Search

The article is an attempt to demonstrate that the theonym Perun/Piorun was used (and in some instances is still used) in the Polish language. The completed analyses have shown that the name of the Slavic god of thunder functions solely in a scholarly discourse. He appears in it as Piorun, in the 16th century, principally in historical texts. This phonetical form was preserved until the 19th century, changing its denotations. In the texts of 16th-century historians, the theonym Piorun denoted a Slavic god (including the god from the pantheon of prince Vladimir the Great), as well as Lithuanian Perkunas. In later studies, it begins to denote only the supreme Slavic god. This interpretation has been presented, for example, by S. B. Linde. The data from Orgelbrand’s encyclopaedia show that at the close of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, lexically, there was a clear differentiation between Polish Piorun, Rus Perun and the Lithuanian god named Perkunas. Most likely, it was in the scholarly literature of the 20th century that the theonym Piorun was replaced by Perun, which denotes the god of thunder of all Slavs as well as the god from the pantheon of Vladimir. In the colloquial Polish language the theonym Perun is evidenced only indirectly: 1. in the name of thunder (Pol. piorun), 2. in the names of elongated stones found after a storm – belemnites or fulgurites (piorunowy kamień [thunderstone], piorunowa strzała [thunder arrow], piorunek [small thunder]), 3. in the folklore name ziele piorunowe [thunder herb] ‘garden asparagus'. Keywords: Proto-Slavic religion, Piorun/Perun, Perun in a scholarly discourse, Piorun in Polish lexicon.

Pastaruoju metu pasirodo vis daugiau darbų, skirtų Lenkijos reformacijos judėjimo dalyvio (kalvinisto), diplomato ir, žinoma, bajoro Jano Lasickio (1534-1602) veikale "De Diis Samagitarvm Caeterorvmque Sarmatarum, & falforum Chriftianorum. Item de religione Armeniorum" (1582) (plačiau apie jį žr. LE XIV 181 tt.; BRMŠ 2001, 577 tt.; Lasickis 1969; Ališauskas, Vildžiūnas 2009) minimos lietuvių mitologinės (taip pat ir kalbinės) medžiagos analizei. Šį, 16 a. pabaigoje sukurtą veikalą, išspausdintą tik 1615 m. Bazelyje, buvo itin išpopuliarinę romantizmo atstovai (J. I. Kraševskis, J. Šliūpas, J. Basanavičius, S. Daukantas ir kt.). T. Narbutas, remdamasis šiame šaltinyje išdėstyta informacija apie žemaičių garbintus dievus, netgi sukūrė lietuvių panteoną (LE 1958, 183). Po to pasirodė kritinių darbų, kurių autoriai (S. Stanevičius, M. Akelaitis, A. Mierzyńskis, A. Schleicheris, W. Mannhardtas ir kt.) teigė, kad Lasickis pateikė niekuomet neegzistavusios religinės sistemos modelį, t.y. traktuotiną kaip falsifikatą - todėl šio veikalo informacija traktuotina kaip prasimanymai. Politeistinį, Lasickio sukurtą žemaičių pagoniškosios religijos modelį Zenonas Ivinskis (LE 1958, 183) interpretuoja kaip antikatalikiškumo refleksiją t.y. kvestionuoja katalikų bažnyčios kanonizacinę doktriną ir praktiką - lygina žemaičių dievus su katalikų šventųjų gausa. [...] The article deals with the problem of the linguistic analysis of the four theonyms Salons, Klamals, Atlaibos, Tawals mentioned in Jan Lasicki's work "De Diis Samagitarvm Caeterorvmque Sarmatarum, & falforum Chriftianorum. Item de religione Armeniorum". Cryptogram methods are used to explain the changes which have appeared in morphological structure of the words probably by virtue of taboo phenomenon. Changes of the lexemes are explained by means of areal studying and synchronous methods. Being based on the carried out analysis, the main conclusion has been made, to which earlier came Nikolai Mikhailov, that theonyms cited in Lasicki's writing reflect authentic linguistic material which can not be ascertained taking no attention to detailed analysis of lexeme each component.

