24 S TUDIA MYTHOLOGICA SLAVICA 2021
 195 – 217 |  195 – 217 | https://doi.org/10.3986/SMS20212411  
Dazhbog: The Ancient Slavic Pagan 
Deity of the Shining Sky
Oleg V. Kutarev Oleg V. Kutarev
Prispevek podrobno obravnava enega najbolj 
znanih in pogosto omenjenih slovanskih po-
ganskih božanstev, tj. Dažbog (ali Daž(d)bog). 
Obravnava izpostavlja in problematizira do-
ločene zgodovinopisne stereotipe, ki so polni 
nasprotij in težav. Na primer: 1) opredelitev 
Dažboga kot božanstva sonca; 2) njegova 
bližina drugemu sončnemu božanstvu, Horsu, 
in nejasnost, zakaj naj bi obstajali dve sončni 
božanstvi; 3) Dažbogov odnos do božanstva 
Svaroga oz. Svarožiča; 4) Dažbogova pripa-
dnost samo vzhodnoslovanskemu območju; 
5) etimologija njegovega imena kot »daja-
nje božanstva«. V tem prispevku je podan 
alternativni, pogosto spregledan pogled na 
Dažboga, ki lahko reši te težave.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: slovansko poganstvo, 
Dažbog, Svarog, Dabog, Hors, indoevropska 
mitologija
The paper is concerned with a detailed con-
sideration of one of the most well-known and 
frequently mentioned Slavic pagan deities: 
Dazhbog (or Daž(d)bog). Historiographic 
stereotypes full of contradictions and problems 
have been fixed in research concerned with 
the deity, for example, defining Dazhbog as 
the deity of the sun; its proximity to another 
solar deity (Chors) and vagueness, why are 
there two solar deities; Dazhbog’s relation 
to the deity Svarog/Svarozhich; Dazhbog’s 
belonging only to the East Slavic area; the 
etymology of his name as a “giving deity”. 
An alternative view on Dazhbog (overlooked 
rather than new) that can solve these problems 
is given in this paper.
KEYWORDS: Slavic paganism, Dazhbog, 
Svarog, Dabog, Chors, Indo-European my-
thology
INTRODUCTION
This paper is a revision of my two earlier papers published in Russian in 2015–2016 
(Кутарев 2015; Кутарев 2016b);
1
 both of them are publicly available in electronic form 
(see References). In the first article, I have considered earlier insufficiently explored 
aspects of the sources of the South Slavic origin on the Slavic pagan deity Dazhbog and 
the character of Serbian folklore Dabog. In the second one, I have carefully proposed 
a theory, according to which Dazhbog could functionally be not so much a deity of the 
sun (as he is usually treated) as more likely an evolution of the Indo-European image of 
1
 I would like to express my gratitude for assistance in translation of this article into English to Ksenia Alieva.

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 196 196 
the Sky Deity. In the course of the subsequent discussions and further work, I have been 
convinced of the high probability of such an approach, and now I am drawing up this 
paper in a polemical manner, generally objecting to the fixed view on Dazhbog as the 
deity of the sun. Some other historiographic stereotypes are also objectionable.
When considering the textual sources on the Slavic paganism (at least those relating 
to the higher mythology), one may notice that all of them were well-known to scholars 
as far back as the second half of the 19
th
 century
2
 (Гейштор 2014: 37). Therefore, it is 
also necessary to turn to other fields of knowledge, which can provide new facts to aid in 
becoming acquainted with Slavic culture. Along with archaeology, folklore, and ethnog-
raphy, comparative religious studies and linguistics are also of the greatest importance 
in this context. At the same time, it seems that the potentialities of textual analysis of the 
ancient sources are also by no means exhausted.
DAZHBOG IN ANCIENT SOURCES
Dazhbog has been mentioned in independent medieval sources only among the texts of the 
Old Russian literature (see below). The development of this literature started soon after 
the Christianization of the Rus in 988. The “Primary Chronicle”, the earliest extant Old 
Russian chronicle, was completed ca. 1118 (although its origins go back to the second 
half of the 11
th
 century). Today it is known for two main editions, of which the earliest 
records have named the Laurentian Codex (the second half of the 14
th
 century) and the 
Hypatian Codex (early in the 15
th
 century). The difference between the editions is not 
great but has significant for researching Dazhbog.
In the extract concerned with the events of 980,
3
 the Primary Chronicle reports
4
 that 
prince “Vladimir began to reign in Kiev alone, and put the idols on the hill behind the 
palace yard: wooden Perun with a silver head and golden moustache, and Chors, and 
Dazhbog, and Stribog, and Semargl, and Mokosh. And sacrifices were made to them, 
with calling them the deities” (БЛДР 2000: 126–127; Лавр. 1926: стб. 79; Ипат. 1908: 
2
 Perhaps only individual records and editions of the texts previously known belong to the number of new 
findings. Although the authors Słupecki and Zaroff, who supposed that they had discovered the previously 
unknown source on the Slavic paganism, the brief article on fortune-telling in West Slavic Lutici tribe (Słu-
pecki, Zaroff 1999: 9), have disputed against this thesis in the second volume of Studia Mythologica Slavica, 
in fact, as far back as 1872 Kotliarevsky researched this data of William of Malmesbury “discovered” by them 
(Кирпичников 1885: 62 прим. 1).
3
 The Byzantine era, “Constantinople era”, prevailed in Rus until 1700, the era having counted the years “from 
the creation of the world” (according to the biblical mythology). The first year of that era was 5508 B.C., thus, 
980 is marked as 6488 (5508+980) in the original of the chronicle, etc. Only the contemporary era will be used 
below for convenience.
4
 Herein English translation of the Primary Chronicle is based on Tvorogov’s translation from Old Russian 
into modern Russian according to the edition (БЛДР 2000). However, I remove the spelling “Dazhdbog” (con-
taining two letters “d”) from this translation, since it is almost always “Дажьбогъ” (“Dazhbog”) in the original 
of the Primary Chronicle. Each quotation from the Primary Chronicle is also accompanied by the references 
to the original Old Russian text according to the editions and text markup in the academic series “Complete 
Collection of Russian Chronicles” (Лавр. 1926; Ипат. 1908).

