American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Christian and Pagan Strata in the East Slavic Cult of St. Nicholas: Polemical Notes on Boris
Uspenskij's Filologičeskie Razyskanija v Oblasti Slavjanskix Drevnostej
Author(s): Gail Lenhoff
Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Summer, 1984), pp. 147-163
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/307702 .
Accessed: 22/03/2011 13:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN STRATA IN THE
EAST SLAVIC CULT OF ST. NICHOLAS:
POLEMICAL NOTES ON BORIS USPENSKIJ'S
FILOL GICESKIERAZYSKANIJAV OBLASTI
SLAVJANSKIX DREVNOSTEJ

Gail Lenhoff, University of Pennsylvania

For some time now we have known that the richness, as well as the com-
plexity of Slavic folk culture must be attributed, in part, to the phenom-
enon of dvoeverie, the commingling of pagan and Christian traditions.
Forays into one sphere sooner or later lead to the other. Such is the under-
lying premise of Boris Uspenskij's philological investigation of St. Nicho-
las' veneration among the Eastern Slavs.' The ultimate object of the study
is to uncover the pagan elements that characterize the saint's Slavic image,
to divest St. Nicholas of Christian overlays and arrive at a pagan cultural
stratum. Two initial chapters isolate instances of Christian contamination,
documenting an alleged tendency to confuse St. Nicholas with figures such
as God, Christ, or the Archangel Michael. The final chapter, and by far the
longest, traces a network of pagan contaminations, centering on the con-
nections between the cult of St. Nicholas and the pagan cult of Volos
(Veles), Slavic god of the herd. The central thesis is that for the Eastern
Slavs St. Nicholas replaced Volos, and therefore that the saint functioned
as a hypostasis or equivalent to the god; Volos, in turn, represents a trans-
formation of the archetypal dragon in Indo-European mythology, the
opponent of the Thunder god. Uspenskij's monograph displays encyclo-
pedic erudition in the sphere of popular Slavic culture and testifies to the
author's talent for original theories and bold generalizations. Yet in certain
respects his thesis and the scholarly apparatus that supports it are typical of
current studies seeking to reconstruct pre-Christian Slavic beliefs. On this
occasion I should like to point out several problems which inhere in such
an approach. The remarks that follow are intended primarily to encourage
further discussion; they represent, not so much a review, as an essay in
critical dialogue.
A major obstacle to the reconstruction of Slavic antiquity is the scarcity
of primary evidence. Scholars tend to compensate for the dearth of material
SEEJ,Vol. 28, No. 2 (1984) 147
148 Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

by projecting patterns or archetypes of Indo-European mythology onto

Slavic mythology, and also by projecting Slavic folklore gathered in the
post-Christian (and, more often than not, the post-Petrine) era back onto
the tabula rasa of Slavic antiquity. But a theoretical model and scattered
late ethnographic data are not the most reliable means of reconstructing
social and cultural sytems. The initial two chapters of the monograph, deal-
ing with popular veneration of St. Nicholas, provide ample illustration of
what may happen when generalizations are drawn on the basis of limited or
atypical samples, and/or axioms whose universality can be questioned on
the basis of what we do know about operative cultural systems in the
period.
Let us consider the claim that the Russians confused St. Nicholas with
the figures of God the Father and Christ the Son (6-14, and passim). Sev-
eral witnesses are cited, yet the majority are foreign travellers-many of
them from Protestant countries-who are describing an alien society
which they may have known only superficially. Is it any wonder that, say, a
German Lutheran visitor might feel ill at ease with the cult of the saints,
that he would express shock at the veneration of St. Nicholas or confuse it
with the worship of graven images? Countering their testimony is, among
others, that of Sigmund von Herberstein's Rerum Moscoviticarum Comen-
tarii, which Uspenskij does not cite, although many of the important later
memoirists (including Guagnini, who is cited) are known to have based
their descriptions on it.2 Herberstein writes that the Russians "revere St.
Nicholas who lies at Bari in the kingdom of Naples above all other saints."3
Native Russian testimony tends to be late and eccentric. One monk who
charges his countrymen with venerating St. Nicholas "aki Boga" (6) is iden-
tified as a follower of the heretic Fedor Kosoj; his allegations appear to
have been extracted from a polemic against mainstream (and presumably
"popular") Orthodox practice. One suspects that his remarks should be
taken with a certain scepticism. A second Russian witness, Bishop Tixon of
Voronez and Elec, reports in the year 1871 that he has discovered a
seventy-year old priest who lacks the slightest conception of Christ the Sav-
ior and venerates St. Nicholas as God (6). What segment of the East Slavic
population can such a case claim to represent? Uspenskij does not seem to
be arguing that Nicholas and God were routinely confused by the clergy;
clearly the priest in question constitutes an exception to the rule, someone
written up as a curiosity in the Orlov Episcopal Gazette. If the author is
attempting to argue by analogy that because such a priest could be found
similar misconceptions must have been widespread among the lay popula-
tion, he has provided only the most circumstantial evidence, which is by far
outweighed by the many legends of the medieval period portraying St.
Nicholas as a particularly important saint.
The testimony of witnesses, here and elsewhere in the study, is buttressed
 The Cult of St. Nicholas 149

by arguments based on the premise that contiguity indicates confusion and

even equivalence. Several pages of examples of syntactic contiguity (7-9)
reveal St. Nicholas' name alongside that of Christ and the Virgin Mary "as
part of a unit," evidencing, according to the author, a kind of equivalence
in the popular tradition. Yet standard Orthodox prayers, including the
benediction recited at the close of every Divine Liturgy,4list Christ, Mary,
and the saints exactly as they are listed in the folk prayers and songs. Thus,
syntactic parallelism is not to be taken as an index of confusion in and of
itself. In isolated cases a literal translation of a text might conceivably sug-
gest that the speaker has in some way equated St. Nicholas and God. For
example, the excerpt from the religious poem proclaiming that "Svjatiter
Mikola, silen Bog nas" (10) would seem to translate as "The Hierarch
Mikola is our strong God." But three variants provided in collections of
duxovnyestixi create a broader context:
(1) MHcKOJaMyAOTBopeuBoroM cHJIeH/OH BCeMCBHTbIMIOMOLHHHUK.
(2) MHKOJiaCBRTHTenjb
BoroM cHJIeH.
(3) c BoroM cHnjeH.
ABocb HHKOJna

