A reader sent me a copy of a relatively new (written in Polish) book “The Religions of Ancient Suavs” (Religie Dawnych Słowian) by Dariusz Sikorski, a Polish medievalist who, among other achievements, helped to rehabilitate portions of the Chronicle of Adémar of Chabbanes. I had it read and have to say that I found that process rather wearisome.
The book is deconstructionist in a tiresomely extreme manner. It is Alexander Brückner without the acidity but also without the faux-erudite panache – par for the course, and, I confess, probably for the slightly better (less annoying but more boring – take your poison). Indeed, if you want to understand why Sikorski wrote this book, you just need to skip to the ending (which I dare suspect he wrote first), where the author fesses up as follows:
“It may seem, perhaps, to the reader that the vision presented in this book is one-sided and that the author exaggerates in many of his assertions, that his vision of Suavic religion is very limited. Perhaps, indeed, I overemphasize many of the problems and set too categorical a theses but please take note that in the entire contemporary literature there prevails the opposite trend: of an extensive sacral interpretation of all possible source testimonies. Please, therefore, take heed of my voice as a presentation of the position of the opposite side of the argument regarding the pre-Christian Suavic religion…”
Sikorski’s description of what he seems to perceive to be his reality is a description of a reality that is warped so as to be unrecognizable. What contemporary literature is he referring to where the prevailing trend is to overinterpret Suavic religious sources? Sure, people may overinterpret things, particularly if they think they found something new, get excitd and want to write a paper on it. But in terms of synthetic, comprehensive literature, which this book aims to be a part of, there is nothing recent (at least in academic literature) i know of that builds any sand castles around Suavic religion. The biggest problem of Suavic comprehensive religious literature is that there is relatively little of it (of any kind).
Presumably, he addresses his book to a Polish audience. What compendia of Suavic religion have we seen recently? Aleksander Brückner wrote his “Suavic Mythology” in 1918 and a variation, “Polish Mythology” in 1924. After that no one seriously touched the subject until Henryk Łowmiański’s “Suavic Religion and it Downfall” in 1979 and Aleksander Gieysztor’s “Mythology of the Suavs” in 1982. That’s basically it. Of those only Gieysztor’s can be seen as an attempt at some sort of positive synthesis – the other books are basically negativist. (In fact, Sikorski seems to be having an argument with Gieysztor – albeit over a quarter century after that author’s publication). You really have to live in an alternate reality to think that the deconstructionist, negativist “side” is in retreat – as far as I can tell it is about the only “side.”
No, it isn’t
Which brings me to another point. Sikorski speaks of an “opposite side of the argument.” But what argument? There was no Gieysztor – Łowmiański argument even if they took slightly different tacks on the topic. The only person arguing seems to be Sikorski – he tries to manufacture the very conflict that he obviously “feels” already exists. Even more importantly, he is a professor and, presumably, wants to be seen as a scholar. So why does he have to take any “sides”? (Not that I am that naive about the pettiness of modern academia). Why not just set your views as they are – in a more balanced way – rather than write so übercritical a book that exaggerates to such an extent that you have to come clean at the end and admit that you overexaggerated (but did so for the oh so very noble a reason of taking the “other side” in a conflict that seems to play out only in your head)? The book is over 300 pages long – did he enjoy writing a book that points out little human foibles apparent here and there of people eager to shed some more light on their ancestors’ past? Does spending hours over tiny sins of other people’s (mostly amateurs) over interpretations make him happy and pleased? Is that what he wants to be remembered for? The book does not quite rise to the level of a troll job but in a number of places the writer’s arguments certainly strike me as overly petty (Didn’t some Byzantine writer say that the Suavs were conflict prone? Maybe it’s the weather).
Finally, exaggeration is one thing as a rhetorical device (though, again, why debate at all rather than try to help synthesize?) but writing inaccurate statements is quite another. Right before the above cited paragraph Sikorski categorically proclaims:
“From most of the lands settled (!) by the Suavs, including the lands of Poland, we have no sources [on Suavic religion].”*
* note: He make exceptions for Polabian Suavs and Eastern Suavs except that for the latter he claims the beliefs described are primarily those of the Scandinavian ruling class.
So what of Jan Długosz’s Polish Pantheon? He does mention it. He agrees that Długosz “did not just make [these Gods] all up” but then concludes (well, he does not conclude but rather uses the passive (or passive aggressive) voice “it is thought”) that the “Polish Olympus” is “merely a reflection of Długosz’s learned imagination.” I, frankly do not understand the difference between “making things up” and using your “learned imagination”. Perhaps the intended subtlety represents an agreement that there is something there but then Długosz went with that something to a conclusion beyond any that that something could have justified. I am unconvinced. Once you admit that Długosz did not make it all up then you have to ask what was the nature of that “real it”.
For example, the question of the interpretatio romana is absolutely secondary. If Yassa was the highest God of the Polish pantheon then He was equivalent to Jove – in that much. And to that extent Długosz would have been justified in linking Yassa with Jove – which is, incidentally, all he did. Whether Yassa also possessed all the attributes of the Roman Jove/Jupiter is absolutely irrelevant to the point that Długosz was making. Indeed, he was writing for an educated, Latin reading audience – of kings who, at that point, were already non-Polish and, perhaps, for the broader European elite public. I do not see any better way to relate Polish Divinities to such people’s experience than to use Latin equivalents (or, as equivalent, as they get). The fact that he also mentioned those Deities that did not (to him) seem to have a Roman equivalent (Pogoda, Sywie/Zywie) seems rather to bolster the veracity of Długosz’s account.