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 197 197 
стб. 67).
5
 The reader can see the description of the most important religious sanctuary 
of pre-Christian Rus in its then capital Kiev and, correspondingly, its most significant 
deities (with some reservations, though, which go beyond the research into Dazhbog). 
Unfortunately, the ecclesiastical author has not thought of describing the deities mentioned 
in more detail, although in his time, the Russian reader certainly still knew them rather. 
In 988, when christening Rus, same Vladimir “ordered to throw down the idols: some of 
them to chop, and others to burn down”,
6
 and after the descriptions of ritual desecration 
and expulsion of Perun idol (БЛДР 2000: 130–131, 160–163; Лавр. 1926: стб. 82–83, 
116–117; Ипат. 1908: стб. 69–70, 101–102) the Primary Chronicle does not refer to any 
of the deities mentioned any more, except for Dazhbog.
7
He quite unexpectedly appears with his father Svarog in the record on the year 1114 
in the Hypatian Codex (there is nothing of the kind in the Laurentian Codex).
8
 Here, 
following the information about the rains of the glass beads and even of squirrels and 
deer, the author, foreseeing the reader’s scepticism, adds: “if someone does not believe 
in it, let him/her read the Chronograph”. Then a mythological plot is recited about the 
fact as during the reign of Pheosta in Egypt (a corrupt name of the Greek blacksmith god 
Hephaestus) “that was called Svarog by the Egyptians”, the smith tongs fell from the 
heavens, which resulted in the origin of metallurgy. Pheosta-Svarog had also introduced 
monogamy: a law under which a man could have only one wife, and a woman could 
have only one husband; “if anyone violates this law, let him/her be thrown into a fiery 
furnace”. “The Sun-king, Svarog’s son, or Dazhbog” ruled after him, who, having heard 
of one woman’s betrayals, caught her in the act. When he beheaded the man who was 
with her and started to take her “over the Egyptian land to shame” (note that no throwing 
into a furnace takes place), a good time came to the country, and “everybody praised 
him”
9
 (БЛДР 2000: 308–311; Ипат. 1908: стб. 277–279).
In fact, the sudden appearance of Slavic deities among the Egyptian rulers is not a 
paradox. After Christianization, the following conceptions appeared in Roman and Greek 
5
 Original (Hypatian Codex): “нача кнѧжити Володимиръ въ Києвѣ ѡдинъ. и постави кумиры на холъму. 
внѣ двора теремнаго. Перуна деревѧна. а голова єго серебрѧна. а оусъ золотъ. и Хоръса. и Дажьбога. 
и Стрибога. и Сѣмарьгла. и Мокошь. и жрѧхут имъ. наричуще богы”.
6
 Original (Hypatian Codex): “повелѣ кумиры испроврещи. ѡвы исѣщи. а другыя ѡгньви предати”.
7
 Certainly, paganism did not vanish in Rus in 988 in a moment; dvoeverie (“two beliefs”: “две веры”, 
paganism and Christianity) remained here until the 13
th
-14
th
 centuries, and this period Christianity, on the one 
hand, struggled against, and, on the other hand, adopted the elements of paganism that generally continued 
to vanish. It is most significant that in the same 1110s, when the Primary Chronicle was being created, the 
Vyatichi pagans (one of the East Slavic tribes) murdered Kupsha, better known as Kuksha of the Kiev Caves, 
for preaching Christianity. However, the author of the chronicle ideologically aimed at not referring to the 
paganism after its official leaving (Кутарев 2016a: 136).
8
 See the article (Kutarev 2021) for the most detailed analysis of this extract from the Primary Chronicle, as 
well as all its sources in the original and in translation into English, in fact representing the appendix to this 
paper and being available in electronic form. It is important that it also discusses the mistakes of frequently 
used historiography, for example, those of Mansikka.
9
 Original: “аще ли кто сему вѣры не иметь. да почнеть фронографа […] Феоста иже. и Соварога. 
нарекоша Егуптѧне […]. аще ли кто переступить да ввергуть и в пещь огнену. сего ради прозваша и 
Сварогомъ. […] Солнце царь сынъ Свароговъ. еже есть Дажьбогъ бѣ бо мужь силенъ. […] пусти ю 
водити по земли в коризнѣ. […] и бысть чисто житье по всей земли. Егупетьскои. и хвалити начаша”.