The phrase "Bogom silen" echoes the wording of II Corinthians 10:3-4,

where Paul writes, "For though we live in the world, we are not carrying on
a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have
divine power (Or9zit ... ne plotskaja, no silna Bogom). We can follow a
progressive syntactic confusion in the course of which "Bogom silen"
becomes "s Bogom silen" and eventually "silen Bog" as it reads in the
variant cited by Uspenskij. But what does syntactic corruption of this sort
prove? In every case Nicholas is placed in his proper ranking, that of a
saint or holy hierarch who is endowed with divine powers of intercession.
As Fedotov points out, certain variants risk confusion, but ultimately the
verses testify merely to Nicholas' special position among his peers.6
Another example of contiguity being taken for equivalence is the follow-
ing charm:
CnymuaeTcA c He6e HHKcojiai cKopbli nOMOoLHHK c RByHaAeCATH yqeHHKaMH, caA)nj HHKojnae
Ha TpH neIuepbl KaMeHHbll, eMJneT HHiojiae CKOpbliinOMOIHHK TpH jiyKa 30JIOTonoJIOCbleH
TpH cTpeibl 3onoTornepbla, cTpenaeT HHKoIae H c6eperaeT MeHHp[a6a] B[oIKHr] H[MIpeK] OT
nopMeHHKaOT nopqeHHUbl, OT KOJIyHa H OT KOJIayHbH(12-13)

(Nicholas, the swift intercessor, descends from the heavens together with the twelve apostles
onto three stone caves; Nicholas, the swift intercessor, takes up three golden-striped bows, and
three gold-feathered arrows; Nicholas shoots and guards me (say the name), God's servant,
from any man or woman who would cast an evil eye or spell upon me.)

Uspenskij argues that because Nicholas has assumed Christ's place at the
head of the twelve apostles this charm reflects a "typical transference of
Christ's features onto Nicholas" (12). But there is a simpler explanation for
the contiguity. St. Nicholas and the twelve apostles are customarily com-
150 Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

memorated together at weekly Thursday services.7 To be sure we cannot

rule out potential misinterpretations. Still, the fact that Nicholas is ad-
dressed, not as a Savior, but as a "swift intercessor," a title which Christ
never holds, suggests that his status here rests on Orthodox tradition.
A third premise advanced initially in the discussion of iconographical
evidence for the equating of St. Nicholas and God or Christ is that identity
of "function" predicates identity or merger (slijanie) of person. This suppo-
sition is subsequently of central importance to the thesis that St. Nicholas
and Volos are equivalent. For Uspenskij the fact that two figures occupy
parallel positions in a picture means that they fulfill parallel and therefore
equivalent functions (22-24). His primary illustrations involve icons known
under the title of "Deesis," a word meaning prayer or petition in Greek. A
Deesis icon generally contains three figures (though more are permissible):
the central figure is portrayed full-face, and the figures on either side are
turned, as though in prayer or supplication, toward the figure in the center.
Early Deesis icons show Christ flanked by the Archangels Michael and
Gabriel, places occuped in later icons by John the Baptist and Mary.8
Uspenskij draws our attention to the fact that some Russian icons show St.
Nicholas together with Mary, and concludes that in such a case St. Nicholas
is equivalent to John the Baptist because, by filling his position, he per-
forms his function. On somewhat more tenuous grounds he argues that
Gabriel and Michael correspond iconographically to Mary and John the
Baptist, and therefore that the replacement of the latter with St. Nicholas
suggests an equivalence between Nicholas and Michael (23-24).
It should be pointed out, in the first place, that a wide variety of saints
may occupy positions on either side of Christ in both Slavic and non-Slavic
Deesis compositions.9 The reason is that all saints and angels function as
intercessors; therefore the equivalence of, say, John the Baptist and Michael
or of St. Nicholas and Michael is absolutely unmarked.?0 In the second
place iconographic conventions may be interpreted as contradicting the
claim of equivalence. Deesis compositions most frequently place St. Michael
to the left of Christ; when both archangels are shown together with Mary
and John the Baptist, Mary and Michael are invariably to the left, while
John and Gabriel occupy the positions on the right. If Nicholas is replacing
anyone, then, he is replacing the John/Gabriel configuration and not tak-
ing the place of the Archangel Michael.
As evidence that St. Nicholas and the Archangel Michael sometimes per-
form the functions of Christ himself, Uspenskij cites several icons and
archeological relics which seem to him to suggest confusion. Two icons
painted in Pskov feature border figures of the saints, among which St.
Nicholas occupies the central position. But both icons portray the subject
of the Anastasis (Voskresenie), featuring a large, central figure of Christ,
which would seem to preclude the possibility of any functional confusion
 The Cultof St. Nicholas 151

with St. Nicholas." Similar borders may be found in early Greek icons,
such as the late twelfth-century Crucifixion scene where St. John the Bap-
tist rather than St. Nicholas occupies the upper "marginal" position.'2 Two
Russian bronze castings from the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries are
likewise interpreted as illustrations of archaic Deisis compositions featur-
ing St. Michael in the central position that should, by rights, belong to
Christ (25). But archeologists have been reluctant (and, in fact, unable) to
conclusively identify this figure due to certain peculiarities of the image (it
is turned, not to the front, but sideways, and clad in a diaphanous robe,
bearing in its hands a kind of wreath) and the lack of an inscription.13
Rybakov, among others, regards it as an image of Nike, Greek goddess of
victory, which may have been taken for an image of one archangel.'4 In any
case, neither the bronzes nor the icons are Deesis compositions.'5 One final
example concerns an icon showing St. Nicholas, flanked by small figures of
Christ and Mary, and holding an open Gospel labeled "Evangelie ot
Nikoly." But though Uspenskij identifies this icon as constituting a depar-
ture from canon (16), its subject is the commonly depicted "Nicaean Mira-
cle." According to legend St. Nicholas was stripped of his episcopal office
for slapping the heretic Arius at the council of Nicaea; he later had a vision
of Christ and Mary handing him the insignia of a bishop (the omophorion
and the Gospel), signifying that his rank had been restored by heavenly
intervention. The open Gospel contains the passage from Luke 6:17, which
is prescribed for reading on St. Nicholas' feast day (6 December), and not
some apocryphal "Bible" equating the saint with Christ.16 To read an
equivalence between God and Nicholas is to misread the icon.
Did such misreading actually occur? It is possible, but we simply do not
know. In the absence of proof, we have little recourse but to rely on the
theological system which dictates the conventions. There are also sound
theological reasons for rejecting the premise that isomorphic pictorial func-
tions, as Uspenskij defines them, may be read as evidence of a single proto-
typical person. Eventually the argument turns in on itself, rendering the
theological canon-and the deviations from it-essentially meaningless. If
the images of SS Nicholas, John, and Michael are hypostases of Christ
because they fill a single iconographic slot, then by the same reasoning
might not Mary and Gabriel, say, be viewed as hypostases of a single per-
son? As Uspenskij sees it, Mary and Gabriel would be "equivalent" in a
Deesis icon. To accept such a conclusion, of course, we would have to
discount or to overlook contradictory iconographic evidence, such as icons
of the Annunciation where Gabriel and Mary appear simultaneously in
highly differentiated functions. The point is that parallel pictorial functions
may often be explained by the fact that the persons depicted belong to
common categories. Thus two persons who are otherwise highly differen-
tiated may, on occasion, perform a similar function which is reflected in an
152 Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

