apparently associated the new Moon with wealth (Nya as Pluto?) or, more particularly, with accretion to wealth – perhaps a result of the expectation that the Moon will over time get fatter and so, the peasants would also welcome the same as in this Polish “spell”:

Witaj, Księżycu, niebieski dziedzicu! Tobie złota korona. Mnie zdrowie i fortuna!
(“Welcome, oh Moon, the heavenly ruler*! For you the golden crown. For me health and fortune!”)

* note that although dziedzic can mean “heir”, in the context of a village it meant the local feudal lord.

Curiously, a similar association is mentioned by Nicolaus Magni de Iawor (as per Bracha):

Insuper hic hodie inveniuntur homines tam laici quam clerici, tam litterati quam illiterati, quos et plus dolendum est quidam magistri, cum primo novilunium viderint flectis genibus adorant et deposito capucium vel pileo capite inclinato honorant, alloquendo et suscipiendo, ymmo plures ieiuniant illo die, scilicet novilunio.

Bracha also reports similar beliefs reported by Caesarius of Arles (of Chalon) or in parts of Germany citing Nikolas von Dinkelbühl who noted that at the new Moon, people would lift open their money satchels towards the Moon to show the Moon the coins or would  shake the satchel and utter a prayer for successful month. The same author further cited an actual German prayer to the Moon (from De decem praeceptis or De preceptis decalogi):

Ad idem reduci potest stultissimus iste error, quod quidam quando primo vident novam lunam ipsam venerantur immo adorant dicentes hec aut similia verba: „Bis got wilkum newer mon holder her, mach mir myns geltes mer“; et aperta bursa ei monstrant pecuniam aut eam in bursa vibrant, credentes per huiusmodi deprecacionem et reverencie exhibicioem ab ea obtinere prosperitatem per istum mensem et augmentum diviciarum.

Bracha cites a number of other examples from German lands (see also in Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens) found in Thomas von Haselbach (reporting the similar Bis got bilchom ein newer man holder her, mach mir meins gutz mer), Thomas Peuntner and Johann Militsch von Kremsier. For more on this see also the older Der Magister Nikolaus Magni De Jawor by Franz Adolph. Bracha also finds (citing an article by Maria Kowalczyk given here in English, though she seems to cite the wrong page) further examples from Poland such as this instance from Stanisuav of Skarbimierz  (Stanisław ze Skarbimierza or, in Latin, Stanislaus de Scarbimiria) from Sermo 47 where there is an order to bend the knee during the New Moon and recite Psalm 67.1, (here given as “Lord, shine your face upon us”); then the sermon orders an oath be performed (presumably facing the Moon), to remain in the Catholic faith and then, at the very end, to utter a prayer:

In novilunio cum primo perspexeris lunam flexis genibus dic hunc versum. Illumina domine, vultum tuum super nos et fac hoc, quam diu vixeris. Et tunc vade domum ad cameram tuam devoveno, quod nunquam peririum voluntarie volueris facere et quod in fide katholica semper volueris perseverare et dic aliquias 0oraciones

Or, from other Suavic lands (via Moszyński’s book), you have this Croatian iteration (which incidentally also relates a fight between the Moon and a snake or dragon):

Pomladi ti mene, kak si sam sebe. Kad tebe zmija ujela, onda mene glava zabolela! Kad tebe zmija ujela, onda mene groznica uhvatila!

Incidentally, the Moon, as Moszyński notes, was also a Deity but among the peasants (at least in Christian times) only of demons such as water demons. And here we have the curious connection to water – woda – and, perhaps, Wodan. The Moon-Water connection is not that difficult to make – it is delivered by the tides. From there you can also imagine thunderstorms full of rain as the Wild Hunt. In the Balkans Moszyński finds evidence of the Moon “drinking” water much as the snakes “drank” the Sun in the Russian fables.

The Moon is, however,  susceptible to being eaten itself – by wolves. This association should also be obvious if you consider the changing Moon as a Moon from which some animal takes a bite out of (other Suavs associated the Moon, for the same reason, with the sickle – naturally – but also with “horns” – of course).

Both the Sun and the Moon cold be stolen (by witches) and, among Southern Suavs, the Sun could also be eaten by a werewolf or a type of dragon called Hala. This, of course, brings associations with Hela.

Further, let’s mention that Krzysztof Bracha also notes other references in Polish sermons to Sun as well as Moon veneration. Here are the actual copies of pages he cites from:

BN III 3025 (242v)

BN III 3022 (92r) (Sun & Moon worship)

 

So then the ultimate question must be: was the Rider in the Sky riding on His White Horse which Horse was the Moon? Remember from Saxo Grammaticus the tale of Svantevit who would ride at night on a white horse that the priest kept at the Svantevit Temple, located, nomen est omen (?), at Arkona.

Copyright ©2021 jassa.org All Rights Reserved.

June 29, 2021

On Homiliarium quod dicitur de Opatoviz (Part II)

Published Post author

We return to the Homiliarium quod dicitur de Opatoviz with the benefit of the Juan Antonio Álvarez-Pedrosa, Julia Mendoza Tuñón and Sandra Romano Martín translation (again, mostly kept as is except where something would read better or where they chose not to translate a few lines otherwise found in Meyer).

For the first part see here.


I, 84 Deum solum colendum (fol. 136r–137r)

Of One God That Should be Worshipped

Each man will on judgment day have to account for his deeds and will be judged for his actions for which he deserved a reward. Therefore, the lies that the devil teaches people – to their own damnation – 

“Given that each person will have to answer for their own deeds on judgment day and shall be repaid for their deeds and receive an appropriate reward, that is, everlasting torment for the wicked, bliss and everlasting glory for the righteous, it is essential to reject the falsehood taught by the devil with his veneration of idols for the purpose of misleading men, and believe in the one true God and confess His holy name forever. Any other thing which men worship instead of God, with the aid of the seduction of the devil, they do so for their own perdition, for they do not realize nor reconsider that those same gods which they worship are incapable of providing them with anything good or of use and can neither give nor take away even a piece of straw.”

Quoniam de suis actibus puisque in die iudicii redditurus est racionem et accepturus est pro operibus suis, quale hic premium promeretur, sive pro mails supplicium infinitum, sive pro bonis beatitudinem et gloriam sempiternam, ideoque falsitatem, quam diabolus ad perdendos semet ipsos homines in idolorum cultibus docet, respuere omnino necesse est et unum verum deum credere et confiteri nomen eius sanctum in secula. […] Alia vero quecunque pro deo homines colunt fallaente et seducente diabolo, ad suam quique perniciem faciunt, quia non perpendunt nec recogitant, quod ipsi dii, quos colunt, nihil eis boni nihilque utilitatis adhibere valent, nec unam parvissimam stipulam cuiiquam dare vel adimere possunt.


I, 85 Item unde supra deum colendum (fol. 138r–138v)

Some More on the One God To Be Worshipped

“Therefore, let not our faith be in this, let us not worship nor believe in any other creature in place of God. Let not our faith be in any phantasmagoria; for any truth is better than all of the things that can derive from human opinion. Not even the human soul, which is the soul of truth, should we worship when it conjures false things. Neither should we worship angels nor men nor any creature as if it were God. Let not the product of human works form part of our religion, for though the makers of such things excel, we should not worship them in place of God. Neither should we on any account perform sacrifices to any animal, nor to the trees, nor to the springs, for such things provoke the wrath of God. Thus, let us take care that the worship of the dead does not enter our religion; for if they led just lives, they do not seek such honors but rather wish us to worship Him whom they themselves worshipped and by whose grace they did all the good things they did and wish us to participate in their virtue. Therefore, let them be honored by imitation and not worshipped as a religious duty. The cult of demons does not form part of our religion, for all superstition is the damnation of men and a dangerous straying from the path, for their [the demons’] purpose is to lead them to everlasting torment. We venerate the true God, in which sole God we believe, whom we serve and from whom we will learn the eternal reward.”