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 198 198 
literature: firstly, the old pagan deities widely known by myths and popular legends were 
merely outstanding people (sometimes magicians) of antiquity;
10
 secondly, these people 
were frequently descended from ancient biblical characters. The Byzantine author John 
Malala also worked in this way in the 6
th
 century, before whom a task was set to create a 
united world history, taking into account Graeco-Roman and biblical mythological her-
itage. In his work “Chronographia” (created ca. 560s) about Hephaestus’s rule in Egypt 
and Helios-Sun after him, he gave them the roles of cultural heroes but reducing them 
from gods to people. Then, shortly after the Christianization of South Slavs (Bulgarians 
and Macedonians), in the 9
th
 to 10
th
 centuries, these peoples began to translate the Byz-
antine works from Greek into Slavic, including the historical ones. Thus, “probably, as 
far back as X century”, “by I. I. Sreznevsky’s hypothesis, [Malala’s “Chronographia”] 
turned out to be translated [into Old Slavonic from Greek] in Bulgaria”
11
 (Творогов 
1987: 472). However, this and many other translations were not preserved in Bulgaria 
or other South Slavic countries; we are aware of them only because these Old Slavonic 
sources were brought or copied in Russian cloisters after the Christianization of the Rus. 
It is this text that the author of the Primary Chronicle had in the 12
th
 or 13
th
 centuries, and 
it is this text that he mentioned: “let him/her read Chronograph”. This refers to the Old 
Russian compilation comprised of Byzantine sources (among which also was Malala’s 
“Chronographia”) translated into Slavic and setting forth the ancient history (Творогов, 
1983; Истрин 1994: 14–15). Several such compilations-chronographs are extant.
It is highly significant that “contrary to diffused opinion” (БЛДР 2000: 523–524), 
“identification of Hephaestus with Svarog, and Helios (Sun) with Dazhdbog”, which we 
are interested in, “does not belong to the author of the compiled Russian chronograph […], 
never mind the chronicler, who had included the extract from Malala’s Chronographia in 
the annalistic article of 1114 […], but it goes back to some ancient (if not the original) 
version of the translation of Malala’s Chronographia” (Творогов, 1983: 191), which made 
in Bulgaria. Indeed, although, for example, a prominent researcher of Slavic paganism 
(and the Middle Ages in general) Łowmiański frankly and convincingly wrote that, in this 
case, we could see the source “relating to the higher mythology of the South Slavs (rather 
than the East Slavs as it is almost everywhere commonly believed)” (Ловмянский 2003: 
75); this opinion not infrequently remains unnoticed; Dazhbog and Svarog are constantly 
referred to as “East Slavic=Old Russian” deities,
12
 although it is the South Slavic scribe 
that had replaced the Greek names by the names from Slavic mythology. There is no 
doubt that the scribe had done that to explain the mythological function:
13
 the Greek god 
of fire, Hephaestus, could be unknown to the Slavic reader, but the deity of fire, Svarog, 
10
 This approach is called euhemerism.
11
 The most prominent researchers of Malala’s Slavic translation, Istrin and Tvorogov, and many others sub-
sequently adhered to the same version of the translation’s place of origin.
12
 In many respects, due to still prevailing authority of Jagić, Brückner, and Mansikka (Ловмянский 2003: 
77–78), the authors undoubtedly standout in other works on Slavic paganism. However, it is that their view 
that should be rejected now as the obsolete one.
13
 Some similar examples of “translation” of Greek gods into Slavic ones are known in the Old Russian liter-
ature, see for them (Kutarev 2021: 111–112 ft. 26).