iconographic subject. But to speak of "slijanie" here is somewhat far-

fetched.
The failure to distinguish between equivalence and the performance of
common, but unmarked functions becomes particularly troublesome when
the author attempts to demonstrate that the image of St. Nicholas was
contaminated by the image of St. Michael, and that this contamination was
significant for the Eastern Slavic cult of Nicholas. Here are some of the
primary functions that the two perform in common. Both act as interces-
sors between this world and the next. St. Michael sometimes figures in East
Slavic folklore as the head (nacal'nik)of Paradise, and St. Nicholas is some-
times depicted as one who holds the keys to the heavenly kingdom or who
guides the souls of the departed to the other world. St. Michael is one of
the saints who battles dragons (in some variants, snakes), and St. Nicholas
is connected with snakes in folklore. He is said to protect the believer from
snakebite, but also to send benevolent serpents with good tidings. There is
a superstition among Russian sailors, for example, that snakes observed in
the water should be hauled on board ship and fed in the event that they are
messengers from St. Nicholas, patron of sailors (79). Both saints are known
as healers and, more surprisingly (to the author), both are invoked for help
in military enterprises. To illustrate that St. Nicholas was a patron of mil-
itary affairs, Uspenskij cites a lament chanted for recruits:
j,axpaHHT Te6a MHKona MHoroMHJIocJIHBOA,
H OT 6ypH Aa xpaHHT Te6a - OT niaapbi,
H OT xonoga Te6l Aa OH OT r6noaa,
OT TbIKOB-nHHKOBBeAb OH ga OT 3aTbIJIbHHKOB!
Bo 6o0o aa coxpaHHTOHC HenpHUTeneM,
OT opyKCbHua BeAb OHAa 3aBoeHHoro;
H OT HCKpbICOXpaHHTTO6S TpecKyqei,
H OT3Toro OrHS aaOH OTnnsImero.
BnepeAnHa OH MHKOnaUHTTOM 6epe,
Ho3aaH aa OH MHKonja MeCoMceie,
IIocTOpOHb aa OH MHKOnaorHeMnaJnT;
TyqHHeT,a 6bIBKaKrpoM rpeMHT,
rpoMy HeT, a HCKpbICbInJTOTCI.(29)

(May the most merciful Mikola guard thee from storms; may he guard thee from blizzards,
from cold and from hunger, from jabs and kicks and blows to the back of the head; may he
guard thee in battle from the enemy, from the weapons of war and from the crackling spark,
and from the burning fire. Mikola holds a shield before thee; Mikola hews [at the enemy] with
a sword behind thee; Mikola burns [the enemy] with fire at both thy sides. There is no cloud,
yet thunder seems to sound, no thunder, yet sparks fly.)

Noting that this and other folk references to Nicholas as a "leader of the
heavenly powers" would be more appropriate to Michael, Uspenskij sug-
gests that contamination between the two may explain Nicholas' status as a
"national saint, the protector of the Russian people which corresponds to
 The Cult of St. Nicholas 153

the image of the Archangel Michael as the Leader of Israel" (29).

The potential implications of such a discovery are of cardinal importance
for the understanding of Russian folk-and religious-culture. But can we
really say that Nicholas and Michael have been contaminated on the basis
of the evidence presented here, and even if we agree that contamination has
occurred, how widespread is it? These are the questions which must be
borne in mind as we weigh the data and the arguments. Some of the func-
tions shared by Nicholas and Michael must be ruled out as unmarked, for
they are shared by most or all of the saints, among them the role of inter-
mediary between this world and the next, and the ability to facilitate heal-
ing (not a universal saintly attribute, but a very common one). Other func-
tions are poorly attested for one or both saints. For example, while St.
Michael and St. Nicholas do sometimes appear in folk narratives as the
guardians of the pearly gates or the keeper of heaven, it is St. Peter who is
most strongly associated with the heavenly gates in both Western and East-
ern lore.17 By the same token, St. Michael's status as commander-in-chief
of the heavenly forces, like his renown as a slayer of dragons, places him in
a category closer to such military saints as George or Demetrius of Salonika
in Slavic and Western lore. That St. Nicholas is associated with benevolent
snakes, as well as snakes that threaten to bite, further testifies to the dis-
crepancy between the functions of one saint and the other.
Another telling counterargument involves the social system of pre-
Revolutionary and medieval Russia. St. Michael, as we have seen, was
nationally venerated as the patron of royalty, whereas St. Nicholas was the
champion of the lower classes.'8 Thus their parallel function-protection in
battle-appears to be of lesser significance than the class distinction
between the upper and lower ranks of the military. A prince or nobleman
would more readily call upon St. Michael or perhaps St. George to aid him
in battle; a peasant recruit, on the other hand, would naturally call upon
St. Nicholas here and in a variety of other situations. What Uspenskij views
as an equivalence of functions, then, may more plausibly be regarded as a
functional overlap, one attributable to Nicholas' unusually broad range of
functions rather than to any special confusion between Nicholas and
Michael. The fact that the two are differentiated both by their primary
attributes (Michael is an archangel and Nicholas a bishop) and by their
appeal to discrete social classes would seem to militate against the conclu-
sion that Nicholas is nationally revered because of an ancient confusion
with Michael. Even had Uspenskij shown that significant contamination
occurred, Nicholas would still enjoy his special status despite that contami-
nation by virtue of the belief that he is particularly concerned with the
welfare of the destitute and underprivileged.'9
Perhaps the most serious flaw in Uspenskij's arguments derives from his
failure to give due consideration to the intrinsic complexity and generative
154 Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

