No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Primitive Civilization of the Eastern Slavs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2018
Extract
The status of social organization and primitive government among the Eastern Slavs at the dawn of their history is not definable with complete certainty, but may best be determined by comparing the data preserved both by the earliest native sources and in the accounts of contemporary foreign observers with survivals of early custom and usage among the modern branches of the Slavic race least touched by the inroads of modern culture. Accurate definition of early Eastern Slavic social organization has, however, been gravely hampered by the dubious terminology of the mediaeval Russian sources themselves and particularly by the ambiguous use of the word rod, which is indiscriminately employed by eleventh and twelfth century texts to mean family, clan, tribe, and even nation.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1946
References
1 PSRL, I, i, 2nd ed. (Leningrad, 1926), 9.
2 Ibid., col. 10.
3 Ibid., col. 19.
4 Ibid., col. 9.
5 Ibid., col. 32.
6 Ewers, J. P. G., Das alteste Recht der Russen (Dorpat, 1826), pp. 6–11 Google Scholar. For a modern summary of the question, cf. Grekov, B. D., Kievskaja Rusj (Moscow, 1944), pp. 50–67.Google Scholar
7 Ist. Rossii s drevneišich vremen, I, 4th ed. (Moscow, 1866), 62.
8 M. S. Hrushevski, Kievskaja Rusj, I (Spb., 1911), 436-437.
9 “O drevnem byte u slavjan voobšČe i u russkich v osobennosti,” Pol. Sobr. Sočineniĭ, I (Moscow, 1861).
10 PSRL, I, i, 10.
11 Ibid., coll. 19-20.
12 Ibid., col. 21.
13 Lyubavskiĭ, Cf. M., Dresnjaja russkaja ist. (Moscow, 1918), p. 61 Google Scholar.
14 “Mysli o federativnom načale v drevnei Rusi,” Istoričeskija monografii i issledovanija, I (Spb., 1872), 3-49.
15 Veče i knjazj (Moscow, 1867), pp. 28-31.
16 “O značenii vervi po Russkoi Pravde i Polickomu Statutu sravniteljno s zadrugoju jugo-zapadnych Slavjan,” Žurn. Min. Narod. Pros., 1867, no. 134, pp. 1-19. The first Russian historian to accept Leontovich's theory was K. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Russk. 1st., I (Spb., 1872), 41-53. For the modern zadruga, Ivsić, cf. M., Les problèmes agraires en Yougoslavie (Paris, 1926), pp. 28–42 Google Scholar, with bibliography; more recently P. E. Mosely, “Adaptation for Survival: the Varžić Zadruga,” Slavonic and East European Review, XXI (Am. Ser. II), 1942-1943), 147-170.
17 La Grande Serbie (Paris, 1915), p. 75.
18 Hrushevsky, , op. cit., I, 438.Google Scholar
19 Ibid., p. 442.
20 Ibid., p. 443.
21 Cf. Russkaja Pravda, ed. Ukrainian Acad. of Sciences (Kiev, 1935), I: “If one man kill another, brother shall avenge brother, son shall avenge father or father shall avenge son, or else the sons of a brother or a sister” (“ubjetj mužj muža, to mjstitj bratu brata, ile synovi otca, ljubo otcju syna, ili bratu čadu, ljubo sestrinu synovi”).
22 Lyubavskiĭ, , op. tit., p. 67.Google Scholar
23 Hrushevsky, , op. cit., p. 444.Google Scholar
24 Ed. cit., p. 11, par. 4.
25 Niederle, , Manuel de l'Anliquité Slave, II (Paris, 1926), 170 Google Scholar and n. 3. On the relations of parents and children in primitive Slavic practice cf. T. Saturník, , O právu soukromém u Slovanů v dobách staršίch (Prague, 1934), pp. 63–66 Google Scholar.
26 A consultation of the Kiev elders (starci) is thus mentioned in 983 (PSRL, i, 1, 2nd ed., col. 82), and a veče. in Belgorod in 997 (ibid., col. 127). The veče persisted even when some leader had succeeded in imposing his authority over a tribe or group of tribes; in Latin sources from the sixth century these tribal chiefs are called princeps, dux, regulus, sub-regulus, with reference to the Western Slavic tribes, but the title knjazj (from West. Germ. kuning, and the only term used in O. Russ.) does not appear till the early ninth century. Cf. Niederle, Manuel, II, 181, also Slované Zachodnί, p. 105.