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 199 199 
was clear for him/her (see below). Meanwhile, the name “Svarog” is never mentioned 
in independent East Slavic sources (Ловмянский 2003: 78).
14
The analysis of sources shows that the text of the Primary Chronicle retells Malala’s 
“Chronographia” quite close to the original (Kutarev 2021: 114–119); the Slavic scribes 
had added only several independent fragments, in fact representing just two nuances. 
Firstly, the names: Pheosta-Hephaestus became Svarog, and his son (Helios in the origi-
nal; “Sun” in Slavic translation) Dazhbog; this correction was made by the South Slavic 
scribe. Secondly, a way of punishment for betrayal introduced by Svarog: being cast 
into a fiery furnace, having been written in the Primary Chronicle by the Old Russian 
author.
15
 Everything else (Egypt; smith tongs fallen from the heavens; establishment of 
the institution of marriage and punishment of betrayers by successful son-ruler) was taken 
from Malala by the Slavic scribes without any change. However, one more important 
point should be noted here: having come across the South Slavic glosses on Svarog and 
Dazhbog, the Old Russian author of the Primary Chronicle did not correct or remove 
them; he used them, which undoubtedly points to the fact that they were clear to him and 
those readers for whom he was writing. It is particularly obvious in the case of Dazhbog 
that was mentioned in the Primary Chronicle earlier regardless of external sources. Thus, 
Dazhbog appears as a deity of both the South and East Slavs, which undoubtedly points 
to his significance and probable proto-Slavic origin. A Bulgarian of the 10
th
 century and 
a Russian of the 12
th
 century did not need an explanation of who he was.
The Sermons against Pagans give another ancient corpus of references to the Slavic 
deities. This genre also originates from Byzantine literature, and it was also partially 
influenced by the South Slavs. Thus, one of the most significant Sermons against Pagans, 
“The Sermon on Idols”,
16
 has the following lines: “[…] and the Slavs create and make 
sacrifice to the deities; to Vilas, and Mokosh, Diva, Perun, Chors, Rod, and Rozhanica, 
Upyrs, and Bereginias, and Pereplut, and revolving, they drink from drinking horns [in] his 
[honour], and pray to Fire Svarozhets, and arranged a bath for the Navys”
17
 (Гальковский 
2013: 287). Mokosh (and her epithet Diva? or is it an individual deity?), Chors and Perun 
have already occurred in the Primary Chronicle in the list of the supreme deities of Rus; 
14
 Though a word “svarog” is known in Novgorod dialects as the old name for fire, as well as “cricket” (“сверчок”), 
grasshopper (СРНГ 2002: 214), which in Russian literally means a “small blacksmith” (“кузнечик”). Speak-
ing of Łowmiański’s concept as a whole, with considering its idea of Slavic primitive monotheism headed by 
Svarog-Perun, it is difficult to accept it, see for example (Гейштор 2014: 281–282; Кутарев 2018: 115–120).
15
 The fact that these fragments have various origins is evident from the Slavic translation of Malala’s “Chrono-
graphia” that “was collected bit by bit by V. M. Istrin from chronographs and chroniclers”, mainly from Russian 
records of the 15
th
 and 16
th
 centuries; its full single text has not been preserved (Истрин 1994: 9). There are 
substitute names here (only in the chapters relating to book II), but there is nothing about the furnace.
16
 The accepted short abbreviation of the name is quite explainable, for its full name is “The Sermon of St. 
Gregory [the Theologian] created while interpreting how formerly peoples, being the pagans, worshipped idols 
and made sacrifices to them, which they are doing now as well”. A number of key versions of this Sermon 
appeared within a period from the 11
th
 to 13
th
 centuries (Письменные памятники 2003: 155) was published 
by Galkovskij (Гальковский 2013: 281–300).
17
 Translation of the Sermons against Pagans from Old Russian here and hereinafter is mine. Original: “богомъ 
требоу кладоуть и творѧть. и словеньскыи языкъ. вилам. и мокошьи. дивѣ. пероуну. хърсоу. родоу. 
и рожаници. оупиремь. и берегынѧмъ. и переплутоу. и вертѧчесѧ пьютъ емоу въ розѣхъ. и ѡгневи 
сварожицю молѧтсѧ. и навьмь. мъвь творѧть”.