Ideoque non sit fides nostra in eo, ut aliquam creaturam pro deo colamus aut credamus; non sit fides nostra in aliquo fantasmate, melius est enim qualecunque verum, quam omne quicquid pro arbitrio surgi potest. Et tamen ipsam animam hominis, que vere anima est, cum falsa imaginatur, colere non debemus. Et ideo non angelos, non homines, nullam utique creaturam colere vel pro deo credere debemus. Et ideo non sit nobis religio humanorum operum cultus; meliores enim sunt artifices, qui talia faciant, quamvis nec eos pro deo colere debemus, ac nequaquam bestiam aliquam, non ad arbores, non ad fontes sacrificia ullo modo facere, quia talibus causis ad iracundiam deus provocetur. Quamobrem caveamus, ut non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum; quia si pie vixerunt, non tamen tales querant honores, sed illum a nobis coli volunt, quem ipsi colebant et cuius gracia operati sunt, quecunque bona fecerunt, nosque eorum meritis desiderant esse consortes, honorandi ergo sunt propter imitacionem, non adorandi propter religionem. Non sit nobis religio cultus demonum, quia omnis supersticio, cum sit magna poena hominum et periculosissima turpitudo, tamen finis illorum ad eternum tendit supplicium. Nos vero deum verum colamus, cumque deum solum credamus, eique serviamus, qui ab eo eterna premia percipiemus.


I, 104 Ammonicio sive predicacio sancti Bonifacii episcopi de abrenunciacione baptismatis (fol. 171r–171v)

Admonition or the Sermon of Bishop Saint Boniface About the Acceptance of Baptism

“Listen brothers and think through carefully what it is that you accept through [your] baptism. You renounce the devil and all his works and all his depravities. What then are the works of the devil? The following: pride, idolatry, envy, hatred, defamation, lies, perjury, fornication, adultery, any kind of promiscuity, murder, robbery, false testimony, rapine, avarice, gluttony, drunkenness, blasphemy, disputes, anger, poisoning, enchantments, the consulting of oracles, belief in witches and werewolves, the performing of abortions, being disobedient to your lords, the use of amulets.”

Audite, fratres, et adtencius cogitetis, quid in baptismo renunciastis. Abrenunciastis diabolum et omnibus operibus eius et omnibus pompis eius. Quid sunt ergo opera diaboli? Hec sunt superbia, idolatria, invidia, odium, detraccio, mendacium, periurium, fornicacio, adulterium, omnis pollucio, homicidium, furta, falsum testimonium, rapina, avaricia, gula, ebrietas, turpiloquium, contenciones, ira, veneficia, incantaciones et sortilegos exquirere, strigas et fictos lupos credere, abortum facere, dominis inobedientes esse, filacteria habere.


I, 122 Sermo de christianitate vel de operibus bonis (fol. 208v–209r)

A Sermon on Christianity and Good Deeds

“Let nobody worship idols nor drink or eat that which is sacrificed to idols. persuaded to do so by their gluttony. Whosoever commits this sin and receives not a just penance, shall be forever damned. He who has been baptized must avoid profane things; nor resort to nor hurry to consult any wizard, (herbalist) or seer or sorcerer on any matter, borne by a sacrilegious pleasure. Let nobody hang an amulet or magic binding, for should any person commit this sin and not receive his penance, he shall lose the grace of the sacrament of baptism.”

Nullus idola adoret, vel que idolis immolantur, gula suadente bibat aut manducet. Qui hoc malum fecerit, nisi digna penitencia subvenerit, peribit in eternum. Qui baptizatus est, debet profana vitare, nullos carios, (herbarios vel imprecarios) aut divinos aut precantatores sacrilega voluptate de qualibet infirmitate adhibeat aut interrogare presumat. Nullus filacteria aut ligaturas sibi aliquas adpendat, quia quicumque fecerit hoc malum, si non penitencia subvenerit, perdet baptismi sacramentum.

[…]

“Therefore, whosoever by means of wizards and seers or sorcerers and devilish amulets kills his soul, through the prayer of the priests or the alms in the churches can heal his soul and his flesh: because the illness of the body is related to that of the heart, for God punishes in this world those whom he loves.”

Quare ergo per carios (per erbarios) et divinos (et per imprecarios), per cantores (per incantatores) et filacteria diabolica occidit animam suam, qui per oracionem sacerdotum vel elemosinam aecclesiarum potest sanare animam et carnem suam.


I, 131 Sermo ad populum (fol. 225r–225v)

A Sermon For the People

The priests warn the people in every way possible that in the event of animals dying of plague, of an illness or of any other misfortune, not to seek the aid of wicked men or women or of seers, witches, sorcerers, false scriptures, trees, springs or of any other thing but of God, of his saints and of the Holy Mother Church and, in the event of illness, that of Christian doctors, without using spells; whosoever does otherwise, let him perform a pure penance and confession and not do the same thing again; be vigilant in order to eradicate this mistaken custom of laypeople when they go to a feast, and say to the priests or the clergy: allow me to eat meat today and sing a mass for me or many psalms and they wish not to perform the penance ordered. Let the priests for this reason not sing masses for them but teach them to live in a sober and pious manner and to constantly think how to reduce their sins.” 

Presbiteri per omnia populumh ammoneant non pro mortalitate animalium, non pro pestilencia, non pro infirmitate aliqua neque pro variis aliis evenientibus ad malos viros aut feminas aut ad auguratrices aut ad maleficas aut incantatores aut falsas scripturas aut ad arbores vel ad fontes aut alicubi nisi ad deum et sanctos eius et ad sanctam matrem ecclesiam dei auxilia querere, nisi ad medicos fideles adiutoria pro infirmitatibus variis sine incantacione; et quisquis hoc fecisset, puram inde agat penitenciam et confessionem. Et de cetero, ne amplius faciet, caveat, ut prava consuetudo auferatur, quod laici faciunt, cum ad convivium veniunt, clamant ad presbiteros seu ad clericos: Iube me hodie carnem manducare et canta mihi unam missam vel psalmos tantos et nolunt datam penitenciam observare. Presbiteri illis eo modo mossas non cantent, sed doceant eos sobrie, pie vivere et pro peccatis suis minuendis iugiter cogitare.


I, 135, 3 De muliere, que cum duobus fratribus fornicata est (fol. 232r–233v)

About a Woman Who Committed Adultery With Two Brothers

“Should a nun fornicate with another nun by means of witchcraft, she shall do penance for six years. Should a woman fornicate with another woman, she shall do penance for three years. Let her do the same penance if she mixes a man’s semen with her food in order to receive his love.”

Si sanctimonialis cum alia sanctimoniali per aliquod machinamentum fornicate fuerint sex annos peniteant. Mulier si cum muliere fornicata fuerit annos tres peniteant.


I, 135, 4 De eadem re (fol. 233v)

On the Same Matter

“Should anyone, whether to fulfill a lewd desire or out of hatred of the fact that he shall have offspring, give a man or a woman a filter to dirnk so that he or she may not beget or conceive, let that person be adjudged a murderer.”