properties of St. Nicholas' cult as it was initially received by the Slavs. That
heritage, after all, contains its own pagan strata which may reflect Indo-
European mythology, but not necessarily the mythology of the Slavs.
Regarding this heritage as "entirely obvious" (3) Uspenskij fails to outline
it, concentrating instead on a mythological model by which Volos and his
antipode, the god Perun, are related to an ancient Indo-European mythical
pair: a dragon and thunderbearing god who fights the dragon. The East
Slavic transformation of this myth also involves a dispute between a
Thunder god (Perun) and an opponent (Volos), but the dispute is over the
ownership of cattle. This comparative mythological model, developed by V.
V. Ivanov and V. N. Toporov,20is projected onto the Christian God and the
saints who took over the functions originally performed by Perun and
Volos. God, Elijah the Prophet, and St. George, among others, are seen as
functional replacements for Perun, and therefore as transformations or
hypostases of the primordial Indo-European Thunderbearer. SS Blasius,
Florus, Laurus, and Nicholas appear to have taken the place of Volos, and
are therefore viewed as hypostases of the Thunderbearer's enemy, the pri-
mordial dragon. Once this fundamental myth has been laid out, Uspenskij
proceeds to explore the bond between Nicholas and Volos, pointing out
functions and images which the two have in common.
Ideally, Uspenskij would have isolated and "removed" all of the exclu-
sively Christian strata in his comparison of Nicholas and Volos in order to
arrive at the pagan cultural substratum. The problem is that a good deal of
the functions and images which Nicholas supposedly acquires from the
pagan god Volos could have been generated by the Greek Orthodox tradi-
tion itself, via the translated vitae of St. Nicholas, the iconographic depic-
tions of the saint's life, the translated prayers, the hymns and other compo-
nents of the saint's service. In other words, they need not be accounted for
by Eastern Slavic pagan lore, and consequently may not reflect East Slavic
pagan cultural strata.
Consider, for example, the function of patronizing livestock. Volos' status
as the patron of cattle is attested in the few extant written references to the
god (the Primary Chronicle and the vita of St. Vladimir, among others).
There can be no question that Nicholas, too, is invoked in matters concern-
ing the welfare of livestock, and that like Volos, Nicholas was asked to
ensure a good harvest. Uspenskij cites the following harvest ritual to sub-
stantiate the claim of contamination. It was recorded in the &erepovec uezd
of Novgorod gubernija; the phrase "Volosova boroda" ("Volos' beard")
refers to a handful of wheat or rye set aside and usually bound or plaited.
One peasant calls for another to "Verti borodu Volosu." At this command,
the second peasant walks three times around a pile of wheat that has been
left on the field, then seizes thirty ears with his sickle and chants:
 The Cult of St. Nicholas 155

EnarocnoBH-KaMeHS,rocnoaH,
,,a 6opoJy BepTeTb:
A naxapIo-To cHna,
A ceBuy-ToKoposaHi,
A KOHK)-TO ronOBa,
A MiKyie - 6opoAa>>. (52)

(Bless me, Lord, to turn the beard; [may] the plowman have strength, the sower-a loaf, the
horse-a head, and Mikula-a beard)

The names Volos and Nicholas are clearly equivalent in this ritual. Parallel
rituals have been recorded, however, which indicate that Nicholas is only
one of several possible Christian equivalents for Volos in this ritual. In
Kursk and Voronez, the peasants bind Elijah's beard to thank him for giv-
ing them the fruits of the harvest; oats may be left on the field for the
"beard" of Christ.21
It is difficult to account for such overlapping functions on the part of
figures who, in East Slavic folklore (as Uspenskij points out) may be
depicted as antipodes and who fit on opposite sides of the mythological
model (Christ and Elijah are identified as hypostases of the Thunderbearer).
Consulting the service to St. Nicholas, however, we find that he is repeat-
edly called the "good Shepherd of his spiritual flock," and compared to
Christ, who is also equated with pastoral functions.22 Nicholas is also com-
pared to a gardener in Christ's vineyard and to the servant who "sowed"
his master's talent and reaped a fivefold harvest.23 The standard vita calls
the saint "a second Elijah" for rebuking the heretic Arius at the Council of
Nicaea, and launches into an extended simile in which the image of Nicho-
las returning to his flock is combined with a comparison of the saint to a
farmer:

. . . just as a wise farmer uses his whetstone on the threshing-floor to clean his harvest, gather-
ing the best and rubbing away the chaff, so has the wise St. Nicholas filled Christ's threshing-
floor and spiritual granary with good fruits, scattering the empty chaff of the false heresies
and shaking it far from God's good wheat: for this reason the Holy Church calls him the
winnow who has scattered the chaff-like teachings of Arius.24

St. Nicholas is also said to have saved his countrymen from famine by
appearing in a vision to an Italian merchant and offering three gold pieces
as surety if the man would consent to sail his grain-laden ships to Myra and
sell the contents to the starving population.25 Thus, the Christian context
might easily have inspired the lore about Nicholas, and it provides an
explanation for the coupling of the saint with other figures that would be
problematic if explained merely in terms of the mythological Thunder-
bearer/dragon model.
Apart from Nicholas' connection with cattle and agriculture, Uspenskij
points out a series of supposedly pagan attributes which, however, are also
156 Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