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 200 200 
mysterious Pereplut must also belong to the deities. Rod and Rožanica (nevertheless, 
Rožanicy are usually referred to in plural) are the deified ancestors and grantors of the 
fates (Kutarev 2019). Upyrs are a prototype of Vampires (these words must be cognate); 
Bereginias are the spirits of dead babies (Гальковский 2013: 297). Navys are the dead 
ancestors whose spirits, according to popular beliefs, come to the living on certain days; 
at that time, all accessories for washing were left for them in a bathhouse. Vilas are more 
interesting to us: as is not infrequently noted, these beautiful female spirits have South 
Slavic origin, which may point to the original stage of existence of this text, for example, 
in Serbia (Гальковский 2013: с. 284). Moreover, according to this text and other Sermons 
against Pagans, it is also possible to obtain additional materials to analyse the image of 
Svarog: the concepts of “Fire” and “Svarozhets” are directly identified with each other 
here. The second of two most important Sermons against Pagans considered to be the 
most ancient: “The Sermon of man who loves Christ”
18
 of the 11
th
 century (Письменные 
памятники 2003: 153) is also aware of Fire Svarozhets. It says: “[...] those who believe 
in two different religions, believe in Perun and Chors, and Mokosh, and Sim and Rgl, 
and Volys that are 30 sisters in number. Boors say so, and regard all that as [gods and] 
goddesses, and, therefore, make offerings to them, and slaughter roosters [in sacrifice] 
to them. They pray to Fire, calling it Svarozhets, and take garlic as a deity”; at the same 
time, they “pray to” fire “in drying barn”
19
 (Гальковский 2013: 305, 307). “Volys” is a 
misspelling of “Vilas”; little-known Semargl mentioned in the Primary Chronicle has split 
into two parts. Svarozhets is again directly specified as Fire. This name is more frequently 
conveyed as Svarozhich in studies; there is such a spelling in the sources, although the 
very diminutival suffix -ets
20
 prevails (cf. modern Russian: братец (bratets) “[little or 
beloved] brother” [brat]; столбец (stolbets) “small column” [stolb], etc.).
Seemingly, this consideration distracts us from Dazhbog, but it will be clear further 
why it has been provided. Let me note that there is no Dazhbog (nor Stribog) in early 
versions of Sermons against Pagans, although the rest of the full list of the Kiev pan-
theon from the Primary Chronicle has been provided in “The Sermon of man who loves 
Christ” (only Mokosh goes before Semargl here, and the latter is “bifurcated”), but it 
is easy to explain. “A word ‘Bog’ (God) is misused in these names” that could have a 
wrong connotation within the Christian enlightenment, for only Christian God could be 
referred to as God after Christianization, and the pagan deities were considered demons 
(Мансикка 2005: 138; ср. Васильев 1999: 111).
21
 Only the latest (16
th
 century) version 
18
 The most famous version of the full name: “The Sermon of man who loves Christ, and Adherent of the True Faith”.
19
 Original: “двое вѣрно живущих вѣрующе в перуна и хорса и въ мокошь и в Сима и въ Рьгла и въ волы 
их же числомъ. л҃ сестрѣниць. глаголють бо невѣгласни то все мнѧть богынѧмi и тако покладывають 
имъ требы. и куры имъ рѣжуть. ѡгневи сѧ молѧть. зовуще его сварожицемь и чесновитокъ богомъ 
творѧть”, “молѧть подъ ѡвиномъ”.
20
 The versions of spelling the name according to “The Sermon on Idols”, “The Sermon of man who loves 
Christ”, and “The Sermon of Chrysostom”: сварожицю, въ сварожитьца, сварожицем(ь) (in two editions), 
сварожичемъ, сварожичьмъ, въ сварожица (Гальковский 2013: 287, 297, 305, 309); i.e., the form of -ец 
(-ets)/-иц (-its) occurs much more frequently than -ич (-ich). Other sources do not have it.
21
 There is every reason to believe that basically not so much frequent occurrence of Dazhbog in the sources 
as might be expected may be also explained by the same thing.

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 201 201 
of “The Sermon on Idols” separately “recalls” that “other people believe in Stribog, and 
Dazhbog, and Pereplut”
22
 (Гальковский 2013: 299). This point must be quoted (literal-
ly, with only omitting conjunction “and” following “Stribog”) from the Sermon against 
Pagans “The Sermon of Chrysostom”
23
 (Гальковский 2013: 324), dating from the 13
th
 
century (Письменные памятники 2003: 159). There is no Dazhbog in other Sermons 
against Pagans.
The last important source mentioning Dazhbog is a short (shorter than this paper) epic 
poem “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” created ca. 1185 and represents a masterpiece of 
the Old Russian Middle Ages. None of the other works has been likely to be translated 
and adapted so often in the whole of Russian literature; the source has been explored 
exhaustively. Although as far back as the middle of the 20
th
 century, it was possible to 
come across the view that “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is a hoax created in the 18
th
 
century or shortly before; at present, it is absolutely impossible to state that (Зализняк 
2008) despite the fact that the original of the only record was lost in the Fire of Moscow 
caused by Napoleon in 1812. Despite their quite late time of creation, the pagan images 
used exclusively in an artistic sense appear in unexpected abundance in “The Tale of Igor’s 
Campaign” (which raised doubts about the authentic antiquity of the text). For example, 
the phrase (СПИ 1985: 38): “the winds, Stribog’s grandchildren, waft from the sea”
24
 
suggested that Stribog was related to atmospheric phenomena. The functions of one more 
supreme Old Russian deity known for the Primary Chronicle and the Sermons against 
Pagans are also explained on the basis of the text of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: 
“Prince Vseslav held court for people, assigned the princes to the towns, while prowled as 
a wolf at night: he prowled from Kiev to Tmutarakan
25
 until dawn, crossed great Chors’s 
path as a wolf”
26
 (СПИ 1985: 42–43). Thus, great Chors appears as a deity of a heavenly 
body. Strange though it may seem, there is no Perun in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, 
but Dazhbog appears twice, both times are in the phrase “Dazhbog’s grandchildren”,
27
 