Si aliquis causa explende libidinis vel odii meditatione, ut ex eo soboles nascantur hominum vel ad potandum dederit, ut non posses generare aut concipere, ut homicida teneatur.


I, 135, 5 De viciis gule et ebrietatis (fol. 237v)

The Vices of Gluttony and Drunkenness

“The woman who takes the blood of her husband as remedy, let her do penance for forty days. If she takes her husband’s semen, let her do three years of penance.”

Uxor, que sanguinem viri pro remedio gustaverit, quadraginta dies peniteat. Sic et illa, que semen viri sui accipiat, tres annos peniteat.


I, 135, 7 De operibus die dominico (fol. 242v)

Regarding the Works on God’s Day

“And nothing should be read or sung in church except that is dedicated to the authority of God or of the church fathers, and let not there be worship of false angels but only those taught in the writings of the prophets and the Gospels, that is Michael, Gabriel, Raphael…” 

Ut aliud in ecclesia non legatur aut cantetur nisi ea, que auctoritatis divine sunt et patrum orthodoxorum sanxit auctoritas, nec falsa angelorum nomina colant, sed ea tantum, que prophetica et evangelica docet scriptura, id est Michael, Gabriel, Raphael […].


Copyright ©2021 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved.

March 24, 2021

Theodorus Balsamon on the January Activities

Published Post author

Theodore Balsamon (Greek: Θεόδωρος Βαλσαμῶν) was a canonist of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. He was active in the second half of the 12th century.


Balsamon Commentary on Canon 62

Franz Miklosich brought the following excerpt from Balsamon to the world’s attention writing in the Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschafte (volume 46, part III, 1864, page 387).

The excerpt comes from Balsamon’s commentary on the 62nd canon of the Council in Trullo (held in τρούλος meaning “dome” of Constantinople’s Imperial Palace) in the year s 691-692:

Subsequently, the same was republished by Karl Meyer in the appendix to his Fontes:

The English text follows (mostly) the Eugenio R. Luján Martínez translation from the volume on Suavic religion edited by Juan Antonio ÁlvarezPedrosa:

“And so it was that there existed among the Romans the custom of holding annually a pagan festival in memory of these and performing unworthy acts, which still occurs now among certain peasants on the first days of the month of January, not as with the Romans who commemorated the Calends and the rest but because this isi the time when the moon renews itself and its foundation is established from the beginning of that same month and they believe that they will have good fortune all year if they hold a festival when this begins Such a festival us an abomination asa re those called Rusalia, which take place after Easter due to the impious customs in the outer lands; they, they celebrate Bota and Brumalia the  Greek festivities that are held in the name of the false god Pan.” [this last bit from the Miklosich piece.”

For the rest of the Migne edition see here.


Canon 62

The 12th century Rusalia were, likely, a Slavic phenomemon. However, it’s also worth citing the 7th century 62nd canon itself which had not been focused on the Slavs (from A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church” (series 2), edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, volume XIV, ed. H.R. Percival, 1890; as quoted by Timothy E. Gregory’s “A History of Byzantium”):

“The so-called Calends, and what are called Bota and Brumalia, and the full assembly which takes place on the first of March, we wish to be abolished from the life of the faithful. And the also the public dances of women, which may do much harm and mischief. Moreover we drive away from the life of Christians the dances given in the names of those falsely called gods by the Greeks whether of men or women, and which are performed after an ancient and un-Christian fashion; decreeing that no man from this time forth shall be dressed as a woman, nor any woman in the garb suitable to men. Nor shall he assume comic, satyric, or tragic masks; nor may men invoke the name of the execrable Bacchus when they squeeze wine in the presses; nor when pouring out wine into jars [to cause a laugh], practicing in ignorance and vanity the things which proceed from the deceit of insanity. Therefore, those who in the future attempt any of these things which are [here] written, having obtained a knowledge if them, if they be clerics we order them to be deposed, and if laymen to be cut off [from the Church].”

As another note, the name of Brumalia supposedly comes from brvma “winter solstice” or perhaps “winter cold.” This is assumed to be a shortening of reconstructed *brevima and yet it is interestingly close (and indeed closer to the Suavic brama meaning “gate”. Bota obviously looks quite like the Boda idol celebrated on the Bald Mountain. Finally, the “cross-dressing” aspect of these parties seems similar to some of the Iarilo festivals in Russia.

Copyright ©2021 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved.

March 22, 2021

Some New and Not So New Books on Suavic Matters

Published Post author

The intensity of the lockdowns turns people inwards to entertainment, exercise or, for those just slightly more old-fashioned (or frail), reading. So I’d like to take the opportunity to review a few works dealing with the Suavs. The first is an older book, addressing early Suavic history that I should have taken the time to say something about earlier. The others are rather more recent and deal, interestingly, with the study of Suavic religion. 


The first topic is Paul Barford’s “The Early Slavs.” This is Suavic history for the common man without any academic pretensions. Barford appears to be an archeologist by trade. As to his education, little is clear and it is strange that his publisher Cornell University Press does not provide any bona fides on the jacket. I confess I do not know the procedures for getting published but I would’ve thought that a major university would not just publish a walk-in author so there may be more to this than meets the eye.

Be that as it may, in this case the choice to publish this was a good one. I actually like this book. It methodically outlines the appearance of the Suavs in medieval records, discusses historical developments in Suav proto-polities and moves on to economy, warfare and cultural matters before concluding with a “where are we now.” The book is easily understandable and well-ordered. You can read those parts you are interested in without reading about topics that are less appealing to you. It is chock-full of pictures and interesting maps (for example, a map showing Suavic tribes with the same name in different geographic locations). As noted above, unlike some other books, the book does not pretend to provide definitive answers or grandiose theories and in its conception is really an introductory text.

Barford apparently has quite an agitative and dogmatic brusqueness to his personality that has irked British treasure hunters as well as some within the Polish archeological community but “The Early Slavs” itself is quite measured in its judgements. Indeed, the book acknowledges a number of what should be (though surprisingly are not if you look at Suavic historiography) refreshingly obvious observations even if Barford goes on not to embrace some of these. To quote a few:

  • “It is clear that the traditional migrationary explanation cannot account or the diffusion of the language from a relatively compact area to cover half of Europe, whatever extended timescale in the early medieval period one wishes to adopt. Demographic expansion at this rate can be demonstrated to be biologically impossible. One possibility is that the Slav languages were already in use over a wide area of central Europe before the beginning of the early medieval period… [though he mentions other theories too]”
  • “[S]ome of the participants at Attila’s funeral are reported to have used the word strava for the funeral feast, and this has been claimed as a Slavic term (as indeed it may well have been).”
  • “The simple and hard fact is that from the finding of the sherds of a pot by excavation, there is absolutely no way that we can know what language was spoken by the user of a particular type of brooch any more than we can assume today that each wearer of Levi jeans speaks American English. Terms such as ‘Early Slav pottery’ and ‘Longobard fibulae’ used by archeologists are shorthand terms for more complex and totally uncertain situations.”

To be sure the book’s conclusions, however tentative, do not stray too far from orthodoxy (Barford assumes the Germanic nature of the Przeworsk culture) and often where they do so they come perilously close to Florin Curta’s ridiculous theories (including in, after some hesitation, dismissing the Suavic nature of the Veneti). Nevertheless, precisely because the “earliest Suavs” are not the focus of the “early Suavs”, there is plenty of other stuff here that the readers will find rewarding and useful.