well attested in common Christian lore. The identification of Nicholas with

gold and the attainment of wealth may be due to his status as a "bogato-
davec."26 Perhaps the most famous episode in his vita and one invariably
depicted on icons tells of how he saved three young virgins from prostitu-
tion by tossing bags of gold into their impoverished father's window so that
the man might use the money for the girls' marriage doweries.27 Nicholas is
also addressed as a "shining luminary," "a radiant sun," and a "bright trea-
sure," all traditional Christian epithets for saints, and frequently depicted
as one who stands surety for debtors.28 The legends of Nicholas as a healer
and as one who is connected with the other world also have Christian
antecedents. Many episodes in the saint's life, not to mention posthumous
miracles, involve his powers (or the powers of his tomb or relics) to heal
the sick; on one occasion he resurrects a sailor who has fallen to his death
from a high mast during a violent storm.29 That the populace would invoke
the aid of Nicholas for young military recruits would correspond to his
office, where he is asked to deliver supplicants from "bonds" and from the
sword, and may also refer to the episodes in his life where he intercedes on
behalf of prisoners who have unjustly been condemned to execution.30
The saint's attributes are, perhaps, best summarized in the traditional
prayer (which has more than a passing resemblance to the recruit's lament
cited above), where Nicholas is addressed as:
. . . swift helpmeet, fervent intercessor, most good Shepherd who delivers his spiritual flock
from all manner of misfortunes . . . the source of miracles, the feeder of the hungry, the joy of
the sorrowful, the clother of the naked, the healer of the sick, the guide of the seafarer, the
liberator of prisoners, the feeder and intercessor for widows and orphans, the guardian of
purity, the meek teacher of children, the buttress of the aged, the comfort of the laborer, the
abundant wealth of the poor and unfortunate . . .

and is requested to:

. . . keep us, like a vigilant and good Shepherd, from all enemies, from pestilence, from earth-
quake, from hail, from hunger, from flood, from fire, from the sword, from the invasion of
enemy nations and in all sorrows and troubles... 31

As we see, it is a simple matter to describe Nicholas' functions and to

account for them in the common Christian tradition. When it comes to
describing the attributes of Volos, however, a series of tangled, hypothetical
relationships must be posited in many instances merely to show that the
god (or some prototype) might have fulfilled similar functions. The task is
so complex that the author never demonstrates how Volos' functions condi-
tion or precede the functions of Nicholas. Uspenskij's failure to shape an
argument out of the mass of data mobilized for this purpose is perhaps best
illustrated by following the exposition of one section.
Section 3.1, for example, is entitled "Volos and the World Beyond the
 The Cult of St. Nicholas 157

Grave." It begins with the citation of an ancient Czech proverb that speaks
of going "k Velesu za more" (56). Here, the phrase is interpreted as mean-
ing to go to Veles' world beyond the grave which, to Uspenskij, suggests an
association between Veles (Volos) and death. To scholars like Sreznevskij,
in contrast, the phrase suggests a land beyond the sea which is equivalent
to the land of the sun commonly described in Slavic and Indo-European
fairy tales, and reflects an association between Volos and the sun god
Apollo.32 Still others contend that the land beyond the sea is actually the
spring sky, and equivalent to a "blessed land of radiant gods washed by the
ocean of clouds."33 Since all of these associations, though disparate, are
predicated on the basis of one and the same proverb, its value as evidence
of Uspenskij's thesis is substantially diminished. So, too, the fact that the
expression was used by Western Slavs but not, apparently, among the East
Slavs suggests that it is not as significant (pokazatel'no) as the author
wishes to imply.
By way of demonstrating that the associations may be valid for the East-
ern Slavs, Uspenskij refers us to the Ukrainian legends which portray St.
Nicholas as a ferryman who conveys the souls of the departed across a
body of water separating this world from the world beyond the grave. Had
a genetic relationship been firmly established between Nicholas and Volos,
this fact would be meaningful, but such is not the case. Even were we to
grant the author this cardinal point, it would be controverted by his subse-
quent admission that the devil, too, is portrayed by the Ukrainians as a
ferryman of souls. For Uspenskij the common function indicates "a bifur-
cation of Volos' image in the Christian perspective" (57). To accept the
claim, however, is also to accept a reconstructed religious-mythological sys-
tem in which the image of Nicholas is seen as the functional equivalent of
both God and the Devil-as is the image of Volos.
The figure of the ferryman leads the author to the Indo-European image
of the world beyond the grave as a "pasture where one of the gods herds
the souls of the dead" (57). Leaving aside the problem of whether or not
Volos and Nicholas may both be said to "ferry" the dead souls into this
realm, Uspenskij proceeds to claim that Volos' image as god of the herd
"corresponds" to the image of the god who herds the souls in the other
world without, however, specifying which Indo-European myth he has in
mind. According to the mythology of the Greeks, for example, the journey
across the waters of oblivion leads to a place of judgment: the souls of the
dead either remain in Hades or are sent on to Elysium. Elysium, described
by Homer as a meadow beyond Ocean and by Virgil as a green valley
located in the lower world, seems to be the image to which the author is
referring. In Elysium, however, as in Hades, the souls of the dead retain
their human form.34In the Greek, as well as the Indian, Egyptian, Persian,
and Norse traditions, there is no mention of dead souls being herded in any
158 Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

but the most metaphorical sense of the word. Nor are they conceptualized
as cattle, although the meadow or valley is pictured as crowded with the
souls of the blessed. For lack of context, therefore, the association between
Volos and the other world described here seems to rest on a highly tenuous
association based on the equation of supervision or direction with the spe-
cific function of herding.
Apparently for the purpose of concretizing the metaphor and relating it
to the culture of the Eastern Slavs, Uspenskij offers various examples of
rituals in which cattle are associated in some way with death. Several
scholars have theorized, for example, that the word trizna may be etymo-
logically related to triz', and that the etymological connection, in turn,
suggests that the commemoration of the dead involved the sacrifice of a
three-year old (trizyj) animal (57).35Customs such as the presentation of a
cow to a poor person or a monastery in the name of a deceased relative
(Uspenskij regards this as equivalent to "sacrifice" in the literal sense of the
word) may go back to the trizna and, if so, would confirm the etymological
connection. The link between cattle and death may also be reflected in
certain folk customs associated with Holy or Great Thursday of Passion
Week. The sixteenth-century Stoglav condemns the practice of burning
straw and calling up the dead on Holy Thursday, a practice which, for
Uspenskij, "corresponds formally and functionally" (141) to the later prac-
tice of "calling" domestic livestock on the same day. The housewife would
climb onto the cabinet attached to the stove (the golbec), open the stove
pipe and call each animal by name; the man of the house, standing inside
the stove, would "answer" for each. Other related practices include the
invitation of the Frost to eat kisel', and, in some regions, the laying of a
special table for cattle, as well as the ritual slaughter of cattle often reserved
for Holy Thursday (Uspenskij sees the slaughter as a relic of sacrifice to
Volos, 141).
These conclusions might be far more convincing if the etymological
connection of trizna with triz' were universally or commonly acknowl-
edged. In fact, the word is customarily translated (in this context) as a
funeral feast. If three-year old animals were sacrificed at funerals, or on
other occasions (and no evidence of actual sacrifice is supplied here), the
practice might well represent the influence of the Old Testament, for the
earliest references to the sacrifice of three-year old animals in the Izborniki
of 1073 and 1076 concern sacrifices performed by the patriarch Abraham.36
Furthermore, to equate Volos with the dead on the grounds that he was the
god of the herd and that cows were associated with death is a syllogism
which only follows in the event that cows were always equated with death.
But, in fact, the very rituals that Uspenskij describes as taking place on
Holy Thursday link cows to life and fertility. The calling of livestock, the
setting of a table for animals, and the invitation extended to the Frost are
 The Cult of St. Nicholas 159