27 Klyuchevskiĭ, Kurs russkoi istorii, I (1904), 134.
28 PSRL, I, i, 2nd ed., col. 9.
29 “Putj iz Varjag v Greki,” ibid., col. 7.
30 Jacob, G., Der nordisch-baltische Handel der Araber im Mitlelalter (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 81–109.Google Scholar
31 Szelagowski, A., Najstarsze drogi z Polski na wschόd (Cracow, 1909), p. 41 Google Scholar; Marquart, , Streifziige, pp. 160–206 Google Scholar; Hrushevsky, , op. cit., I, 361–372.Google Scholar
32 Cf. Klyuchevskiĭ, , Bojarskaja duma v drevnei Rusi, 3rd ed. (Moscow, 1902), pp. 20–24.Google Scholar
33 Braun, F., “Das historische Russland im nordischen Schrifttum des 10. bis. 14.Jhdts,” Festschrift für E. Mogk (Halle, 1924), pp. 192–193.Google Scholar
34 Reprinted from
Scheffer, J., Ariani Tactica et Mauricii Ars Militaris (Upsala, 1664) in Niederle, Slav. Star., od. kult., I (Prague, 1911), 27-28Google Scholar: 
35 Saturník, , op. cit., pp. 23–24.Google Scholar
36 Vladimirskiĭ-Budanov, M. F., Obzor istoriirusskogo prava, 3rd ed. (Spb., 1900), p. 37.Google Scholar
37 Niederle, , Manuel, II, 171.Google Scholar
38 Klyuchevskiĭ, , Bojarskaja Duma, pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
39 PSRL, I, i, 2nd ed., 56-57: “sobrašasja lučjsie muži, iže der'jžachu Derevjsku zemlju.”
40 Cf. n. 26 supra. This term can hardly be of Gothic origin, since the Goths show no evidence of having used it; furthermore, since it is first applied with respect to West-Slavic tribes in the early ninth century, it cannot have been borrowed into Old Russian from Old Norse konungr, the more so since the nasal in the primitive Slavic form (kŭnędzĭ) points conclusively to a suffix -ing in the Germanic original, which can only have been a West-Germanic kuning, chuninc.
41 Cf. n. 10 supra: Niederle, Manuel, II, 181-183.
42 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
43 Zelenin, Cf. D., Russische Volkskunde (Berlin, 1927), pp. 337–342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43a PSRL, I, i, 2nd ed., 13.
44 Zelenin, , op. cit., pp. 318–319.Google Scholar
45 Gold: Goth, gulp, Lettish žèlls (Lith. adj. želtas), Slav, zlato (all from indoeur. base *ĝhel-, ‘shine, yellow’)- Silver: Goth, silubr, Lith. sidabras, Slav, sĭrebo (derivation uncertain, but probably not indoeuropean). Iron: Lith. geležis, Slav, želězo (regarded as connected with Gk. χα⋋kόs, ‘copper, bronze’ and probably a loan-word of Near-Eastern, perhaps Pontic, origin, cf. Walde-Pokorny, Etym. Wtb., I, 629; the variation in meaning is not impossible if one accepts the derivation of Lat. aes, Go. eisarn from the base *aios-, ‘metal,either bronze, copper, or iron’). Copper: common Slavic mědĭ, and without demonstrable indoeur. relations apart (perhaps) from the base *mai-, ‘ cut, work with a sharp instrument’ (ibid., II, 222). Lead: Lith. ãlavas ‘tin,’ Slav, olovo ‘lead’; however, in view of the correspondence of Lith. ãlavas in form and meaning with Russian olovo ‘tin,’ there is at least a possibility that the former is borrowed from the latter, and if any indoeur. background is possible, the base is *albho- ‘white,’ cf. Gk. άγωɸós (ibid., I, 93-94). Ore: Slav, ruda (from indoeur. base *reudh-, ‘red’) has a Germanic parallel in ON raudi, ‘bog iron ore.'