If there is a particular weakness to the book it is inherent in the format chosen by Barford, that of a general, high-level exposition aimed at the Western laic (the book came out right before the admission of several Central European countries into the European Union). Such a format necessarily provides broad-stroke description of much of the material. For example, the religion chapter merely comments on the Rus gods and mentions some of the Polabian deities without acknowledging the Polish (and other) material.

Less forgivable is the occasional error – for example, no, there is no evidence, as Barford claims, for Svarog in Western Suavdom and Svarog was not worshipped at Rethra/Radogost. The only mention of Svarog, at least under that name, is from a note on a Russian manuscript of Malalas (later copied into a manuscript of PVL), likely written by someone in Lithuania (for more on that see here). At Rethra, the deity worshipped was Svarozic (see here and here). Also, Adam of Bremen does not speak of Svarog (or Svarozic) but rather of Redigast. Maybe these were the same divinities but, at least for Svarog – Svarozic that seems doubtful and, in any case, Barford does not claim that so we do not feel too pedantic in making the above objection.


Next up is the recently published “Sources of Slavic Pre-Christian Religion”. The pandemic notwithstanding, we were able to secure a copy from a local university library (thank you!). This volume is, to some extent, what this site has tried to make accessible: a compendium of pagan Suavic religious texts with accompanying English translations.

Up front let us say that this is a must-have for anyone interested in the topic. It essentially combines Meyer‘s Latin, Byzantine, Norse and Arabic sources with Mansikka‘s list of Eastern Suavic sources with a few newly discovered sources tacked in. This alone makes the book a first. It has been nicely put together by a team of Spanish (of all people) academics led by Juan Antonio Álvarez-Pedrosa.

All that being true, the book is lacking in some respects. The English of the book (both in the translations and in the rest of the volume) is awkward. There are too many examples of this to list and it’s strange to me that Brill could not have hired a native English speaker to read through the material so as to clean it up. A college student would have done nicely. While this may be excusable to some extent in the translation of the texts where the authors were dealing with (often poorly written) medieval Latin and other old forms of language, the same cannot be said for, say, the introduction. Moreover, I suspect that the language specialists – all of whom are Spanish – hired to translate the material are neither English speakers nor – for the most part – speakers of the Slavic or German language that the writers of the Latin texts were. Thus, for example, in order to translate Jan Długosz’ texts into English, ideally, you’d have someone translate who not only knows medieval Latin as it was used in Poland but also speaks Polish and English. As it is, Długosz may have had a thought in Polish, written it in Latin, then to have a Spanish Latinist translate it into English (or, worse, I suspect the Spanish Latinist translated it into Spanish and then, in turn, someone who was not a native English speaker translated that Spanish into English). I get that Old Norse or Arabic are not in the toolkit of everyone involved and that this kind of volume is by its very nature challenging to put together but I fear shortcuts may have been utilized.

Irritatingly, the authors call Meyer and Mansikka “editions”; Mansikka could maybe get there but Meyer’s volume was just a compilation of other people’s editions which Meyer put together and he certainly claimed no other status for his work. Thus, the authors will frequently list the edition used as “Meyer” but note “other” editions by Brückner or by Heyzmann. Yet, the Meyer “edition” is just a copy of Brückner or Heyzmann.

The book does, in fact, more generally appear somewhat sloppy in places. Looking just at the Latin section we have, in the section discussing the “Statutes of the Polish Provinces” (these are the statuta breviter), the relevant portion of the Latin text given as “nomina ydolorum lado yleli yassa tya que consueuerunt“. Why are yleli yassa tya not italicized – as Polish Divine Names presumably – but lado is?

On the very same page the authors state: “These statutes are preserved in the Manuscriptum Ossolinense, which dates to 1627 but refers to the 15th century.” The above reference seems to be to an actual manuscript – one of many housed at the Ossolineum (or the National Ossoliński Institute). What is the number of that manuscript? The authors don’t think they say but they do indicate above that it dates to 1627. Except that the reality is that the manuscript actually dates to the 15th century and its number is 1627. This seems like an unfortunate error in a book which is intended as a guide to source material (indeed Meyer gets it right in his description).

Or in the Neplach part, where the same entry is once give as belonging to the year 1344 and then (incorrectly) to the year 1334. We assume that this is all a result of an underpaid intern being tasked with writing the descriptions of individual entries (or of too much of a reliance on a computer?).

Putting aside the awkwardness of the English and the sloppiness in places, the other thing that irks me here is the lack of a table of contents. Meyer had one in 1931 so why did the publisher/editor think that having more titles listed (plus translations) obviates the need for a TOC?

Ok, what about on the substantive side?

The authors’ aim seems to have been just to translate the Meyer and Mansikka anthologies into English and, where possible, to update those texts for some things that Meyer and Mansikka may have missed (Boniface) and some more recent discoveries. Still, in the Latin section 44 out of 52 sources are straight out of Meyer. As to those recent discoveries (not that recent), they explicitly rely on academic work of others (the 1990s work by Słupecki and, for William of Malmesbury, also Zaroff). That is to say, there are no texts here that have not been already published elsewhere by someone else and, it seems, preferably in English.

This creates a problem since some texts have been discussed in literature (are “known”) but have not been edited. Other texts have been edited but by editors who wrote in languages other than English, German or Russian (though the authors do include a Czech original text in the case of the Dalimil Chronicle). Both of those types of texts do not make the cut – whether this is by choice or simply because the editors were unaware of them, we can’t tell (they also seem to be unaware of other compilations aside from Meyer/Mansikka such as the recent compilation by Jiří Dynda – of course, that compilation is in Czech).

Thus, the sermons of Lucas of Great Koźmin have been mentioned by Kowalczyk in 1979, by Kolankiewicz in 1999, by Bracha in 2010 and by Wolski (and I suspect Brückner himself was at some point aware of them) – but all these are in Polish (though Brückner’s opaque reference to Lucas’ sermons in Brückner’s report to the Prussian  academy was, of course, in German). They mention Yassa, Lado and Nya – Długosz’ “Jupiter”, “Mars” and “Pluto”. But if you do not know how to read Polish there is even a Latin edition by Tatarzyński (or you can just ask someone to translate the Polish for you). The Tatarzyński edition is from 1988 (I believe) and we have all of it here on this site since 2017 (the relevant portions since 2014).

The same is true of Jakub Parkoszowic’s “Tractatus on Polish Orthography”. That work, widely known, among Polish scholars both of religion and, yes, orthography, contains a reference to Nya. This is apparently unknown to the authors perhaps because it was unknown to Meyer. Yet it is widely available if you only look. In fact, the Tractatus was published in print already in 1830 (by Samuel Bandtkie) and as recently as 1985 (by Marian Kucała).

Further, when discussing the Polish sermons of the 15th century, they do not include all of the relevant ones presumably because Brückner & others published them in multiple places but only one of those pieces made it into Meyer. A more complete version is available here and has been for some time.

The same is true with Jan Długosz’s Insignia Seu Clenodia Regis Et Regni Poloniae which contains another reference to Lada and predates Długosz’s Annales. The authors seem unaware of the Insignia. The authors do include portions of the Annales presumably because so did Meyer.