all measures taken by the peasant to ensure his prosperity by protecting his
livestock and his crops against possible natural disasters, as may be seen
from the following examples of chants which accompany these rituals:
Mop03, MOpO3,
He MOpO3bMOii OBeC,
HAH KHceJnbnoeuIb.

(Frost, Frost, don't freeze my oats; go and eat kisel')

Mop03, MOpO3,
rOAH K HaM KHCeIbC MOJIOKOM XIe6aTb,
qTo6 Te6e Hame KHTOH none o6eperaTb,
rpagoM He 6HTb, lepBeM He TOMHTb
I BceMy 6bl B none ueny 6bITb.37

(Frost, Frost, come and have kisel' and milk with us; guard our grain and fields from hail and
worms, and let everything in the fields be preserved intact.)

To be sure, there are scholars who regard the customs as relics of a kind
of sacrifice, but that sacrifice was made for the purpose of persuading the
forces of nature to spare the crop (literally "buying off" the Frost) rather
than for the purpose of contacting the other world or communicating with
the dead. Similarly the slaughter of cattle on Holy Thursday appears to be
based, not on efforts to appease Volos, but on a superstition connected
with one of the folk terms for the day "tistij cetverg." The peasants
believed that the meat slaughtered on that day would not spoil if one
recited a prayer of the following sort:
qHcCTbliiqeTBepr
OT mepBeiH OTBCHKororaaa
CoxpaHHH noMHJlyfiHa oionroespeMq.38
(Clean Thursday, keep and spare us from worms and from all vermin, for a long time.)

Thus, though the feeding and slaughtering of livestock occur on a holiday

when, at one time, people also attempted to call up the dead, there is no
functional correspondence. Even the Stoglav reference (Chap. 41, question
26) cited by Uspenskij when read in its entirety associates the day primarily
with purification and healing.39
Following the discussion of cattle and death, Uspenskij turns to the
archetype of the dragon (which he earlier identified as the prototype of
Volos), for this image, at least, has clear associations with the world
beyond the grave. One such association provides the subtitle to this section:
"Gold as an Attribute of Volos." Here is the chain by which the conclusion
is reached. Serpents or dragons are commonly represented as guarding
treasures. The land beyond the sea is said to be golden, or abundant in
gold, and to be guarded by a serpent or a dragon. It is clear to the author
160 Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

that Volos, the functional equivalent of that snake or dragon, must there-
fore also have been associated with the image of gold and the color yellow.
By way of example, he cites the passages from the Primary Chronicle where
the Russians swear oaths by their pagan gods. In the treaty of 945, the
Russians swear by Perun that should they break their agreement they will
perish by their own weapons and serve as slaves in the life beyond the
grave. In the treaty of 971, the Russians swear by Perun and by Volos that
should they break their oath, they will perish by their own weapons and
turn "as yellow as gold." Since the color yellow and the mention of gold
first occur with the first reference to Volos, Uspenskij reasons, there must
be some connection between the god and gold. By the same reasoning, of
course, one could argue that the function of supervising the world beyond
the grave belongs to Perun, rather than to Volos.
Other analogous difficulties might be cited here, but I think that a suffi-
cient sampling has been given to illustrate the forms of Uspenskij's argu-
mentation. The general approach to the reconstruction of pagan Slavic
antiquity which this book exemplifies suffers from several limitations. It
rests on a mythological model so unstable that the fundamental coordinates
-Thunderbearer vs. dragon-may, by definition, be inverted or cancelled
out altogether (31). Little wonder that such a construct should generate a
monograph illustrating that the Eastern Slavs transposed the Volos/Perun
relationship onto the relationships of St. Nicholas and other Christian fig-
ures, yet showing that the very same community consistently confused
Nicholas (Volos) with theoretical antipodes such as God, Christ, St.
George, and Elijah the Prophet (all allegedly transformations of the god
Perun).40
A second methodological problem involves the contradiction between
the author's desire to attribute certain strata of the Nicholas cult to the
pagan period and his willingness to overlook or misconstrue strata bor-
rowed from high religious culture on the grounds that religious canons
were probably misconstrued by the community. The distinguished folklorist
Petr Bogatyrev, to whom this study is dedicated, hoped to discern the func-
tions of borrowed material for a collective that, by mutual consent, had
selected and transformed it. When the artifacts of a collective have not
survived and one sets out to construct a viable picture of the cultural sys-
tem they represent by analyzing artifacts produced by other communities, it
is imperative to consider the primary cultural context of those communi-
ties. Without assessing the Christian cult of Nicholas as it was transmitted
to the Eastern Slavs, we can neither analyze its transformation nor separate
it from the cults that may have antedated it on Slavic soil. Until that basic
labor of comparison and contrast has been completed, I would argue, we
shall have only the dimmest conception of the pre-Christian Slavic past.
 The Cult of St. Nicholas 161

