The Minsk temple (together with its main shrine, the "Dzed" boulder), which operated at the beginning of the 20th century, is now well known to the residents of the capital. It is noted that the Minsk temple is a unique phenomenon not only for Belarus, but for the whole of Europe. Minsk is almost the only European capital that can be proud of the presence in the twentieth century. pagan sacred place. And although the "chapel by the stone" has long ceased to exist, it has not been forgotten, people still go to the holy stone "Dzed", and the former territory of the temple is included in the list of historical and cultural values.
There is nothing surprising in the presence of sanctuaries in Minsk: revered natural shrines (stones, springs) were in the twentieth century. are also known in other cities of Belarus (for example, St. George's Mountain and a spring in Vitebsk, a holy spring in Polotsk, etc.). However, in the case of Minsk, unique circumstances are surprising, which allow us to speak of the existence of a whole cult complex. It is these circumstances that constitute riddles: was it really so?
How do we know about the Minsk temple? From the ethnographic diary of M. Katsar. Yes, this is the same famous M. Katsar, the author of a book about ornaments and their meanings. However, today scientists note a large number of errors and inaccuracies in the book, as well as a fairly free and artistic interpretation of the ornaments. This is not a scientific study, but at one time it was almost the only one. And thanks to its brightness and lightness, it has gained immense popularity.
The same free artistic interpretation of folklore is typical for P. Shpilevsky, with the light hand of which in the 19th century. the Belarusian pagan "pantheon" was created, which, however, turned out to be fantasy. At one time, his work was the only one, bright and accessible, and therefore also turned out to be extremely popular. Even today, a rare book on Belarusian mythology does without a quotation from Shpilevsky. What else unites Shpilevsky and Katsar? M. Katsar in his work on ornaments, obviously, used the achievements of Shpilevsky and even created his own testimonies in which "pagan deities" from the Shpilevsky pantheon act. By the way, almost all the characters that Shpilevsky wrote about are known only from his works. None of the ethnographers in the XIX – XXI centuries. never managed to fix them. True, sometimes works appear (for example,"Myphalogy of Belarusan" by A. Shamak), where supposedly modern field notes are printed, in which Shpilevsky's heroes appear. But here we are dealing with falsifications, and rather crude ones. It even goes so far that names are deliberately replaced in quotes from authentic folklore sources. But I moved away from the topic …
We can say that M. Katsar together with P. Shpilevsky are the main myth-makers in the field of Belarusian traditional culture. If M. Katsar actively used the fantasy work of P. Shpilevsky and even constructed myths himself, then could he have invented something about the Minsk temple? No, he could not invent everything at all, since there are other evidences about the stone on the bank of the Svisloch, memories of the residents of st. Boat. However, some details require more attention. For example, the names of the venerated objects "chapel by the stone".
It is immediately alarming that the names of the cult objects of the Minsk temple are found only in the author's summing up in the diary: “The oak was called Volatam. Stone - Dzedam or Elders. The altar is agony, zhyzha”. Meanwhile, these names do not appear in the stories of the informants themselves in M. Katsar's diary. There is only one mention: "… holy is the stone, the Starats, who called me". It was Starats, but not Dzed, as everyone knows him now. Quite interesting is the fact that in another subsection of the diary, where M. Katsar summarizes the available information, the oak is no longer named, the altar is “zhyzha, agon”, and the holy stone is “Starats”, as one of the informants denotes. It turns out that the discrepancy is observed even within the same diary. True, this could be explained by the fact that information from different people was used (not everyone could remember the names),if this text was not already a knowingly generalization of the information received.
Boulder "Grandfather" in its original place in the middle of the twentieth century
Promotional video:
The informants remember oak, stone and fire, but it looks strange that they do not give names, and questions about their origin involuntarily arise. Where do they come from? Could M. Katsar himself have come up with them? We must look for the origins of names and similar sacred objects.