while it is not quite clear, to whom exactly it is referring. It is usually supposed that it 
refers to either the Russian princes or the Russian people in general. It seems that this 
issue has not been still resolved, and the researchers disagree. For more information, see 
very broad historiography of the issue (Соколова 1995: 80–81).
22
 Original: “дружии вѣроуть въ стрибога. и дажьбога. и переплоута”.
23
 Full name: “The Sermon of our Father, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, about how pagans 
believed in idols before, and made sacrifices to them, and called their names, which many people are doing 
now as well, being Christians, but without knowing what Christianity is”.
24
 Herein and hereinafter English translation is based on Tvorogov’s translation from Old Russian into modern 
Russian according to the edition (СПИ 1985); and the original text is quoted according to the first edition of 
“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: “вѣтри, Стрибожи внуци, вѣютъ съморя” (СПИ 1800: 12).
25
 Nowadays it is Taman, a small town in the South of Russia, wherefrom the Crimean Bridge stretches to the 
Crimea.
26
 Original: “Всеславъ Князь людемъ судяше, Князьмъ грады рядяше, а самъ въ ночь влъкомъ рыскаше; 
изъ Кыева дорискаше до Куръ Тмутороканя; великому хръсови влъкомъ путь прерыскаше” (СПИ 1800: 
36).
27
 Original: “погибашеть жизнь Даждь-Божа внука” and “въстала обида въ силахъ Дажь-Божа внука” 
(СПИ 1800: 16–17, 19) in the sense of “some person dies” and “some person took offence”.

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 202 202 
There are no other important textual sources on Dazhbog. Surely he has more than 
once appeared in the Old Russian literature, but generally those were the quatiotions from 
the Primary Chronicle that were less understood and more distorted by the authors. For 
example, the source of 1560s “Степенная книга” (Book of Royal Degrees) described the 
Christianization of Rus in 988 as follows: the statues of “Perun and Chars, and Toad and 
Mokosh, and Vlasiy, the deity of cattle, and other idols”
28
 were smashed (Степенная книга 
1775: 138). It is evident that Dazhbog’s name was understood as two words, where the 
former is copulative “да” (“and”), and the latter is “жаба” (“toad” by consonance), Stribog 
and Semargl were rejected, and Mokosh’s name was interpreted as the male one. At the 
same time, Volos’s name was made into Vlasiy,
29
 and his description as the deity of cattle 
was taken from another passage of the Primary Chronicle. Many similar examples may be 
given (Kutarev 2021: 107–109). All this points to the fact that the Russian pagan pantheon 
at the Modern Age was described merely as some literary rather than ethnographic tradition.
The material of onomastics and especially folklore can add the data of textual sources. 
Thus, it is noted that “the [people’s] names Dadibog, Dadzibog(-ius), Daczbogius occur 
in the Polish documents of the 13
th
–14
th
 centuries, Dadzibog Maskiewicz was among the 
students of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Kiev in XVII century, cf. ‘Danilo Dazhbogovich 
Zaderevetskiy, the dweller of the Russian land’ in Galicia (1394)” (Васильев 1999: 70). 
Folklore is also familiar with Dazhbog: he is mentioned in several Novgorod proverbs, 
for example: “pray to Dazhbog, he will help a little”, and similar. (Соколова 1995: 79). 
The words “Dazhbo”, “Dazhba” in some regions could be understood as “indeed” up to 
the 19
th
 century, for example, “here is Dazhba, burst the eyes” in Ryazan, “Dazhba from 
God grant” (Мансикка 2005: 295; Клейн 2004: 241–244). 
Apart from personal names that may presumably originate from Dazhbog’s name and 
are spread among all three branches of the Slavs, some similar geographical names are 
also well-known. Furthermore, Ukrainian folk songs are sometimes given as an example 
of popular memory of Dazhbog, two of them are especially popular: “Помiж трьома 
дорогами” (“Among three roads”) and “Ой ти, соловейку” (“Oh, you, the nightingale”), 
where (sic!) Дажбог (Dazhbog) appears, in the former case, he encounters the fiancé at 
dawn, going to his own wedding, and in the latter case, Dazhbog forwards the nightingale 
to open the doors to summer and close them to winter (Топоров 1995: 527–528). Some-
times it is also possible to come across references to other Ukrainian songs mentioning 
Dazhbog. I think that in this case, the issue is the secondary penetration of mythological 
character into folklore from literature now without any continuity. Very late record of 
these rare songs speaks for this, the earliest one dates from 1924, and some songs were 
written down only in the 1970s (Топоров 1995: 574–575).
30
 The origin of “Dazhbog 
28
 Original: “Перуна и Харса, да Жаба и Мокоша, и Власiи бога скотья и прочая идолы”.
29
 Typical Christian name; cf. Byzantine St. Blaise.
30
 Some more songs containing the same refrain “Ой Даждьбоже” (“Oh, Dazhdbog”) were published in 1960s 
by Kilimnik. I have no confidence in his works; I think (although I would not state that as well, since the detailed 
reference to this suspiciously abundant data, but for all that remained unnoticed by the earlier ethnographers 
for some reason, and exceedingly resembling the authors’ knowledge of scientific interpretations of the figures 
used requires special and extensive consideration) that all materials provided here are unlikely to be folk, and 

