Pre emergent reader

The "Mythology of the Slavs" by A. Geishtor, as according to a well-known Latin proverb, had its own special destiny. This book does not belong to the popular science genre, although it was first published in 1982 by the publishing house "Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe" as part of the popular series "Mythologies of the World". A. Geishtor did not seek to make his work accessible to a wide range of readers and acquaint them with the already existing achievements in the study of Slavic mythology, but made an original attempt at a new interpretation of the archaic cults and cultures that existed among the Slavs before they adopted Christianity. For this purpose, he used not only the traditional techniques of the historian and archaeologist, but also the research methods of cultural anthropology, the achievements of descriptive ethnography, the experience of linguistics and the theoretical models of comparative religion. nine0011

For the average reader it was all new and difficult, and it was also written in an elegant style, but in a special language, free from any simplifications that make it easier to read. And this work has become extremely popular! Within a few years, two hundred thousand copies of this book were sold (in 1982 and in 1986).

However, this success came at a price. The academic text, based on the rich and varied literature on the subject, was published without footnotes. This was the rule of the publishing series and the harsh requirement of the publisher, who was careful not to alienate the general reader. However, the lack of a scientific reference apparatus prevented scientists from using this book in their works and in many respects led to the fact that the "Mythology of the Slavs" was unfairly considered popularization. As a result, the work of Geishtor did not wait for translations and did not take a well-deserved place of honor among the achievements of European medieval studies. Although A. Geishtor prepared the full version of his book for German translation, he did not have time to fulfill his intention to the end. nine0011

We owe this publication to Dr. Aneta Penyondz. After the death of A. Geishtor, she put his handwritten heritage in order and found papers that made it possible to provide the "Mythology of the Slavs" with footnotes, which the Author had previously prepared with the idea of ​​a German edition. As a result, we received the work of the great historian in a complete, unabridged version. One can hope that in this form he will wait for translations and take an honorable place in world science.

The twenty-three years that have passed since the publication of the first edition have not deprived The Mythology of the Slavs of its innovative value. During this time, of course, new works appeared in this area; The reader will find a brief overview of them in the Afterword by L.P. Slupetsky. Since the publication of the book, the charm of the concept of J. Dumézil, which A. Geishtor, not without reservations, accepted as a particularly important frame of reference, has also faded. New intellectual currents that appeared in Europe and America brought into the humanities a fashion for extreme relativism, called postmodernism, based on an ontological principle that denies the existence in the past and present of historical reality beyond the boundaries of the text. nine0011

However, neither new philosophical constructions nor the achievements in the field of religious studies accumulated over the past quarter of a century deprive the "Mythology of the Slavs" of its pioneering value for interdisciplinary research that expands the horizons of modern humanitarian knowledge.

The novelty of Geishtor's book lies in its going beyond the narrow disciplinary framework in which historians, linguists, religious scholars and ethnologists are kept by the fear of violating the strict rules of methodological correctness. A. Geishtor was a recognized authority in the study of medieval sources. He cannot be accused of ignorance of secrets or of neglecting the methodological requirements necessary in our profession. At the same time, A. Geishtor can be called the last great historian, whose comprehensive erudition allowed him to enter the field of art history, archeology, linguistics and ethnography. Finally, thanks to professional caution and responsibility, A. Geishtor possessed the courage necessary for a scientist, which was required in order to follow the unbeaten path. All this allowed him to start writing an interdisciplinary study that combined the problems and methods of a medievalist historian and an ethnologist. The greatest value of his work is the consideration of the Slavic folk culture that is still visible today, captured and described by ethnographers of the past, as a historical source that can and should be compared with written sources of eight hundred and thousand years ago, pointing to their similar, albeit separated by time, content. nine0011

“Thanks to other researchers, primarily ethnographers, representatives of cultural anthropology and semiotics,” A. Geishtor wrote in the preface to “The Mythology of the Slavs,” we already differently evaluate the religious value of folk culture, the subject of which also becomes the object of research by the historian of religion [. ..]. There is no doubt that it is this sphere that keeps in itself opportunities that have not yet been used by researchers of Slavic beliefs and religious practices. All these beliefs and practices drawn from historical sources can be written down in one volume of texts, the completion of which cannot be expected [...]. Also, the possibilities of archaeological data that expand our knowledge of places and objects of worship still remain inexhaustible. But the main hope for enriching our research possibilities comes from popular culture; this still existing relic of social consciousness”[1]. nine0011