NOTES

1 Boris Andreevic Uspenskij, Filologiceskie razyskanija v oblasti slavjanskix drevnostej

(Relikty jazycestva v vostognoslavjanskomkul'te Nikolaja Mirlikijskogo) (Moscow: Moscow
Univ. Press, 1982). Hereafter all citations will be given in the text.
2 Sigmund von Herberstein, Description of Moscow and Muscovy 1557, ed. B. Picard, trans.
J. Grundy (London: J. M. Dent, 1969), 4.
3 Von Herberstein, 94.
4 Prayerbook (Jordanville, New York: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1960), 127.
5 G. Fedotov, Stixi duxovnye(Paris: YMCA Press, 1935), 61-62.
6 Fedotov, 61-62. Fedotov does not hesitate to single out instances where he feels that
contamination of persons does exist, as in the confusion between Mary and St. Sophia or
the Trinity (Troica), which were sometimes taken for synonyms because of the coincidence
in gender and the more abstract nature of the concepts of Sophia (= Wisdom, the Holy
Spirit) and the Trinity (see 19-21, 26-27).
7 Konstantin Nikolskij, Posobie k izuceniju Ustava Bogusluzenija Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 6th
ed. (St. Petersburg:Gosudarstvennaja tipografija, 1900), 492.
8 On the "Deesis" icon see V. I. Antonova and N. E. Mneva, Katalog drevnerusskojzivopisi,
2 vols. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1963) 1:65. See also N. P. Kondakov, Arxeologiceskoe pute-
gestvie po Sirii i Palestine (St. Petersburg, 1904), 85; and Hippolyte Delehaye, Les legendes
grecques des saints militaires (Paris: Picard, 1909), 83 on the origins and history of the
subject.
9 Greek Deesis icons preserved in the cloisters of Mount Athos, for example, show Christ
flanked by SS George and Paul (1423-25) or by SS Nicholas and John the Baptist (c.
1530). See plates 100 and 101 in Paul Huber, Heilige Berge: Sinai, Athos, Golgota-
Ikonen, Fresken, Miniaturen(Zurich: Benziger, 1980).
10 Uspenskij's attempts to interpret the "semantic motivations" of the parallelism he sees
between John and Michael are somewhat unorthodox. He argues that both are "fore-
runners" of Christ, John on earth and Michael in heaven: because both have in some
sense prepared Christ's place, he reasons, both function as proxies (zamestiteli) for God
(24). Since Christ and God are, by Christian dogma, one essence and uncreated, however,
Michael cannot be said to "precede" Christ in heaven or any place else. On the other
hand, a parallel between John the Baptist and Gabriel might well be predicated since
both announce Christ's coming: John in the wilderness and Gabriel to Mary. That may
explain why they are paired to Christ's right.
11 These icons are reproduced in 2ivopis' drevnego Pskova XIII-XVI veka, ed. and com.
A. Ovcinnikov and N. Kisilov (M: Goznak, 1971), plates 28 (XIV c., State Russian
Museum) and 40 (XV c., Pskov Museum).
12 Kurt Weitzmann, The Icon: Holy Images-Sixth to FourteenthCentury(New York: George
Braziller, 1978), plate 26. Weitzmann points out that St. Catherine occupies the lower
central position on the icon's margin and concludes that it may have been made for Sinai
(90).
13 The bronzes are pictured and their complex history discussed by N. G. Porfiridov in
"Istorija odnogo izobrazenija v drevnerusskom iskusstve," Drevne-russkoe iskusstvo:
zarubelnye svjazi (M: Nauka, 1975), 119-24.
14 B. A. Rybakov, Remeslo drevnejRusi (M: AN SSSR, 1948) 530. Porfiridov reminds us that
Michael was the patron of princes and warriors in medieval times which may explain the
association between the archangel and the goddess of victory ("Istorija odnogo izobra-
zenija," 122).
15 The central image of one bronze (the other is broken) is surrounded by small folia
depicting Christ (above), an unidentified angel (below), Mary (right), and John the
Baptist (left). These figures are primarily decorative; they occur in analogous positions in
162 Slavic and East European Journal

many iconographic subjects. The pre-revolutionary archeologist A. A. Spicyn identifies a