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 203 203 
boulder” from Minsk region in Belarus (Belarusian Дажбогаў камень (Dazhbogav 
kamen); though it was frequently called Saint or just God’s one: Святы (Svyaty), Богаў 
(Bogav)) that ethnographers described as having such a name only in the 1980s is also 
secondary (Ляўкоў 1992: 64–69): although the very old and traditional cult (the prayers 
to help by means of offerings; particularly those concerning rainmaking), Dazhbog’s name 
was obviously added artificially later on a literary rather than popular basis. Moreover, in 
such cases, Dazhbog’s name could emerge from a short formula “God grant” (see below) 
turned to Christian God rather than pagan deity; or in case of Belarusian boulder, from 
“дождь-бог” (“Dozhd-bog” – “Rain deity”).
At the same time, two popular legends of Dabog coming from Serbia and written 
down in the 1860s are noteworthy. Both are represented in the original and in English (as 
far as I know, for the first time
31
) in the article (Kutarev 2021: 119–122). The first legend 
tells that Dabog ruled on earth and God on heaven, and God could not diminish Dabog’s 
power that took too many people’s souls. However, God was able to determine that his 
son could defeat Dabog; then, God gave birth to his son, who defeated Dabog and set 
the souls free. The second legend recounts that God could not create a sufficiently large 
heaven to cover the earth during the creation of the world. To discover how to improve 
the situation, he sent the bee to the meeting of demons headed by Dabog, where the latter 
was talking about in which way the earth could be decreased, and the heaven could be 
enlarged. However, Dabog then discovered the bee and began to prevent it from returning 
to God by means of wind and rain. Nevertheless, the bee managed to fly to God and told 
him everything, following which God improved the world. It seems that Dabog here may 
be a demonized memory of the supreme pagan deity: he is the head of some “evil spir-
its” that at the pre-Christian time must be a pagan pantheon.
32
 In spite of demonization, 
Dabog still appears powerful and wise, which allows him to resist even Christian God.
In modern times, Dazhbog’s name has become quite common in culture. The Slavic 
neopagans call communities and sanctuaries in his honour, and the entrepreneurs name 
this is not about the hoax or late penetration of obviously literary element. However, it is possible that refrain 
only means “God grant”, since it occurs here in such a form in similar songs (Килимник 1964: 46–54, 77–84, 
99). I would note that the story mentioning Lada, Jar-Jarylo, and Svetovid is provided in the book as a folklore 
one (Килимник 1964: 123): there is no doubt that such a group does not come from the popular Ukrainian 
legends. Without immediately attempting finally substantiating or contesting the reliability of this source, I 
will leave it beyond consideration, nevertheless, without accepting it as a folklore one. To put it mildly, in 
my opinion, only that information about many “old deities” that Boris Čok has allegedly gathered in Slovenia 
may be called just “secondary folklore”: Dazhbog is also mentioned here along with Sventovit, Triglav, and 
Perun, see for example (Čok 2015: 109–122 itd.). Without having an opportunity to make a full review here in 
view of the limited size of this article and on account of the emphasis on somewhat different subject-matter, I 
have to explain my view in a few words. The reasons for my distrust of Čok are the same: a) overly abundant 
materials that for some reason remained unnoticed until the 21
st
 century by preceding ethnographers, b) the 
figures that, on one hand, combine specific elements of religious systems of East and West Slavs that seem to 
be unique, on the other hand, were unknown in South Slavs before, c) evident signs of the latest and scientific 
interpretations in “ethnographic” layer of data proper.
31
 The first Russian translation was also published by me (Кутарев 2015: 107–108).
32
 At the same time, I omit here the review of literature of the South Slavs, originally approached Dazhbog, 
mainly Čajkanović and Čausidis (who has published his works in Studia Mythologica Slavica). Their views 
do not seem convincing to me; (see Кутарев, 2016b: 132 и далее).

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 204 204 
their companies after him. Astronomers have named a patera (crater) on Jupiter’s sat-
ellite Io after Dazhbog (Dazhbog Patera). He is often referred to in works of fiction. 
Unfortunately, Dazhbog also not infrequently appears in the counterfeits of the Slavic 
antiquities that we will not consider herein (more about this can be found in Кутарев 
2016a; Кутарев 2016b: 133).
SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATIONS OF DAZHBOG, CHORS AND SVAROG AND 
THEIR ISSUES
Although quite stable concepts of Dazhbog’s probable functions and relations in the 
Russian pantheon have been formed, they raise several questions and present not quite 
resolved issues.
First, the popular interpretation that Dazhbog is a deity of the sun, as many researchers 
believe, causes difficulties. Indeed, the text of the Primary Chronicle of the Hypatian Codex 
says that after Svarog’s rule: “his son named Sun that is called Dazhbog had reigned”,
33
 