Moreover, the reason that Sikorski thinks that Długosz did not make it all up is because Sikorski is quite aware of the existence of earlier sources that mention the same Deities. He cites, for example, Lucas of Great Kozmin. But Sikorski does not seem to have read what that preacher wrote. To quote:
“I recall that in youth I read in a certain chronicle that there were in Poland Gods and from those days to our times such rites come that, young women [in his time] dance with swords, as if in offering to the pagan Gods, and not to [the] God, as well as [dances of] young men with swords and sticks, which they then hit about… “To this day they sing and dance and name their Gods “Lado, Yassa” and others – surely not references to the Holy Father so can anything good come of this? Certainly not… One does not receive salvation through the names of Lado, Yassa or Nia but rather through the name of Jesus Christ… Not Lada, Yassa or Nia , that incidentally are the names of the gods worshipped here in Poland as will attest certain chronicles of the Poles.”
So Lucas claims to have read in his youth about Polish Gods in chronicles (or at least “a” chronicle) with names that matched the names of the Deities that he himself claims to have heard being uttered during the ceremonies described above which he may well have witnessed. Thus, he testifies to what he has (yes, “probably”) seen (but then others have seen the same) and testifies to what he has read. He interprets (quite logically) the former by means of the latter.
I ventured to guess previously that, had Brückner been aware of Lucas’ sermons, he would have discounted them the same as he did Długosz. As any child does (or any good, or at least persistent, barrister), we can always ask “but how did he know?” If you assume that Poland became Christianized in one fell swoop in 966 then, no amount of post-966 evidence can ever convince you (same as if you assume that no Suavs lived in Poland before, say, the 6th century then, by definition, every artifact found in Poland and dated to earlier times must, necessarily, be of non-Suavic provenance).
Sikorski is not as one-sided as Brückner (though, to be fair, few could be) and does not discount Lucas’ testimony. He mentions it but then ignores it and is thus able to reach the above false conclusion by ignoring the evidence he himself acknowledges exists. (I strongly suspect this is because he wrote that conclusion – at least in his head – before he wrote the section on Długosz’s Olympus and never went back to soften the language).
Is there anything positive in the book? I feel I have to answer this question positively lest I be accused of doing the very same thing the author did.
Nevertheless, I can honestly say, “yes, sure”. The book does go on to describe some (if hardly all) sources of Suavic paganism and, due to the fact, that it is far newer than the prior “comprehensive” studies, does address new sources and findings. But that, by itself, would not justify reading it since there are, scattered in other places, better sources for that updated material.
More importantly, the book does, in places, demonstrate quite ably the weakness of over interpreting sources and does show the reader what we know and what we really do not know and, thus, where we could be letting our “learned imagination” travel far beyond where it is logically justified to go. My pet peeve of interpreting Svarog and “Perun” (Piorun really) as definitely Polish Deities, may serve as an example. Neither name made any ethnically Polish Pantheon/Olympus compendium so all we have to go on is some place names in Poland. But the author accurately notes that place names cannot with any reasonable certainty serve to reconstruct the cultic history of the locals who lived there to the extent such place names may also, even more likely, refer to other things. Thus, Sikorski observes that the Polish town of Swarorzyn is unlikely to have anything to do with any Svarog Deity. He also correctly points out that any “Piorun” place names may simply refer to those places where, a piorun, that is, “thunder” struck.
On the other hand, of course, we do know of Perkunas (and Lada, incidentally which is also a place name) being worshipped in Lithuania where the Varangians did not loiter so some such place names may have something to do with the Suavic/Baltic God of Thunder. It is here, of course, where the book fails by being overly one-sided. (Indeed the author, like Brückner, also manages to take a few digs at Baltic Prussian religion).
Even if you do not want to be faced with the “glass is 1% empty” method of synthesis (or anti-synthesis), to the extent you’re overenthusiasic about Suavic religion or, assuming you really believe that there is an “argument” here, and you want to know all the aces of the “other side,” you should read the book (assuming you read Polish) because it will show you the strongest (?) arguments that that “side” purports to make. And that itself is a positive learning experience.
I do hope that the author will in the future use his not inconsiderable talents to write something creative with a rather nobler intention of actually presenting a vision and elevating discourse as opposed to merely sounding the trumpet of the naysayers. If that’s too much to ask then at least writing something more balanced would produce a better use of everyone’s time. No one enjoys the morose pronouncements of a Debbie-downer even if, once in a while, those happen to be quite right.
P.S. For someone who purports to represent a deconstructionist trend, I find it curious that the author would agree to place a picture of what is, evidently, an effigy of Odin on the cover of the book. I have long suspected that Odin may be a variation on Yassa/Iasion/Jason but Sikorski does not try to make any such connections which makes me think this is (hopefully) just an example of the unfortunate laziness of the publishers.
Copyright ©2018 jassa.org All Rights Reserved