46 Ebert, , Südrussland, p. 79 Google Scholar; Niederle, , Manuel, II, 214.Google Scholar
47 Niederle, , život starých Slovanů III, i (Prague, 1927), 216.Google Scholar
48 Ibid., pp. 245-247.
49 Ibid., pp. 302-323; Manuel, II, 225-229.
50 For details of early Slavic methods of spinning and weaving, as well as a description of the primitive Slavic upright loom, cf. Niederle, Živ. star. Slov., III, i, 338-342, and on the Magyar vocabulary, cf. F. Miklosich, ‘Die slavischen Elemente im Magyarischen,’ Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, phil.-hist. Kl., xxi (1872), 15. The extent of Roman or other western influence in the development of Slavic textile technique is difficult to define; Niederle (ibid., pp. 341-342) admits the possibility of this influence, and in later times even Charlemagne's interest in the textile trades is a matter of history.
51 XVIII, 106; text in Niederle, Živ. star. Slov., I, 35.
52 De Adm. Imperio, 30-31.
53 Text in Niederle, op. cit., I, 28.
54 D. A. Chvolson, Izvestija o Chazarach, etc. (Spb., 1869), pp. 29, 31.
55 Schottin, R., tr. Widukinds Sachsische Geschichten (Leipzig, 1891), pp. 146–156 (excerpts from Ibrahim)Google Scholar.
56 For a full treatment of the Slavic terminology in this field, see Hrushevsky, Kievskaja Rusj, I, 300-306, 309-315. Grape-culture was unknown to the Slavs until they borrowed it from the Goths. The Germans themselves derived it from the south after the migrations ( Kauffmann, , Deutsche Altertumskunde, II, 205 Google Scholar), and the Slavic terms, vino, vinograd, Goth., wein, weinagards, indicate the course of further transmission. The fig was also introduced by the Goths (Goth, smakka, Slav, smoky), though presumably an article of importation from the Black Sea coast.
57 Slawische Alterthumer, I (Leipzig, 1843), 537.
58 Manuel, II, 184-185.
59 For illustrations of these types of plows, cf. Manuel, II, 186-192.
60 Niederle, Živ. star. Slov., III, 30-32. The common terms for spring and fall sowings are jar, jarina, and ozim, ozimina. Frosts killing the ozimicy ‘fall-sowings’ around Novgorod are mentioned in 1126 (Synodal Codex, p. 124), with resultant scarcity and high prices on rye.
61 Chvolson, , op. cit., pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
62 Niederle, , Manuel, II, 97–111 Google Scholar; Živ. star. Slov., I, 694-727.
63 Ibid., pp. 419-512; Manuel, II, 69-85.
64 Bellum Goth., III, 14 (Loeb ed., iv, 269-270).
65 Text in Niederle, Živ. star. Slov., I, 29.
66 Kauffmann, , op. cit., i, 496.Google Scholar
67 MGH., LL., II, i, 122: “De negotiatoribus, qui partibus Sclavorum et Avarorum pergunt … ut arma et brunias non ducant ad venundandum. Quod si inventi fuerint portantes, ut omnis substantia eorum auferatur ab eis”.
68 For illustrations of this armament, cf. Niederle, ibid., III, figg. 133-158, or more conveniently) Manuel, II, figg. 103-119.
69 At a conservative estimate. The expedition comprised two hundred ships (cf. Bury, , East. Rom. Emp., p. 419 Google Scholar, n. 1, on the sources). Though the Greeks called the Russian barges monoxyla, ‘dug-outs,’ it is not to be supposed that the craft that skirted 500 miles of Black Sea coastline even in June were mere canoes. Even before the Viking period, the Scandinavians were building 50-foot boats of 9-foot beam which carried at least 20 people (cf. Kendrick, T. D., A History of the Vikings [New York, 1930], p. 24 Google Scholar). In any case, no student of the subject has ever contended that there were anywhere near 5000 Varangians at Kiev in the days of Askold and Dir.