Just one eloquent example is enough to understand what perspectives for the study of medieval paganism are provided by the use of modern folklore by the medievalist historian. At the end of the XII century. Saxo Grammatik described in detail the pagan ritual that was performed annually after the harvest at the sanctuary of Sventovit on the island of Rügen. At the climax of the celebration, a large sacrificial cake was brought out, the dimensions of which were only slightly inferior to human growth. The priest put this cake between himself and the people gathered in front of the temple and asked: “Do you see me?” To an affirmative answer to those gathered, he answered with a wish that next year he could no longer be seen. Saxo dotted the "i", seeing in this rite a wish for a more plentiful harvest for the next year. A. Geishtor without hesitation compared the description of the XII century. with a church custom noted by ethnographers in the Bulgarian village of the 20th century. During the feast in honor of the local saint, the priest “stands behind a pile of sacrificial bread and asks loudly: “Do you see me?” To which they answered: “Yes, we see you, we see you.” Then the priest would say, “So that next year you won’t be able to see me completely,” in the hope that the harvest will be even more plentiful”[2]. nine0011

A. Geishtor insistently emphasized that rites are a path leading to a myth, since there was some kind of myth behind each rite[3]. Thanks to this methodological directive, it became possible to compare the medieval source of the XII century. and ethnographic material of the XX century. and to draw a conclusion about the existence of the same myth at different ends of the Slavic world, testifying to the belief shared by all Slavs in the main gods common to them. It should be noted that such logic removed the taboo established by the rigorists of positivist historiography, for whom the comparison of historical evidence so different in nature and time was an unacceptable anachronism. The break with the axiom of synchronicity has become the initial principle of interdisciplinary research, combining the perspectives of historiography and cultural anthropology. But we are talking about something more than just differences between arbitrary interpretations that define research positions. A fundamental difference in the understanding of historical time in different historical schools comes into play. nine0011

There is no doubt that the report of the chronicler of the XII century. about pagan rituals on Rügen and evidence of a church holiday in a Bulgarian village of the 20th century. speaks of the same ritual dialogue. In the name of what is the historian, concerned about methodological correctness, not only ignoring similarities between sources, but also failing to explain them? The only noticeable reason why the researcher refuses to note and consider this similarity is the unfounded and therefore arbitrary conviction that the sacred samples of traditional culture cannot exist for such a long time. However, imaginary methodological remorse turns out to be a reflection of the culture of the 20th century. ideas about time and social change. Historians with a positivist orientation have been especially sensitive to the question of limiting research horizons. A. Geishtor overcame their methodological limitations and opened up new research perspectives. In his work, he used the concepts of a new understanding of time (“time of great duration”) and social change, which are characteristic of modern historiography and cultural anthropology, in his work. On this basis, a new methodological imperative could appear, which I took the liberty of formulating as follows: evidence from sources that differ in time and space can and should be considered together if we are dealing with a similar anthropological situation in them[4]. nine0011

Combining the research perspectives of historiography and cultural anthropology allows historians to discover a new dimension of the old truth about the past (including the most distant) living in the present. At the end of his reflections on the long process of the displacement of paganism by Christianity, A. Geishtor noted: “...Slavic folklore, despite the existence of syncretic plots in it [...] almost to the present day has retained the original basis of the traditional view of the world and its sacred reflection "[five]. This is how the final words of the "Mythology of the Slavs" sound. They can be seen, despite the fact that they were spoken a quarter of a century ago, the last word of the humanities in this particular area of ​​​​research and a call for the study of the past in modern culture. nine0011

The historical heritage present in the present can, as in the case of religious studies related to Slavic folklore, become the basis for the reconstruction of ancient cultures. At the same time, the study of the question of the presence of history in the present is also necessary for understanding modernity. Neither a sociologist nor an anthropologist can do this without a historian, just as a historian without a sociologist and especially an anthropologist will not understand the principles on which the structures of the past function in modern culture. Interdisciplinary research should be the basis of our encounters with each other, giving us the opportunity to share knowledge and transcend the boundaries of our disciplines. It is to such a meeting that the last book of A. Geishtor paves the way. nine0011

K. Modzelevsky

Notes

1. Geishtor A. Mythology of the Slavs. M.: Ves Mir, 2014. S. 22 (further see this edition).
2. Saxonis Grammatici. Gesta Danorum / Ed. J. Olrik, H. Raedr. Haunniae, 1937. Vol. 1. XIV, 39. P. 465 n; See this edition. S. 115.
3. See this edition. S. 30
4. Modzelewski K. Barbarzyńska Europa. Warszawa, 2004. S. 12 n., 432–434.
5. See this edition. S. 272.