The theonym Stribog appertains to Kiev Russia or the so-called Vladimir pantheon. It is mentioned in the most ancient and significant sources of Slavic mythology and religion (Nestor’s chronicle transcriptions; epos Slovo o polku Igoreve). There are many ways of god’s name etymological ascribings, equally brief nascency theories. Being based on the linguistic analysis carried out on the deity name, it is possible to assert that it reflects morphotactical metathesis, determined by taboo phenomenon: ОRuss. Стри-богъ ← [*С-тр-и- ← *-ьтриС]←*Сирть-богъ [anagramal distribution of the stem with metathesis of the initial С- because of the cluster ТРИС- Russ. (archaism) сирть “whirlpool, abyss, nix etc.” absence in the Eastern Slavic phonotactical system, i.e. the first component of a karmadhāraya composite reflects component transposition of the radical syllable [a type of morphotactical rearrangements]. The reconstructed compound of karmadhāraya type, datable approximately to the Old Slavonic period, was formed on an image of the Greek composites formation model, i.e. it reflects an ancient Greek loan-translation of the winter winds god name Μαιμάκτης Ζεῦς, that confirms Rybakov’s guess about the construction of the theonym as an epithet of the Supreme deity (probably, The Thunderer – Перунъ). Such a solution of the problem would fit Procopius’ (first half of the 6th century) information about the existence of the main Slavic thunder-storm deity (and the one to whom they worshipped) cult. Being based on the analysis of the Baltic and Slavic linguistic and mythological equivalents, and also on rather important information of the Eastern Slavic epos Slovo o polku Igoreve, i.e. Stribog’s defi nition as a lord of winds, mythologeme “Stribog’s grandsons” can not be interpreted as “a military team”, as both in Baltic and Indian mythological systems the god of winds does not act on his own, but always in tail with the supreme god – Índrah., i.e. by the principle of the hierarchical position of the celestial gods a predominating deity place pertains to the thunder-storm god (Balt. Perkūnas, Pērkons, Percunis, Slav. Перун), and only then follow all others, taking place in his submission, i.e. the god of winds [for certain it is an epithet of the same thunder-storm god, aft erwards got a separate shape whose cult in turn is connected with the god of the sky], his sons – whirlwinds (!!!) etc.

Straipsnio objektas – „Rigvedos“ griausmavaldžio Indros epitetas puram-dara- ir jo atitikmenys lietuvių tautosakoje bei kalboje. Tikslas – visų pirma tiesiog atkreipti dėmesį į tokius atitikmenis, o kartu, jais remiantis, pagrįsti ne istorinę (užkariautojai arijai triuškina senosios Indo slėnio civilizacijos miestus), bet įdėm mitinę kalbamo Indros epiteto prigimtį. Darbo, kadangi jį iš esmės sudaro vediškų ir baltiškų duomenų palyginimas, metodas – lyginamasis. Rezultatai, nekalbant apie aptiktas konkrečias įtikinamas sąsajas, kartu apskritai padrąsina ieškoti kur kas gausesnių ir gilesnių atitikmenų tarp vediškosios ir lietuviškosios tradicijų, kurie savo ruožtu leistų geriau apčiuopti abiejų bendrą indoeuropietišką branduolį, ne taip jau negrįžtamai užmirštą, kaip iš pirmo žvilgsnio galėtų pasirodyti. As is well known, Vedic thundergod Indra used to "break citadels (pur-)" therefore he was given a nickname puramdara- 'the citadel-breaker'. This epithet is by some scholars connected with the downfall of such Hindu valley cities as, for example, Harapa, and ascribed to the invading Arian image. The others have criticised such a view on different grounds, one of which consists of the fact that the concept puramdara- deals not with historical material altogether but with the mythological one (and if it has some historical links at all, these might be only secondary projections of the mythological content). For example, the Lithuanian (and Lettish too) folk tradition presents some motives of the thundergod Perkūnas breaking the pilis 'castle' of his antagonist Velnias, whose habit to construct stone ramparts and dams is well known. As is also well known, Lith. pilis (and Lett. pils too) is the precise etymological equivalent of the Vedic pur- (cf. puri-); and, furthermore, the name of the mentioned antagonist of Lithuanian thundergod, that is Velnias (var. Velas), according to Russian scholars V. Ivanov and V. Toporov, is etymologically connected with the name of the Vedic thundergod Indra's antagonist Vala-, meaning 'rock', which in Lithuanian again corresponds to uola (IE *uel-). Moreover, Lith. Uola (cf. Lett, valnis 'rampart' from the same IE *uel-) can also indicate a 'rampart', or 'wall of stones' (cf. Lith. pylimas 'rampart': pills), which, in its turn, corresponds to the primary meaning of the Vedic pur- (according to O. Schräder, W. Rau etc.). .). Thus the epithet puramdara- becomes included into the main stream of Vedic images of Indra destroying Vala and, on a wider horizon, into the context of the so called "principal myth". Further­more, Lith. uola has also the meaning of 'hardened soil' or 'petrified ground', and in RV IV.28.5, due to the Indra's victory over his enemy and the destruction of their stone enclosures, "the earth opens". Lithuanian Perkūnas (or his later substitutes), in his turn, as the first thunder in spring, used to "open the earth" for vegetation to sprout out. And the verb Lith. ati-daryti 'open', according to one of the main etymologies, is connected with Lith. dirti 'flay, flog, thrash' (cf. dirva 'soil, field, arable land') and, finally, with Vedic [...] 'bursts, causes to burst, tears' (cf. drti- 'skin of leather', dara- 'hole in the ground, cave' etc.), to which the second part of the composition puram-dara- derives. Therefore, in different (though interconnected) mythological contexts, the Lithuanian equivalents to both parts of the Vedic compound noun puram-dara- have been found, thus, by the way, altogether removing the ground for its historical interpretation.