70 Rostovtzeff, , Iranians and Greeks, pp. 215–216.Google Scholar
71 Niederle, , Živ. star. Slov., III, 363–365 Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff, loc. cit.
72 Niederle, , Živ. star. Slov., III, 365–366.Google Scholar
73 Arne, T. J., La Suède et l'Orient (Upsala, 1914), pp. 62–76.Google Scholar
74 Ibid., pp. 117, 122.
75 Cf. n. 67 supra.
76 Cf. Niederle, Manuel, II, 238-245; Ziv. star. Slov., III, 376-406.
77 See above.
78 W. Streitberg, Die gotische Bibel, I (Heidelberg, 1908), 480; the text uses only the acc. plur.: skilliggans.
79 Niederle, , op. cit., pp. 470–471 Google Scholar; on weights of the Viking period generally cf. Arne, , op. cit., pp. 176–196.Google Scholar The Kufic pound contained 96 zolotniki, and the silver dirhem weighed 2/3 of a zolotnik: Vladimir's silver unit was based by weight on the dirhem, and gave 144 silver pieces to a grivna (ibid., p. 196).
80
Bell. Goth., III, xiv, 23-24 (Loeb ed., IV, 270-271): 
81 Cross, , The Russian Primary Chronicle, p. 151 Google Scholar; PSRL, I, ii ed., 32: “po russkomu zakonu kljašasja oružjem svoim i Perunom bogom svojim i Volosom skotiem bogom i utverdiša mir rdquo;.
82 Cross, , op. cit., p. 163 Google Scholar; PSRL, I, ii, 53: “ašče li že kto ot knjazj ili ot ljudii russkich, li chrestejan, ili ne chrestejan, prestupitj se, eže estj pisano na charatji sei, budetj dostoin svoim oružjem umreti, i da budetj kljat ot Boga i ot Peruna, jako prestupi svoju kljatvu”.
83 Cross, ibid.; PSRL, I, ii, 54: “zautra prizva Igor sly i pride na cholm kde stojaše Perun; i pokladoša oružje svoe i šit i zoloto; i chodi Igor rotê i ljudi ego eliko poganych Rusi”.
83a Cross, , op. cit., p. 176 Google Scholar; PSRL, I, ii, 73: “aŝĉe li ot tech preže reĉenych ne sochranim …, da iměem kljatvu ot boga, v ego ze věrujem, v Peruna i v Volosa skotija boga”.
84 Cross, , op. cit., p. 180 Google Scholar; PSRL, I, ii, 79: “i postavi kumiry na cholmu vně dvora teremnago:Peruna drevjana a glavu ego srebrenu a us zlat; i Khŭrsa, Dažjboga, i Striboga, i Simarjgla i Mokosj; i žrjachu im naričjušče ja bogy, i privozachu syny svoja dsčeri i žrjachu běsom.”
85 Cross, , op. cit., p. 204 Google Scholar; PSRL, I, ii, 116: “Peruna ze povelě privjazati konevi k chvostu i vleščci s gory po Boričevu na Ručai. 12 muža pristavi teti žezljiem, se že ne jako drevu čjujuščju, no na poruganje běsu.”
86 E. Golubinskiĭ, Islorija russkoi cerkvi, I, i, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1901), 240: “Peruna i chorsa i iny mnogi popra, i skruši idoly i otverze vsju bezbožnuju lestj.”
87 PSRL, v, 2nd ed., 72: “i trebišĉa razori i Peruna poseĉe, i povele vlešĉi v Volchov.”
88 Tikhomirov, N., Pamjatniki otreĉennoi russkoi lileratury, II (Moscow, 1863), 23 Google Scholar: “ to to oni vse bogy prozvaša solnce i mesjacj, zemlju i vodu, zvěri i gady; to setjneje ĉelovĉjska imena, to (MS. cevcj okamenata) utrija Trojana, Khŭrsa, Peruna na bog obratiša”.
89 E. V. Anichkov, Jazyĉestvo i drevnjaja Rusj (Spb., 1914), p. 69: “po svjatom ze kreščenji Peruna otrinuša, a po Christa Bogy jašasja, no i noně po ukrainam moljatjsja emu prokljatomu bogu Perunu, i Chorsu, i Mokoši … i … ne mogut sja lišiti prokljatago stavljenja 2-yja trjapezoi narečenyja rodu i rožanicam”.