stone piece with the same subject as an "archangel from a depiction of the Annunciation"
in "Nekotorye novye priobretenija Saratovskogo muzeja," Izvestija imp. Arxeologikeskoj
kommissii 53 (1914), 100 (plate 30). Here, of course, the archangel in the central piece
would be Gabriel, rather than Michael. These instances seem to fall into the category
which Uspenskij labels "quasi-deesis" (16). But the term is misleading. Neither the
bronzes nor the marginal rows of saints depicted on Anastasis icons constitute a Deesis
composition in the iconographical tradition.
16 Plate 95 of Antonova and Mneva (Katalog 1) reproduces this icon as does the twelve-
volume Istorija russkogo iskusstva, ed. I. E. Grabar'et al. (M: AN SSSR, 1953-55) 11:355
and Zivopis'drevnegoPskova. . . (here the Gospel inscription can be read with a magnify-
ing glass), plate 10. In Zivopis' velikogo Novgoroda: XV vek (M: Nauka, 1982) E. S.
Smirnova, V. K. Laurina, and E. A. Gordienko reproduce the Gospel inscription and
discuss analogies for Tver'icon-painting (199-200). A Cypriot precedent is cited by E. S.
Smirnova in Zivopis' velikogo Novgorod: Seredina XIII-nacalo XV veka (M: Nauka, 1976),
202-3. The "Nicaean Miracle" is given in its earliest form by Gustav Anrich, ed. and
com. in Hagios Nikolaos: Der Heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen Kirche: Texte und
Untersuchungen,2 vols. (Leipzig-Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1913-17) 11:393-94 (commentary).
17 See Uspenskij's "Excursion IV: Nikola and Petr: Some Common Characteristics," 125.
18 See Uspenskij's section 2.3 "Nikola as a Folk Saint," 55.
19 In Nastol'naja kniga dlja svjascenno-cerkovno-slu1itelej(Xarkov: tip. Gubernskogo Prave-
lenija, 1900) S. V. Bulgakov writes: "Russians venerate St. Nicholas with particular fervor
and direct their prayers most frequently to him. He is an intercessor for all sorrows and
troubles and his icon may be found in virtually every peasant home .... The simple folk
say, 'We have no champion but Nikola,' 'Ask Nikola and he will tell the Savior' and the
name of Nicholas is one of the most commonly invoked among us" (446).
20 V. V. Ivanov and V. N. Toporov, Issledovanija v oblasti slavjanskix drevnostej.Leksiceskie i
frazeologiceskie voprosy rekonstrukciitekstov (M.: Nauka, 1974).
21 A. N. Afanas'ev, Poetideskie vozzrenija slavjan na prirodu. Opyt sravnitel'nogo izueenija
slavjanskix predanij i verovanij v svjazi s mifideskimi skazanijami drugix rodstvennyx
narodov, 3 vols. (M.: Soldatenkov, 1865-69), 1:698.
22 All citations from the office are taken from Akafist svjatitelju Nikolaju Mirlikijskomu
eudotvorcu(Kiev: Tip. Kievope&erskojlavry, 1861), which contains the entire service; here
and in citations of other early editions I have given the numerical equivalents for the
traditional pagination (i.e., cyrillic letters). Also testifying to similar epithets and meta-
phors is the "Sluiba (stixiry i kanon) 9ogo maja na perenesenie mo?sej sv. Nikolaja
Arxiepiskopa Mir-Likijskogo ~(udotvorca iz Mir v Bar-grad (1087)," which is printed in
Archimandrite Leonid, ed. Posmertnye cudesa svjatitelja Nikolaja arxiepiskopa Mir-likij-
skogo eudotvorca, Pamjatniki drevnej russkoj pis'mennosti i iskusstva (Hereafter, PDPI),
vyp. 72 (St. Petersburg:tip. Balaseva, 1888), 62-74.
23 Akafist, 11 recto (the scriptural allusion is to Matthew 25:15-30); Slutba, 63.
24 Kniga litij svjatyx (M.: Sinodarnaja tip., 1805) 41 verso (6 December, o.s.). The metaphor
is Biblical: cf. Matthew 3:10-12 and Luke 3:17). The standard vita is based primarily on
the tenth-century life composed by Simeon Metaphrastes, published in Anrich, Hagios
Nikolaos I: 235-67. Another translated version widely attested in medieval Russian manu-
scripts is based on the more ancient vita of St. Nicholas, Archimandrite of Sinai (part of
which was borrowed by Simeon Metaphrastes). See Anrich 1:1-65 for the text and 11:5-6
on the Russian translation. See also, in this connection, Archimandrite Leonid, ed. Zitie i
cudesa sv. Nikolaja Mirlikijskogo i poxvala emu, PDPI, vyp. 34 (St. Petersburg: Tip.
Balaseva, 1881) and V. 0. Klju6evskij, Drevnerusskie ;itija svjatyx kak istorilceskij
istoenik (M.: Tip. Gra6eva, 1871), 217-19 and 453-59.
25 Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, I, 252.
 The Cult of St. Nicholas 163

26 Akafist, 17 recto.
27 Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, I, 239-42.
28 Akafist, 1 recto, 2 recto, 36 recto.
29 Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, I, 244.
30 Akafist, 50 recto; Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos I, 252'62.
31 Akafist, 61 recto and verso.
32 I. I. Sreznevskij, "Ob obozanii solnca u drevnix slavjan," Zurnal Ministerstva narodnogo
prosvesgenija,7, 51 (1846), 52-54.
33 Afanas'ev,Poeticeskie vozzrenija..., 1:694.
34 Oskar Seyffert, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, rev. and ed. Henry Nettleship and J. E.
Sandys (New York: World, 1956), 212.
35 Uspenskij cites O. N. Trubacev, "Sledy jazycestva v slavjanskoj leksike. 1. Trizna. 2. Peti.
3. Kob'," Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 4 (1959), 135, and V. N. Toporov, "K
semantike troicnosti (slav. *trizna i dr.)" in Etimologija. 1977 (Moscow, 1979), 3, 11.
36 In fact, Nicholas is called a "second Abraham" in his service with reference to a meta-
phorical sacrifice (Akafist, 26 verso). On the linguistic evidence see Max Vasmer, Russ-
isches Etymologisches Worterbuch,trans. and supplemented by O. N. Trubacev, 4 vols.
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1950-58, rpt.: M.: Progress Publishers, 1973) IV: 102. Vasmer
cites Miklosich, Jagic, Sobolevskij and others who all relate trizna to travit',and define it
as a "contest, feat, reward or funeral banquet." It is thought that the funeral banquet may
have been followed by some sort of military exhibitions or games. See also Grigorij
D'jacenko, Polnyj cerkovno-slavjanskijslovar'(M.: Tip. Vil'de, 1900), 732; I. I. Sreznevskij,
Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogojazyka po pis'mennympamjatnikam, 3 vols. (St.
Petersburg: Tip. Imp. Akademija nauk, 1893-1912) III: column 997; and N. M. Sanskij,
V. V. Ivanov, and T. V. Sanskaja, Kratkij etimologiceskij slovar' russkogo jazyka, 2nd ed.
(M.: Prosvescenie, 1971), 451.
37 V. K. Sokolova, Vesenne-letnie kalendarnye obrjady russkix, ukraincev i belorusov (M.:
Nauka, 1979), 107-8.
38 S. V. Maksimov, Necistaja, nevedomaja i krestnaja sila (St. Petersburg: Golike and
Vilborg, 1903), 396.
39 Most of the Eastern Slavs celebrate the day of the dead on the Tuesday following St.
Thomas' Sunday, which is known as Radunica, although in certain regions of the Ukraine
it is celebrated on the Thursday of Holy Week (as opposed to Holy Thursday, which
precedes Easter). Radunica is generally believed to be a relic of the pagan funeral feasts
(i.e., the trizna). All sorts of foods are prepared. Eggs and other delicacies are buried;
honey, tea, wine, and vodka are poured on the ground so that the deceased, who are
called by name, may partake of the banquet. "In treating the dead," writes Maksimov,
"the peasants do not forget to treat themselves, of course, so that toward the end of the
memorial prayers there are generally a lot of drunken people in the cemetery who are
scarcely able to stand; not being in any condition to find their way home, many get lost
among the crosses marking the graves" (Necistaja sila ..., 426). See also Sokolova,
120-23.
40 Even scholars who decidedly reject this model nevertheless draw on it. See, for example,
the discussion of Volos in B. A. Rybakov's Jazydestvo drevnix slavjan (M.: Nauka, 1981),
421-31.