Origins of the Northern Slavs – the Earliest Slavic Chronicles (early 1100s)

The teens & tweens of the 12th century seem to have been a game of one up-manship at the carious European courts with some of the most interesting chronicles being produced at that time.  Thus we have the following:

At the Kievan court we have the Povest’ Vremyan’nykh Let’ , aka the Primary Chronicle, aka Nestor’s Chronicle, written about 1113 or so. 

In Prague, written sometime between 1119-1125, we have the Kosmova Kronika Česká or Kosmova Kronika Čechů (make up your mind, will ya?), aka the Bohemian Chronicle, aka the Cosmas Chronicle.

Finally, in Cracow, we have the Kronika Polska, aka Chronica Polonorum, aka Gesta Principum Polonorum, aka the Gallus (Anonymous) Chronicle, put to parchment about 1112-1116.

Let’s call these Batch 1. Each of these chronicles details some of the foundation stories of the northern Slavs.  So what do we find out?

Nestor’s Chronicle

True to its origins, no other Slavic chronicle through that time (through the early 12th century) attempts to describe as much of the Slav past or as much of the Slav geography as the Russian Nestor’s Chronicle.*  From it (Laurentian Text as translated and edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor), we find out that the Slavs are the “sons of Japheth… since they are the Noricians, who are identical with Slavs.”

Once that business is cleared up,

we are told the following interesting bit about Slavs:

“Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie.  From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs.  Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs and the Carinthians.  For when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs.  Of these same Lyakhs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians.  Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnieper, and were likewise called Polyanians.  Still others were named Derevlians, because they lived in the forests.  Some also lived between the ‘Pripet’ and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called the Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina.  It was from this same stream that they were named the Polotians.  The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il’men, and were known there by their characteristic name.  They built a city which they called Novgorod.  Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem’ and the Sula, and were called Severians.  Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.”

The chronicle thus gives a rather remarkable description of the origins of the northern Slavic people pointing out that they started at the Danube and then spread northwards in a migration precipitated by attacks of the “Vlakhs”.  Whether these latter were Wollochians or Byzantines is another matter for later consideration – in general, a Wallach, Vlach, Walh or a Wallach refers to a Celt or romanized Celt (i.e., not a German or Slav).

Just a few paragraphs later, Nestor’s Chronicle also gives the foundation story of the future capital city of the eastern Slavs stating that: “…there were three brothers, Kiy, Shchek, and Khoriv, and their sister was named Lybed… They built a town and named it Kiev after their oldest brother.” We then learn that “[t]hese men [sorry, Lybed] were wise and prudent; they were called Polyanians and there are Polyanians descended from them living in Kiev to this day.”  (that is to Nestor’s day, i.e., around the beginning of the 12th century or about 300 years after the invasion of the Rus).

Cosmas’ Chronicle

What of Cosmas and the Czechs?  What do they have to say about this (or, being Czechs, more importantly, about themselves).   The Czech story begins with the Slav leader Czech arriving at the summit of Mount Rip and deciding to settle down there while his younger brother Lech keeps heading northwards towards Poland.  Err… no, that’s what you may have been taught in Czech school.  Actually, it’s slightly different than that:

“Seeking places suitable for human habitation, whoever the man was (it is uncertain with how many souls [he traveled]) who later entered these solitudes [of “Germania” in the old Roman sense – in particular, the watershed of the Elbe, i.e., Bohemia], he surveyed twitch keen sight the mountains, valleys, and wastes and, so I think, located their first settlement around Mt. Rip between two rivers, namely the Ohre and the Vltava.  He established their first dwellings and rejoiced in the guardian deities that had carried with him on his shoulders, now erected on the ground.  Then the elder, who them others accompanied as if he was their lord, spoke thus to his followers (among other things): ‘ O comrades, you have endured with me heavy burdens through lonely forests, halt your step.  Offer thankful libation to your gods,through whose wondrous work you have come to your fatherland, as once foreordained for you by destiny.  This is it.  This is that land which you often reminded me I promised you, a land subject to no one, filled with wild animals and fowl, wet with nectar, honey and milk, and, as you yourselves see, air delightful for living.”

So we are told the Czechs came from somewhere else, but it is not clear from where. From the North? Not, unless they walked on water or their journey had only been across the Carpathians from Poland.   From the West?  Unlikely.  From the East?  Perhaps…  From the south?  Possibly. Then, we learn that the country was named Czechia after this great leader whose name was Czech. Hmmmmm. Again, not exactly.  The translation has the people replying to their great leader as follows:

“Since you, O father, are called ‘Bohemus’, where might we find a better or more fitting name than for the land to be called ‘Bohemia’?  Then the elder, moved by the divination of his comrades, began to kiss the ground for joy and, rejoicing, named it from his own name.”

(all courtesy of Lisa Wolverton’s 2009 translation of the Cosmas Chronicle). Even this is not exactly right as the specific names are boem and boemia (this is from the Budyšínský rukopis Kosmovy Kroniky Čechů, or the Budyšin/Bautzen manuscript):

Gallus Chronicle**

In comparison with the above, the Gallus Chronicle (which, or portions of which, may be the earliest of the three chronicles) is rather restrained in its historiography.   It does not make any biblical connections for the Poles or other Slavs.  Neither does it speak of any particular formative trek allegedly undertaken by the Polish or any other Slavic people.  It never uses the Lech or Lach or Lyakh name as the alternative name for Poles (therefore, it has no need to discuss the tale of Lech, Czech or Rus).***

Instead, it, rather modestly, discusses events taking place at the Polish capital at Gniezno and the first prince Popiel (aka Choscisko) before further describing how he was eaten and replaced by the son of a farmer, named Ziemo(or Samo)vit (to be clear, the farmer’s name was Piast (son of Choscisko)**** and the son’s name was Ziemovit and Popiel was eaten by neither Piast nor Ziemovit but by mice).

The tale of Popiel & Piast we will tell at a latter time as it, at least in the Gallus Anonymous telling, seems not to bear on the question of the origins of the Slavs or Poles.

* Not to be outdone, the later, early 13th century, Chronicle of Master Vincent (Kadlubek) gets the Poles to catch up to the Russians in histogriaphic scope by broadening the Poles’ narrative to pick up the less well known (until then) Polish crushing of the Galls, the Romans, the Macedonians and, likely, the Parthians (Persians).  Similar motifs appear in the Greater Poland Chronicles of the late 13th or possibly early 14th century.

** Incidentally, the notion (or rather the convention) that the author was French (Gallus) comes from a note made by Warmia/Ermland Bishop Cromer circa 1514 on one of the chronicle’s manuscripts (the Heilsberg or Lidzbark Warminski manuscript):  “Gallus hanc historiam scripsit, monachus, opinor, aliquis, ut ex proemiis coniicere licet qui Boleslai tertii tempore vixit” (Gallus wrote this history, some monk, in my opinion, who lived in the time of Boleslaw III, as can be conjectured from the preface).  What the source of this idea was is unclear nor whether this was a reference to his nationality or to a proper name.

*** In fact, genitals having been cut, people having been blinded and emotions running generally high between the Czechs and the Poles at the time, Gallus describes the Czechs as Poles’ worst enemies so any tale of brotherly love even with Czech as the younger brother (see the Jan Dlugosz Chronicle) is a “no no” for this chronicler.

****  This has lead to the confusion as to whether Popiel was Piast’s father (one being referred to as Choscisko, the other being referred to as the son of Choscisko).  Although that seems like an obvious interpretation of the text, Gallus itself does not make any such connection suggesting in fact that one (Popiel) was a prince whereas the other (Piast) was a farmer (oracz).

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved