The Indiculus superstitionum et paganiarum is, what appears to be, a table of contents for a work that was either never composed or, if composed, is currently lost. It was written sometime between 740 – 770 in Germany. The titles serve to shed a bit of light on the topic of German (not Germanic as in ancient and not Nordic as in Scandinavian) paganism immediately before the intense Christianization campaigns of Charlemagne among the Saxons and others. It exists in only one copy at the Vatican (MS 577).
What is particularly interesting about this work is that, in between the Latin, it features a few words of uncertain meaning which have commonly been viewed as Germanic but whose exact translation has been uncertain. The list has been intensely studied by various linguists and anthropologists but, so far, as with so many such things, views differ and no solution to the puzzle appears commonly accepted. The four words are dadsisas, nimidas, nodfyr and yrias.
It is generally accepted that they are or must be Germanic – most likely Dutch or Frisian. Right above the Indiculus is the Old Saxon Baptismal Vow (somewhat similar in format to the later Slavic Freising Manuscripts vows) so a Saxon connection of sorts may also be present. Indeed, nodfyr sounds/looks Germanic. But what is interesting are the other words.
- De sacrilegio ad sepulchra mortuorum. – “Of sacrilege at the graves of the dead”
- De sacrilegio super defunctos id est dadsisas. – “Of sacrilege over the departed, that is, ‘dadsisas'”
- De spurcalibus in Februario. – “Of the swinish feasts in February”
- De casulis id est fanis. – “Of the little houses, that is sanctuaries”
- De sacrilegiis per aecclesias. – “Of sacrilegious acts in connection with churches”
- De sacris siluarum quae nimidas vocant. – “Of the sacred rites of the woods which they call ‘nimidas'””
- De hiis quae faciunt super petras. – “Of those things which they do upon the stones”
- De sacris Mercurii, vel Iovis. – “Of the sacred rites of Mercury and of Jupiter”
- De sacrificio quod fit alicui sanctorum. – “Of the sacrifice which is offered to any of the saints”
- De filacteriis et ligaturis. – “Of amulets and knots”
- De fontibus sacrificiorum. – “Of the fountains of sacrifices”
- De incantationibus. – “Of incantations”
- De auguriis vel avium vel equorum vel bovum stercora vel sternutationes. – “Of auguries, the dung or sneezing of birds or of horses or of cattle”
- De divinis vel sortilogis. – “Of diviners or sorcerers“
- De igne fricato de ligno id est nodfyr. – “Of the fire made by friction from wood, that is, the ‘nodfyr'””
- De cerebro animalium. – “Of the brains of animals”
- De observatione pagana in foco, vel in inchoatione rei alicuius. – “Of the observance of the pagans on the hearth or at the inception of any business”
- De incertis locis que colunt pro sacris. “Of undetermined places which they celebrate as holy”
- De petendo quod boni vocant sanctae Mariae. – “Of the bed-straw which good folk call Holy Mary’s”
- De feriis quae faciunt Jovi vel Mercurio. – “Of the days which they make for Jupiter and Mercury”
- De lunae defectione, quod dicunt Vinceluna. – “Of the eclipse of the moon – what they call, ‘Triumph, Moon!'””
- De tempestatibus et cornibus et cocleis. – “Of storms, and horns, and snail shells”
- De sulcis circa villas. – “Of furrows around villas”
- De pagano cursu quem yrias nominant, scissis pannis vel calciamentis. – “Of the pagan course which they call ‘yrias,’ with torn garments or footwear”
- De eo, quod sibi sanctos fingunt quoslibet mortuos. – “Of this that they feign for themselves that dead persons of whatever sort are saints”
- De simulacro de consparsa farina. – “Of an idol made of dough”
- De simulacris de pannis factis. – “Of idols made of rags”
- De simulacro quod per campos portant. – “Of an idol which they carry through the fields”
- De ligneis pedibus vel manibus pagano ritu. – “Of wooden feet or hands in a pagan rite”
- De eo, quod credunt, quia femine lunam comendet, quod possint corda hominum tollere juxta paganos. – “Of this: that they believe that women command the moon that they may be able to take away the hearts of men, according to the pagans”
***
There are at least three interesting things about this list
First, already in 1841 the Polish historian and ethnographer A. Maciejowski in his Pagan Relics in Poland (Biblioteka Warszawska) claimed that the dadsisas are nothing other than the Slavic dziady, that is, a day or days of celebration for the dead ancestors.
This was described as fantastic by Čeněk Zíbrt in his study of the Indiculus titled Seznam pověr a zvyklostí pohanských z VIII. věku: Indiculus superstitionum.
Nevertheless, Zíbrt did not specify, except in very general terms, why this must be so. The dadisas obviously remind us of the dziady lamentations as in the famous work by Adam Mickiewicz. The mystical and religious aspects of Slavic theatrical productions was “recently” explored by Kolankiewicz who presents a fascinating revitalization of the Dlugosz pantheon as part of his exposition (albeit he gets Quija wrong – there is no such God).
Second, there are other similarities with Slavic paganism here. For example, looking at the ‘Of the little houses, that is sanctuaries” heading, one is hard pressed not to think of the atque scenes presented on the stage of the stanky. Or the yrias which suggest the Jare Gody being, roughly, spring fertility festivals – incidentally, the word “year” has the same origin. And were the “sacred rites of Mercury and of Jupiter” rites to Jesza/Yassa whom Dlugosz identified with Jove. What a “course” is supposed to mean in this context or how the torn garments or footwear play into all of this is unclear. Likewise, fountains, auguries, divinations all appear in Slavic folklore. The carrying of an idol “through the fields” reminds us of Marzana processions. The idol of dough seems, if anything, Indian and hence, perhaps, Venetic as this Ganesh idol:
Third, there is a separate matter of the word dziady, dziad being similar to Ukrainian дiд (did) or Russian дед (ded). It is curious that the Germanic word for dead, i.e., dead/tot/död should be so similar to the Slavic word for “old man” or “grandfather” or, more broadly, “ancestor’s ghost” (for example, the dedky or dietky of Dalimil’s Chronicle the concept of which is already found (in Latin) in the Cosmas Chronicle). This is perfectly illustrated by the German translation of Mickiewicz’s Dziady as Todtenfeier:
Bruckner’s etymologies of these words will not solve this riddle though he notes too that didko or ditko meant the devil or house spirit in Ruthenian (Ukrainian):
Of course, the notion that dziady should be the same as Germanic dadsisas further muddies the water as to what is Slavic and what is Germanic since in this ritual the Germanic meaning of dead and the Slavic meaning of ancestor each also incorporate the other meaning. For the Slavic “ancestor” word the additional “dead” meaning was always implicit but for the Germanic general “dead” to be used to name an “ancestor worship” rite just as the Slavic one is rather novel.
Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved
That use of “dziady” is a metonomy and doing so it is indeed meant not to finish the thought for ya.
Processions are known also in American Indian cultures. I would expect some sort of idol also at Stone Henge, Göbekli Tepe, etc. What is really specific about Slavic and Finnic culture was the power of folklore instead of a pan religious “unity”. The use of wood is a specific common feature of R1a, Queen and N. Those little houses which, I understand, were sheds containing idols … well, yep, remind kapliczki and those Norwegian wooden churches.