Speaking of the Annales, the authors (the Latin section was written by Álvarez-Pedrosa as well as Julia Mendoza Tuñón and Sandra Romano Martín) also made a couple of strange editorial decisions. In the main part of the book, they keep the portion of Długosz’ description of the “baptism” of Poland with its mention of Dziewana and Marzanna. They add to that Długosz’s description of Kievan paganism which itself is merely a summary of what is already in the PVL and adds nothing new (other than, as the authors note, Długosz does not give any names of Kievan gods – referring only to the “God of Thunder” as Vladimir’s favorite deity).

On the other hand, they move the discussion of Polish Gods in the Annales to the “Doubtful Texts” section because “the mythology presented by Długosz appears to be more an imitation of the humanistic taste for the Greek and Roman pantheon.” For good measure the authors note that “[t]he majority of names of the gods which he includes are invented.”

This statement is vacuous on its face. Długosz mentions precisely eight Gods and Goddesses. Of these eight, six are represented in texts which the authors did not deem “doubtful”. The only two Divinities that are specific to the portion of the Annales that the authors treat as suspect are Pogoda and Żywie. So either there is a math issue or, more likely, the authors pulled the statement about the “majority” out of their asses because that’s what they’ve been assuming from the start. (Some of the authors’ claims are also deceptively certain. For example, though this is debatable, śmigusdyngus probably does not come from the German but rather from some Baltic language).

Of the texts in the Latin section, some are of questionable utility. For example, the authors added a portion of the Kadłubek Chronicle which does not have any discussion of religion (their explanation seems unconvincing). They redesignated Meyer’s Einhard as the Annals of Lorsch. Yet that passage regarding Dragovit says nothing about Slavic religion.

Then there are the more substantive errors or omissions. For example, the statutes of Andrew Bishop of Poznań are described incorrectly as those of Andrzej Bniński (bishop 1438-1479) even though they are those of Andrzej Łaskarz (bishop 1414-1426). Why? Well, mostly likely, because Meyer did not list which Andrew he was citing. However, Meyer cites Udalryk Heyzmann’s edition found in “Testimonies of Old Polish Laws” (Starodawne Prawa Polskiego Pomniki). Heyzmann clearly identifies the bishop as Andrzej Łaskarz (Laskary) from Gosławice of the Godziemba coat of arms and I am not aware of anyone having challenged that identification (Brückner agreed with it too).

Going back to the ms 1627 from Ossolineum, the authors are not aware of the fact that an earlier version of that document is present in the Zamoyski Library (Biblioteka Ordynacji Zamoyskiej). This fact has been known since at least 1957 and was “recently” (a decade ago) rediscovered by Krzysztof Bracha. Had the writers known this, they might have known that these are synodal statutes of the Poznań diocese of bishop Nicolas Peyser (Mikołaj Peyser, that is, from Pyzdry) and might have included them. This would have been helpful because those statutes clearly show that the Divinity Tya listed in the Ossolineum manuscript is, as had been suspected, really Nya. It would also have been helpful with the dating of the statutes which were written before 1414 and maybe even in the last quarter of the 14th century (as opposed to the vaguer-sounding 15th century which the book gives). Of course, a call to Krzysztof Bracha or other Polish researchers in the area would have clarified that but it seems those folks had not been consulted. Given that the list of usual thank yous at the end of the introduction lists only Spanish folks, you can only worry that the outreach to local (non-Polish) country specialists was likewise limited or nonexistent.

Other errors abound as well. When citing the Annals of Magdeburg which mention an 1147 campaign against the Redarii, the translators erroneously place the Ruthenians in the middle of the Wendish Crusade failing to recognize the scribe having gone off on a tangent to describe the campaign of Bolesuav IV against the Prussians. Then they compound their error by explaining these “Pruscos” as “a Slavic tribe.” This, even though they know that the rest of the events covered by the scribe took place in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern culminating with the the siege of the city of Malchow. Actually, they even call the area Mecklenburg-Schwerin – a name of a now expired duchy – suggesting that this description was obtained via some 19th century German text.

All that being said, the book – published by Brill –  is a useful, if incomplete, anthology of texts relating to Suavic religion – both Western and Eastern.  This, in and of itself, makes the volume unique in any language. The English translations are further an invaluable source of information for those amateur historians of religion who do not know Latin or Suavic languages. The fact that such an undertaking – no matter its shortcomings – was the enterprise of a group of Spanish scholars deserves praise for them (and, likewise, shame for Suavic scholars for not even having attempted to produce something like this). We can only hope that some of the issues with the volume will be fixed in future editions.


Someone once said that the history of studying Suavic religion is a history of disappointment. I do not agree with that sentiment. Rather, I think, what is  too frequently disappointing is the work of those who do the studying. This is particularly unfortunate when we are dealing with English language books on the topic as these are so few and far between.

Thus, we come to “Slavic Gods and Heroes” by  Judith Kalik and Alexander Uchitel, a book which “offers a radical reinterpretation of the Slavic pagan religion made on the basis of a thorough re-examination of all reliable sources.” This is an ambitious claim for anyone to be making but particularly for individuals like Kalik and Uchitel who appear to be newcomers to the field of Suavic religious studies. Kalik seems to be a lecturer at Hebrew University interested in Jewish history of Eastern Europe and Uchitel apparently was a professor at the same institution specializing in Middle Eastern history with an interest in religion. Pair them together (they are married) and you now have a new book about Eastern European religion. Of course, their lack of formal qualifications is not disqualifying in and of itself and a fresh perspective is frequently welcome but the bar, let’s say, is a little bit higher if you decide to opine outside of your area of expertise. With that being said, it is no secret that the bar isn’t met here. (They do radically reinterpret European hydronymy, asking “…why were there no Slavic gods at all between the Dnieper and the Order?” right in the introduction).

The central idea of the book is that the primitive Suavic society was a totemistic society characterized by animal worship with such “spirit” animals eventually anthropomorphised into legendary heroes or heroines such as Czech, Krok or Lebed. A bit like the Siberian or Turkic peoples of the steppes. Therefore, such a society never had any gods or goddesses – full stop.

I cannot escape the impression that the above is all the authors ever wanted to write about the topic (in what might otherwise have been a short article with a whiff of an opinion piece) and that somehow their publisher forced them to justify themselves. The result is a book which reads more like an almanac of unwanted chapters and entries where the authors perfunctorily (and, therefore, ineffectually) argue against (and sometimes just dismiss out of hand) all the evidence contrary to their thesis as if someone had told them they had to do that, even if half-heartedly, before they were allowed to write about what they really wanted to write about in the first place (that being, again, the alleged Suavic totemism).

As just one obvious example, they assert that “the Polish pantheon was invented only in the fifteenth century as an imitation of ‘Vladimir’s gods’ in Kiev.” The cite for this is Joannis Dlugossii seu Longini canonici Cracoviensis Historiae Polonicae libri XII, edited by Żegota Pauli and Aleksander Przeździecki, vol. 1, Krakow, 1867, 1.3. (p. 70). Now, that is the Latin edition of the work and was not published in 1867 but in 1873. What was published in 1867 was the Polish version of the same: Dzieje polskie w księgach dwunastu w przekładzie Karola Mecherzyńskiego. Moreover, while Aleksander Narcyz Przeździecki was involved as a publisher in the 1867 Polish edition, Ignacy “Żegota” Pauli was not. That said, neither the Polish nor the Latin edition makes any statement on “page 70” to support Kalik and Uchitel’s proposition. They give the same cite (also incorrectly) when stating that “Jan Długosz mentions Pogoda – ‘weather’ – among ‘Polish gods,’… but Długosz’s ‘pantheon’ is probably his own artificial construction, and this evidence is hardly reliable.” Oddly, elsewhere, the authors cite the 2nd Polish edition with a date of 1961. Now, for starters, they claim that this is Miecherzyński [sic] edition. But it is not a Mecherzyński edition but a completely new edition by  Jan Dąbrowski, Wanda Semkowicz-Zarembina, Krystyna Pieradzka, Bożena Modelska-Strzelecka &, as they say, others. Quite separately, that edition has been reissued in 2009 and is freely available online so you might have thought the authors would have just used that version. As it is, it is not clear which edition the authors used and, as regards the above claim, whether they used any at all.

All of this is before we even get to the following statement: “We did not use Długosz in our discussion of Slavic pagan gods as it cannot be a reliable source for this information. However, with some hesitation, his presentation of Polish historical tradition will be considered, since it includes some valuable additional details, which numismatic and epigraphic evidence may possibly corroborate.” This time the authors do not provide even an incorrect cite for why Długosz’ information “cannot be a reliable source”. As to the disarmingly charming statement made above, it seems the authors chose to look at Długosz where Długosz’ tales could be used to support the totemic theory that the authors are purveying but to ignore the same author where what Długosz wrote would not have otherwise jived with the thesis of their book.

Of course, Aleksander Brückner did dismiss some of the members of Długosz’ pantheon but the authors do not cite Brückner. As far as the claim that Długosz was copying “Vladimir’s gods” from the PVL, I am not aware of anyone who has made such a claim before the authors and the authors provide neither research on the topic nor any citations for the proposition. And more importantly, Brückner wrote a century ago (incidentally, in a manner that these days would hardly be allowed to pass – he also had a major problem with footnoting) and much ink has been spilled contradicting his views since. Kalik and Uchitel, however, give the awful impression of not being familiar with any of the arguments made against the positions they so casually espouse.

Presumably because they are newcomers to the field, the authors seemingly had to do a lot of basic research first. The book reflects this as the authors pedantically plough through various sources as a university student might to keep track of newly learned material in preparation for the final exam. In other words, do not expect a synthetic approach. Rather what you have here is a strange listing of some well-known sources with a smattering of more obscure learning (though there is a whole bunch of material that the authors just missed or willfully ignored). The lists include religious source material but also Suavic chronicles – much of which the authors come across as having first learned about in the process of writing their book. Again, the book reads more like an outline and its entries might make a suitable blog. In fact, as a blog, this compendium would have been quite fine but as a book it is lacking. (To be fair Gieysztor’s book feels the same in places and in his case we know that his publisher made him dumb his work down so, you might say, the authors are in decent company).

What about the substance of their claim? Well, first it’s not exactly original. Whether the authors know it or not, others have made similar claims about Slavic folk beliefs literally more than a hundred years ago (for example, check out Henryk Biegeleisen’s work). That being said, the claim is not sustainable. For one thing, there is plenty of evidence of Suavic worship of divinities in various contexts (reading this site might be helpful at least when talking about West Suavic Gods and Goddesses). Beyond that, it is, of course, the case that animals played a very important role in all early belief systems. This is no more true of the Suavs than of say Teutons – just see how many a Germanic bears a name with the suffix -ulf (wolf). And none of the Suavic idols are reported to have featured as a central figure an animal. That Suavs painted eagles on their banners makes them no more totemists than the Romans who were said to have come from brothers raised by a wolf and who carried the Roman eagle in front of the legions (look up aquilifer). Huginn and Muninn do not make Odinists into totemists and the popularity of the Lion of Judah does not make Israelites into totemists either. By the authors’ reasoning the Franks’ original religion could also have been “totemic” since Merovech, according to their own fabulists, may have been fathered by some sea monster.

Why Suavs were no totemists, methinks is quite simple: the Suavs did not originate in the steppe where totemic beliefs were common. They originated in the forest zone (maybe in the forest steppe, though I have my doubts). Thus, they were not influenced – at least on this point – by the nomads that populated that steppe.  I suppose they could have invented their own totems… but they didn’t. Kalik and Uchitel’s “founding myth” ingeniously made up from a patchwork of legends taken from various Suavic people’s “histories” does not convince me (yet 🙂 ).

Finally, the above examples of sloppiness are hardly far and few in between. A mildly competent editor with a knowledge of the languages involved (this seems to be a theme) could have pointed out some of the errors noted above but the authors don’t seem to have had one. As it is, we get such pearls as “Misrrz Wincenty” or Kazimierz IV Jagiellońszyk (including, in the index for good measure). In a day and age where Wikipedia (usually) gives you the correct spelling, this would be barely forgivable in a magazine article let alone in what purports to be a book focusing on Suavic topics.

Overall, the authors are altogether too ready (for a purported scholarly work) to make sweeping assumptions and jump (hop hop, pochopnie) to conclusions. For example, the suggestion that Svarog’s name may be cognate with the German schwartz I made, tentatively, some time back. The authors, however, exhibit far fewer reservations and enthusiastically make the possible cognate into a borrowing carrying it back to the reconstructed Germanic *svartaz (further connecting it with the Slavic chort and, naturally, Chernobog) so as to declare confidently that this is “the most likely source for the West Slavic Svarozhich [emphasis added].” (Given the lack of attribution, I am assuming they came upon this idea on their own). 

Are there positive aspects of the book? Sure. The very fact that a book has been written in English on this topic is better than if the book hadn’t come out at all. Any publicity is good publicity. The authors provide a nice compilation of examples of Suavic hippomancy, setting those rituals in the wider Indo-European context. They also give interesting anecdotes and factoids here and there. My favorite is the astute remark that Christian observers sometimes “tended to interpret [in the authors’ view] totemic cults as monotheistic religions citing as an example the following statement by a papal legate visiting a Mongolian khan: “They believe in one God, and they believe that He is the maker of all things visible, and invisible; and that it is He who is the giver of the good things of this world as well as the hardships…” This, of course, conjures up the famous passage by Procopius or, for that matter, the later description by Helmold of the Suavic God of Gods.

The book is published by Routledge whose recent duds include “Slavs in the Making” – Florin Curta’s exercise in digging himself in deeper.

Copyright ©2021 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved.

March 16, 2021

Poloni

Published Post author

It has become fashionable for certain elitist circles to try to denigrate Polish nationalism by pointing out that the idea of the “Polish nation” was for years restricted to the upper classes. The transparent intent is to take the air out of the nationalist balloon that had pumped up the rather overly pleased egos of some nationalists hailing from the plebeian classes – whether “worker” of “farmer” (though the former, if you look back a couple of generations, almost always leads to the latter). (An analogous mechanism is at work where similar elites throw various Jesus quotes at self-professed Christians with the putative aim of exposing hypocrisy and teaching Christians how to be better Christians but, where one suspects, the more immediately satisfying goal is that of deflating – by means of a “burn” – some bloated evangelical egos).

There is no doubt that Poland, for many years, was quite an inequitable place. On the one hand, the gentry was much larger than the Western European aristocracy and benefitted from privileges not accorded its western counterpart. On the other hand, the serf class existed in what became increasingly a slave-like system of land management.

Yet, is the above-cited claim correct? Were these serfs really not Poles in the full sense of the word? This writer would beg to differ.