89a Ibid., p. 374: “i věrujutj v Peruna, i v Chŭrsa i v Sima, i v Rjgla, i v Mokošj, i v Vily, ichze čislom 30 sestrenicj … i ognevi moljatj že sja, zovušče ego Svarožicjmj”; p. 377: “iže moljatsja ognevi …, vilam, Mokoši, Simu, R'glu, Perunu, Volosu skotju bogu, Chursu, rodu, rozanicjam, i vsem prokljatym bogom ich.” The possibility is of course present that these texts, as well in that of the previous note, have been influenced by the Primary Chronicle. Anichkov's reconstruction of these texts is highly subjective.
90 Slovo o polku Igoreve, ed. S. Shambinago and V. Rzhiga (Moscow, 1934), pp. 67, 68, 252.
91 Weingart, M., Byzantské Kroniky v literatuře cirkevněslovanské, I (Bratislava, 1922), 39 Google Scholar.
92 Text in Weingart, op. cit., I, 23, also V. J. Mansikka, “Die Religion der Ostslaven,” FF. Communications, 43 (Helsingfors, 1922), 71-72. Full text of Malalas, Bk. II, in Letópis Ist.-Filol. Obščestva pri Novorossisk. Univ., x, 465. The passage also found its way into two Russian chronicles (cf. Mansikka, p. 66). The relation of Svarog to Dazhbog is not otherwise indicated in Eastern Slavic folklore.
93 Cross, , op. cit., p. 190 Google Scholar; PSRL, I, ii, 189, of the monk Jeremy, and contemporary of Theodosius, prior of the Crypt Monastery, who died in 1074.
94 Cf. A. Brückner, “Mythologische Thesen,” Archivf. slav. Philol., XL (1925), 3. As we are here concerned purely with Eastern Slavic paganism, I share the extremely sceptical attitude adopted by this authority with regard to the entire problem.
95 The Polish place-names Piorunka, Piorunva, etc., more probably designate a place where the lightning had struck. The translation of Zeus by Perun in the Bulgarian Alexandria (cf. Niederle, Živ. Star. Slov., II, i, 99) results from a purely literary convention (similar to Dazhbog-Helios and Svarog-Hephaistos) rather than from any recollection of a cult. The Polabic peren-dan (ibid.,p. 98) is simply a literal translation of Donners-tag, with no religious significance whatever. Even Niederle is sceptical of the general Slavic character of Perun: “On ne peut, à vrai dire, démontrer rigoureusement qu'il ait existe chez tous les Slaves” (Manuel, n, 138). While he bases on Procopius his assumption that Perun is a general Slavic deity, the Greek historian is not a reliable source in the light of the complete absence of any Slavic folklore data on a Slavic thunder-god.
96 Zelenin, D., Russische Volkskunde (Berlin, 1927), p. 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97 Cf. Niederle, , živ. Star. Slov., n, i, 120-122, and for Bruckner's suggestion of the moon, Mitologja Slowiańska (Cracow, 1918), pp. 97–98.Google Scholar
97a Marquart, , op. cit., p. 15.Google Scholar
98 Slovo o polku Igoreve, ed. cit., p. 72.
99 Brückner, , op. cit., pp. 93–97.Google Scholar It should be noted, however, that Vernadsky, G., Ancient Russia (New Haven, 1943), p. 328 Google Scholar, derives Simargl from “the mythical bird-dog Senmurv” of the Scythian and Sassanian periods.
100 Mikkola, , op. cit., p. 395 Google Scholar; Niederle, , op. cit., pp. 122–124.Google Scholar Grekov, B. D.. Kievskaja Rusj, 4th ed. (Moscow, 1944)Google Scholar defines Khors as an oriental sun-god and Mokosh as “a goddess of the Finnish tribes.”
101 Slovo o polku Igoreve, ed. cit., p. 79.
102 Niederle, , op. cit., p. 119 Google Scholar; Brückner, , op. cit., pp. 99–100 Google Scholar, though the latter explanation is hardly more than tentative.