In the literature on sacral stones, a boulder "Dzedak stone" ("Dzed") near the village of Zhidomlya, Grodno region, is known. And that is all. The name "Starats" does not occur. By the way, the first who wrote about the Minsk temple and made it known to the public was E. Levkov, who, on the basis of information from M. Katsar's diary, wrote a chapter of his well-known book “Malklivyya svedki minuushchyna”. There he gives the form "Stara", but it is absent in Katsar's diary. Probably, E. Levkov read and translated the name of the boulder inaccurately (Katsar's diary was written in Russian).
The name "Dzed" refers to the image of the grandfathers-ancestors. The image of the elder in the worldview of Belarusians correlated with the representative of the “other world” and was associated with the world of the dead. M. Katsar also writes about the “symbol of grandfathers” in his book about ornaments.
The situation with other names is even more complicated. The name of the altar in the Minsk temple, according to M. Katsar, is “agon, zhyzha”. It is probably also based precisely on the work of P. Shpilevsky, in whose "pantheon" the invented deity of fire Zhyzh appears. Considering that Katsar actively used in his work about the ornaments of Shpilevsky's characters, this version is the main one. There is also the “symbol of Zhyzhal” proposed by M. Katsar in the book “Belarusian Arnament”. There are no other sources. True, the researchers note that the lexeme "zhyzh (a)" is taken from children's speech, where "fire" means. It is recorded by I. Nosovich, who noted the corresponding analogue in the Lithuanian children's language. This word is also known in the east of the Mogilev region, on the Belarusian-Russian borderland. But there is not a single example of this word referring to sacred objects.
It should be emphasized the meaning that Katsar put into the image of "Agnya-Zhyzhal": "fire, the hearth in our consciousness is associated with the home, with the family."
With the Volatam oak, it's not all that simple either. In his book on ornaments, M. Katsar also suggests seeing a “volat sign” in weaving ornaments. Volat, according to Katzar, is a strong and kind ancestor who protects the people from evil forces, contributes to the happiness of descendants. However, the well-known researcher of traditional Belarusian culture V. Lobach notes that the lexeme “volat” is not recorded in the living speech of Podvinya, is not recorded in the dictionaries of Belarusian dialects and volat as a mythical character is not found in Belarusian legends. To a certain extent, volatism in Belarusian mythology also looks like a kind of literary construct. Authentic folklore tells about asіlki. Accordingly, the question arises: could then have an oak on the Minsk temple the name "Volat"? There are certain doubts on this score now. Remarkablythat nowhere else in Belarus we find sacred trees with a similar name. In the literature, if the name "Volat" is mentioned in relation to revered trees, then the Minsk temple is given as an example. And that is all. Here is such a vicious circle. The name of the oak could also be given due to the huge size of the tree.
One more circumstance also attracts attention. In the book “Belarusian Arnament” M. Katsar writes about the Minsk temple, mentions the revered stone and oak, but also does not name their names. At the same time, he notes that at the pagan temple "carry the pagan god Perun." However, this detail is completely absent from the ethnographic diary. On the basis of what such a conclusion was made is not clear.
What happens? The names of the revered objects of the Minsk temple have no reliable confirmation. Even in the ethnographic diary, the informants do not mention these names. Here they are, especially "Volat" and "Zhyzh", and may be a product of M. Katsar's imagination. The situation with the "Dzed" boulder is even more confusing. In the quotes of the informants, the name of the stone is found once in the form "Starats". "Jed" appears only in the collector's comments, but at the same time it has one parallel among other revered stones.
It seems that it was no coincidence that M. Katsar chose names that rally around one image - clan and family: grandfather, volat-ancestor, fire (hearth). Such names of the objects correspond to the stories that the stone helped childless families in procreation, and girls - to get married. This is an interesting example of a new mythologization and interpretation, which, however, still hardly corresponds to the realities of the time of the existence of the "chapel by the stone". And, despite the fact that these names were apparently invented by M. Katsar, they will remain in the people's consciousness for a very long time. Was there an oak "Volatam", was there a fire altar "Zhyzham" - this is not very relevant today (except for the question of scientific accuracy), since the oak and fire have long been gone. But there is a stone. And he is known precisely as "Jed". It continues to be read today. The myth lives on.
Dmitry Skvorchevsky