One could point to the fact that, whatever the definition of the “nation” was in the 16-18th centuries, if we look back further in time we see that matters were initially different. Thus, for example, we could note that the peasant enjoyed more freedoms under the Piasts than under the Jagiellons and elective kings and more still under the earlier Piasts.

But aside from substance, there are other, symbolic, indications that the serfs were in fact seen as part of the nation no less than the non-landed Americans were seen as American by the U.S.’ Founding Fathers. The mistake here is to regard the right to vote as determinative of whether someone belongs to the Nation. That kind of an approach would redefine Nation to mean no more than the upper class (or caste).

For one thing, we have the foundation stories of the Poles (and the Czechs) which take great care to speak of the founders of the first dynasty such as Piast (and Premysl) as tillers, farmers. Even in the PVL’s take on the history of Kievan Rus, the indigenous Kievan Polans’ leaders – Kyi, Shchek, Khoryv and their sister Lybid – appear to have had no great claim of an aristocratic heritage.

But there is another reason to think that Poles – in the sense of a Nation – were, well, just Poles. When the sermon speaks of Nos, enim Poloni, tres deos habemus, scilicet Lada, Nya, Iassa – we note that these “Poloni” that the writer is referring to were not the writer’s own social niveau. They could not have been because the royal, priestly, warrior, bureaucrat and, likely also townsperson, classes, must have been, by the 15th century, mostly Christianized.

The people that the writer is referring to as the “Poloni” were the peasants with whose serious Christianization the Church was becoming concerned first in the 14th/15th century. And, indeed, the reports of the Polish Gods – Yassa, Lado and others (incidentally, Deos – not Deas – whether that interpretation was right is another matter) – come from the countryside. What is surprising about this is that – even in the 19th century – Polish ethnographers were recording the Names – Jasień and Łado – in peasant songs. In other words, even half a millennium later, the Church, in substance, failed to persuade the masses of the attractiveness of the “original sin” / “repentance” theology.

Copyright ©2021 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

January 10, 2021

The Axeheads of Central/Eastern Europe – Dragon or Stag – Yasher or Leleń?

Published Post author

An interesting series of finds presents itself in various places from central Europe and Russia. Here we have a series of dragon or stag looking creature (yasher?) on, mostly, axeheads (plus stirrups and as a sword) found in the following locations:

  • Gubin/Guben, Poland/Germany
  • Żagań, Poland
  • Schaunburg, Austria
  • Vienna, Austria
  • Moscow, Russia (stirrup)
  • Olen’-Kolodez’, Voronezh Oblast, Russia
  • Florence, Italy (sword)

These were described by the Russian archeologist Vladimir Kulakov in “The Cultic Weapon of the Balts and Slavs of the 10th-12th Centuries” (Культовое оружие балтов и славян X-XII вв.) in Slavia Antiqua, 1991/1992 (volume XXII, page 115). And he repeated some of this in 2001 in “The Silver Axes of the Chieftains” (Серебряные секиры вождей). The next year after that, in 2002, we had a more detailed description by Felix Biermann in his Mittelalterliche Kriegsausrüstung mit der Darstellung eines gehornten Tieres (in Die Zeitschrift für Waffen- und Kleidungsgeschichte or Kostümkunde?). The same was then further elaborated by Normen Posselt and Paweł Szczepanik in their “Zoomorphic Applications and Representations on the Slavic Temple Rings in the Northern West Slavic Area” (Zoomorphe Applikationen und Darstellungen auf slawischen Schläfenringen im nördlichen westslawischen Raum) in Beiträge zur Ur- und FrühgeschichteMitteleuropas 82, 2017, pages 193-220.

Here are some of the pictures from the above articles in some more detail. A further set of publications is listed in Biermann’s article.


Gubin/Guben, Poland/Germany

This was found on the land of a certain wine dealer, Mr. Pötko of Osterberg street in Guben in 1884. It was lost in 1945. First reported by Jentsch in the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Volume 15.


Żagań, Poland

Found in 1850. Kept at Sagan/Żagań till 1945. Not clear what happened with it afterwards.


Schaunburg, Austria

Found in 1876. Today kept in Linz, Austria.


Vienna, Austria

We know this has been in the Art History Museum in Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien)since 1820 but provenance is unknown.


Moscow, Russia

This stirrup has been in Moscow at the State Historical Museum (formerly the Imperial Russian Historical Museum) since 1926 but the origin of its find is unknown.


Olen’-Kolodez’, Voronezh Oblast, Russia

This is the most recent discovery, found in 1996 by Yefimov in a Golden Horde kurgan from the 13th-14th century. However, it was dated by the discoverer to the 12th-13th century.

Interestingly olen, refers to a stag or deer.


Florence, Italy

Currently this sword is at the National Museum of Bargello (Museo Nazionale del Bargello) in Florence. It was an 1894-1895 gift from the Italian diplomat Francesco Costantino Giuseppe Ressman and is part of the Ressman collection. The location of the original find is unknown. According to Biermann, the museum suggests that it may have belonged to Jaxa (or Jaksa) of Miechów of the Gryf family (1120–1176). There has alway been some people who also believe that this is the same person as Jaxa of Köpenick.


What is the origin of all these axes, the sword and the stirrup? And more importantly, what is the concept behind the motif? No one knows for sure. Biermann argued that the axeheads may have come from Novgorod – at the intersection of Scandinavian, Baltic, Finnic and Asian trade routes. However, an interesting stylistic relative of the above (in my view) is the following depiction of the Karkonosze mountain “spirit”, the so-called Rübezahl, from the year 1561:

You can see the Riesenberg – Giant Mountain – just above.

Riesengebirge is the German name for the mountain range Karkonosze (Polish) / Krkonoše (Czech). Of course, they are curiously close to the Jesioniki (or Jeseníky or Gesenke and Vandal Mountains?) and both are part of the Sudetes Mountains.

On the stag/deer side, there are also potential parallels to the Polish jeleń or leleń that is a stag/deer that, apparently, may have had some divine attributes. You might look for Kazimierz Perkowski’s article on that topic (as well as pics). The Posselt-Szczepanik article mentioned above has further references to Suavic and Polish animal motifs, including stags/deer.

Turning to a dragon alternative/connection, there is also the curious fact that jaszczur means lizard in all Suavic languages, from a reconstructed (apparently) *aščerъ. Whether this was the actual name of a lizard or can be derived from the genitive case of the Name to which the lizard belongs or whose prey it is (or who also is a dragon?), is another matter. The giant Thjazzi also comes to mind, naturally.

And then there is this find of, clearly, a dragon which you can see in Schuchhardt’s Vorgeschichte von Deutschland. It was found in Strzelce Krajeńskie area (German Friedeberg). Totally different style but the same concept of a turning head. Of course, that can just be a result of trying to fit the motif in the limited space available.

 Copyright ©2020 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

July 3, 2020

Further Tamga and the Like Spear/Lance Finds

Published Post author

We’ve discussed spears with runes & signs here and more specifically here:

as well as here. Here are some other “tamga” spears. Tamgas are associated most typically with the Sarmatians. Yet, as we will see these spears are not found where the Jazyges resided and Ukraine, the are ruled by Sarmatians and later the Goths also does not generally yield tamga spear finds. Perhaps they could be associated with the Veneti Sarmatae. Some of these are from a 2012 article by Yatsenko & Dobrzanska. Others from Gustaf Kossina’s ever giving Die deutsche Vorgeschichte: Ein hervorragende nationale Wissenschaft or other Mannus-related publications such as Martin Jahn’s Die Bewaffnung der Germanen in der alteren Eisenzeit etwa von 700 v. Chr. bis 200 n. Chr. I also give citations in the text to various Polish articles announcing these finds (or analyzing them in depth). For more on this stuff is currently Bartosz Kontny if you can read Polish, of course.