103 Mansikka, , op. cit., pp. 53–54, 291.Google Scholar
104 Niederle, , op. cit., p. 114.Google Scholar
105 Mansikka, , op. cit., p. 388.Google Scholar
106 Brückner, , op. cit., pp. 54–55, 69-71Google Scholar, Archiv., XL, 11. For summary of other hypotheses, cf. Niederle, , op. cit., pp. 105–111 Google Scholar and nn. I have accepted Bruckner's theory as the only one satisfactory from the standpoints of linguistics and folklore. There is no evidence whatever that this basic myth is of foreign origin, and in the history of studies in Slavic mythology there has been an unfortunate tendency to take refuge in the supposed foreign origin of a given deity whenever its attributes or etymology are problematic. Mansikka's suggestion “Hochstens konnte man von einer schon längst vergessenen, ursprünglich nicht slavischen, Volksage reden, in welcher vom Ursprung des Feuers und der Sonne erzählt wurde” (op. cit., p. 397), may thus be rejected.
107 Cf. Ibn-Rusteh, in Khvolson, op. cit., pp. 30-31; other references in Niederle, , op. cit., p. 84 Google Scholar, n. 5. It may also be noted that the pagan Slavic prayer before sowing quoted in the same passage lends further support to the interpretation of Dazhbog as the life-giving sun which provides wealth and plenty.
108 Mansikka, , op. cit., pp. 246, 247,250Google Scholar; other references to Rod, , ibid., pp. 305–306 Google Scholar.
109 Mansikka, , op. cit., p. 306 Google Scholar: “vdunovenie bezsmertnoe nestarějuščee edin vdymaet vsedŭržitelj … ; dunu bo emu na lice duch žizni … to ti ne rod, sedja na vosduše, mečetj na zemlju grudy i v tom ražajutsja dĕti … vsem bo estj tvorec Bog, a ne rod.”
110 Brückner, , op. cit., pp. 12–14.Google Scholar
111 Mansikka, , op. cit., p. 247.Google Scholar
112 Cf. Niederle, , op. cit., p. 66.Google Scholar
113 Ibid., pp. 64-65.
113a Ibid., pp. 45-48.
114 PSRL, I, ii, 14.
115 Zelenin, , op. cit., p. 321.Google Scholar
116 Slovo o zakone i blagodati, ca. 1050, Mansikka, , op. cit., pp. 300–301 Google Scholar, “a uže ne kapišča sŭgrazdaem, no Christovy cerkvi ziždem” (“we no longer fence off kapishcha, but build churches of Christ”); … “togda tjma besovskago sluzenja pogybe … kapišča razrušišasja, i cerkvi postavljajutsja” (“then the darkness of the devil's service was wiped out … the kapischcha have been torn down, and churches are being erected”).
117 In close proximity to the Desyatinnaya Church; Niederle, , op. cit., p. 191.Google Scholar
118 Cf. V. Jagić, “Vopros o Runach u Slavjan,” Encikloped. Slav. Filologii, pt. 3 (Spb.,1911), pp. 1-36.
119 Vondrák, V., Cirkevneslovanska Chrestomatie (Brno, 1925), pp. 135–141.Google Scholar
120 Jagić, , loc. cit., pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
121 On these insscriptions in general, cf. Braun, F., op. cit., 162–167.Google Scholar
122 F. Pastrnek, Dejiny slovanských apostolů, p. 52: “obret že tu evangelje i psaltyr rosisky pismeny pisano”; Dvorník, F., Les légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance (Prague, 1933), transl., p. 359; discussion, pp. 185–188.Google Scholar. For a discussion of the controversy over this item, cf. G. Ilinskĭ, “Odin epizod iz korsunskogo perioda žizni Konstantina Filosofa,” Slavia, III (Prague, 1924), 44 ff., also Vasiliev, A. A., Goths in the Crimea (Cambridge, 1936), p. 113 Google Scholar and no. 6. Vaillant, A., Revue des Etudes Slaves, xv (1935), 75–77 Google Scholar, first suggested that rusĭsky(mi) is a scribal error of surĭsky(mi), and would therefore view these texts as Syriac. The acceptance of this suggestion depends on establishing how much Hebrew Cyril knew and how easily he could accordingly assimilate Syriac. Roman Jakobson, however, “Saint Constantin et la langue Syriaque,” Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'histoire orientates (New York, 1944), pp. 181-186, has clarified the argument considerably and, indeed, closed the case.