Jankowo, Poland

This in the area of Mogilno is also the site of the discovery of the Jankowo “head” (for that discovery as well as its “viking” interpretation, you can see, for example, Der Kopf von Adolfinenhof Kreis Mogilno, eine Wikingische Holzplastik?)


Żurawiczki (Kamienica), Poland 

There are actually two finds here. The first is this:

And the second this:

The other side of this spear apparently was too worn out to provide anything of interest though we know it contains dots and a few concentric circles.

This was described in Włodzimierz Antoniewicz’s Żelazne oszczepy inkrustowane z Kamienicy, w pow. jarosławskim, „Przeglad Archeologiczny”, t. 1, s. 99–111 (1919) as well as other articles including in Andrzej Kokowski’s Problemy badania dziejów kultury przeworskiej in Kultura Przeworska, Lublin vol 1.


Zadowice, Poland

We can also see a similar “tree” symbol on an encrusted sword from Lachmirowice and Egge as discussed in Tadeusz Horbacz’s and Marek Olędzki’s Inkrustowane Miecze Rzymskie z Barbaricum i Obszarow Przylimesowych Imperium Romanum: Wybrane Zagadnienia in Acta Universatis LodziensisFolia Archaeologica, vol 17 (1992).


Grunówko, Poland

Another location where spears have been found is Grunówko. There are two specimen from Grunówko (near Wschowa by Leszno) though the silver encrustings apparently had melted in the ritual flames. The original publication here was Kurhan w Grunówku pod Lesznem by Romuald Erzepki from the Zapiski Archeologiczne Poznańskie, volume IV (1888). Here is the first:

And here is the other:


Września, Poland


Podlodów, Poland

The cover of Andrzej Kokowski’s Lubelszczyzna w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i w okresie rzymskim features the following spear:

In order to identify it you can read Jan Gurba’s and Zygmunt Ślusarski’s 1966 article Bogato wyposażony grób z III wieku z Podlodowa w pow. tomaszowsko-lubelskim, „Przeglad Archeologiczny”, t. 17. This was discovered in the village of Podlodów by a local farmer – Jan Kukis in 1959.

You will soon discover that the spear actually looks like this:

Or rather like this:


Stryczowice by Ostrowiec, Poland

For more of this and others check out Andrzej Nadolski’s Kilka uwag o inkrustowanych grotach oszczepów z późnego okresu rzymskiego, Slavia Antiqua, t. 2 (1950) or Z problematyki badań nad wczesnośredniowiecznym uzbrojeniem polskim from “Z Otchłani Wieków: pismo poświęcone pradziejom Polski, Tom 21, Numer 5 (1952). More recently, see Jacek Andrzejowski’s Groty włóczni ze znakami symbolicznymi ze Stryczowic in „ZOW”, t. 61, nr 1–2.


Gać, Poland

For more on this you can check out an article by Anna Lasota, Cmentarzysko z okresu rzymskiego w Gaci w swietle nowych badan or Marcin Biborski’s Zdobiona broń z cmentarzyska ciałopalnego z okresu wpływów rzymskich z Gaci k. Przeworska in Materiały Archeologiczne, t. XXIII (1986).


Bodzanowo, Poland

The Bodzanowo of this spear lies about midway between Inowrocław and Włocławek.


Kopaniewo, Poland

This is from Jahn’s book where he says it comes from Koppenow, now Kopaniewo in Lębork County, Pomerania, Poland. Apparently, another example of this is from Neugut (near Sławno?).


Silesia, Poland 

On this one you cannot see any taigas but you can see the “moon” symbols.

The specific location of this find is uncertain. More on the topic in Rudolf Jamka’s Ozdoby oręża i narzędzi z podokresu późno-lateńskiego i okresu rzymskiego, odkrytych na Śląsku, “Polska Akademia Umiejętności – Prace Prehistoryczne”, nr 3. Quite a similar example comes from Hoppenrade, east Germany – see below for that.

Rogów Opolski, Poland

Here you have the same spear shown in two different ways.

Once again see the Rudolf Jamka article for more on these which also refers to articles by Raschke (from whom comes the version of the picture on the left) and Kurtz (same for the right side version). The tamga signs seem quite few and barely visible.


Sobótka, Łęczyca, central Poland

These pictures come from G Rycel’s’ article Cmentarzysko kultury przeworskiej w Sobótce (st. 1), woj. konińskie, Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria Archeologiczna, nr 24 (1981). This Sobótka is between Warsaw and Poznan.

Here the “lunar” as well as “solar” (in the top picture) symbols are clearly visible.


Nadkole, Mazovia, Poland

Here is an interesting example of lunar and triangular (?) symbols from Mazovia.

For more information you can check out Jacek Andrzejowski’s “Nadkole 2. A Cemetery of the Przeworsk Culture in Eastern Poland.”


There are a few similar spears from outside of Poland. Such as this.

Medow, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, east Germany
(Medowe or Miodowe)


Zihl, Switzerland

This Swiss example comes from Jahn’s book.


Недобоївці/Nedoboyivtsi/Nedoboivtsi, western Ukraine


Valle, Norway


Mos, Stenkyrka, Gotland, Sweden

This is an example from Sweden from an article “Runes and Romans in the North” by Lisbeth Imer (also her drawing).

With this exception, the Scandinavian versions of these spears or lances do not appear to be adorned by any of tamgas that are present on all the other spears shown here. Nevertheless, since some of them are quite cool and famous we show some below.


Hoppenrade, eastern Germany

This too comes from Jahn’s book.


Vimose, Funen, Denmark

This technically is not a spear but a sword scabbard but the left marking on this appears to be a tamga-like designation.


Ok so let’s map these tamga finds.

The makes clear that these tamga signs were not “Scandinavian” or “Nordic” in any common sense of the word. They are not found in central or west Germany or in France. On spears they appear primarily in Poland with a few examples also in the immediate surroundings. But the curious thing is that, outside of spear or lanceheads, they are found even earlier in the past – primarily in the Bosporan Kingdom but also in other places, including, again, in Poland. That is a topic for another time. In the meantime let’s look at some other spear finds that do not have tamga markings but do feature embroidery and runic symbols.


Of course there were many spears featuring various “patterns” that did not contain any tamga signs or runes or other characters such as these. In Poland you have examples such as these.

Prusiek, Poland
near Sanok

This comes from articles by Renata Madyda-Legutko, Judyta Rodzińska-Nowak and Joanna Zagórska-Telega. There apparently is also another Prusiek spear.


Or take a look at this.

Gródki, Poland
near Dzialdowo, Nidzica
(Grodtken near Soldau, Neidenburg)

For other decorated but not with tamga signs spears, check out the spear from Niemirow or Stara Rudowka.


And then there are quite a number of runic spears, mostly in Scandinavia or England such as these. They contain runes or other markings but not tamgas.

Wurmlingen, western Germany

The Wurmlingen speer certainly contains runes and other etchings but they do not appear to be similar to any known tamga signs. It is also much more recent, being dated apparently to the seventh century.


Vimose, Funen, Denmark

Back to Vimose again.


Øvre Stabu, Norway 

Copyright ©2020 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

March 1, 2020