and he was “the Sun-king, Svarog’s son, or Dazhbog” (Kutarev 2021: 114–116). However, 
the Slavic deities’ names have been put in here as the explanations of Greek mythological 
characters. On the one hand, Dazhbog substitutes for the solar god Helios, whose name 
the Slavic scribes do not even mention, translating him just as “Sun”. However, on the 
other hand, Dazhbog’s characteristic is Svarog’s son in both descriptions of the deity. Is 
it possible that the scribe resorted to a substitution of names because of the identity of 
relationship: as is the case with Helios and the god of fire Hephaestus, Dazhbog was the 
son of the deity of fire Svarog rather than because of the identity of functions, meaning 
that Dazhbog was a deity of the sun as Helios? This assumption, which is no less admis-
sible than the hypothesis of the identity of functions, has also been put forward more than 
once before by the great specialists in Slavic studies (Мансикка 2005: 93; Ловмянский 
2003: 81; Гейштор 2014: 156–157).
Moreover, I would note one more important point that seems to have not been mentioned 
before in the literature. There is the following fragment in the same Slavic translation 
of Malala’s “Chronographia”: “after Dazhbog, Svarog’s son, deceased”, Sir reigned in 
Egypt, followed by Or (Osiris and Hor in the original), followed by Philis,
34
 who asked 
the oracle saying the following words: “tell me, [not-]lying god, Pirisphon, that is sun” 
(Истрин 1994: 70).
35
 The function of the deity of the sun is attributed to the male analogue 
of Persephone here that has neither this male image nor any relation to the sun in Greek 
myths. It follows that the Slavic translator
36
 (Malala has some fire and truthful sky deity 
without name rather than Persephone in the original), without particularly understanding, 
33
 Original: “по семъ царствова сынъ его именемъ Солнце егоже наричють. Дажьбогъ”.
34
 It is Malala who has mentioned the character named Thoulis (Greek Θοῦλις) for the first time.
35
 Original (II, 2): “по оумрътвiиж Дажьбожи сына Сварагова <…> цртвова Филисъ”, “повѣжь ми, 
лживыи боже, Пирисфоне, рекше слъньце” (the variant: “неложныи боже”).
36
 The same translator who also added the glosses on Svarog and Dazhbog.

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 205 205 
could assign the status of sun deity almost to anyone (see more in Kutarev 2021: 112–113). 
However that may be, the sources adduce no arguments for the fact that Dazhbog was 
concerned with the sun, except the comparison with Helios in the translation of Malala. 
Thus, Dazhbog should not necessarily be the deity of the sun. Let us check this approach 
considering other problem areas of researching into Dazhbog.
Second, given the aforesaid, the fact that Chors is also usually referred to as the deity 
of the sun is frankly perplexing. The most significant contemporary research of deity 
Chors is Vasilyev’s work (Васильев 1999: 9–96), in many respects confirming one or 
another old hypothesis on this issue. The researcher considers the historiography of the 
issue, rejecting the approaches that are now irrelevant or have become secondary, for 
example, those about Chors as a deity of the moon (Васильев 1999: 18–24). He also points 
out the most acknowledged etymology of the name today: it is North Iranian, namely 
reconstructed Sarmatic and Alanian “*xors/*xūrs ‘Sun king’” that after all developed 
as far back as Avestan “hvarə xšaētəm” having had the same meaning (Васильев 1999: 
55–63). Having examined in depth a great number of written sources, linguistic and 
historical research, Vasilyev is quite convincing when he writes: 
“In our opinion, the analysis of the data contained in Old Russian written 
sources that allow to estimate the East Slavic Chors’s nature and functions 
suggests that in Rus he was considered just as the solar deity, the deity of 
Sun. And although almost each of the source illustrations provided may 
be separately contested, taken in their integrity, collectively they form a 
convincing ‘solar vector’ for Chors” (Васильев 1999: 54).
Why, if that is so, are there two solar deities in Vladimir’s pantheon provided in 
the Primary Chronicle? Surely, it is possible, but rather strange if we take into account 
the small size of the “Kiev Olympus”. A historiographic stereotype based on writing 
the Laurentian (the earliest) Codex of the Primary Chronicle has arisen since the time 
of Bodyansky: “..и Хърса Дажьбога. и Стрибога..”, meaning that in contrast to the 
Hypatian Codex (quoted above), there is no conjunction “and” between Chors and 
Dazhbog’s names that is between all other deities from the list. On this basis, Chors and 
Dazhbog could be even considered as one deity having two names, but it seems absurd. 
Both names are often mentioned independently without any reference, which is illustrat-
ed by “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”. Beskov has fairly written about the absence of 
“and” between Chors and Dazhbog in his recent work: “it is a really interesting detail, 
but one should not overestimate its significance. After all, the names are separated in 
the Hypatian Codex”, and it is also known “apocryphal ‘Sermon and Revelation of the 
Holy Apostles’, where Chors and Diy’s names are also separated neither with a full 
stop, nor with the conjunction ‘and’. However, nobody has ever suggested identifying 
this pair of deities with each other! In general, such cases of writing the names of 
Old Russian deities in sermons against pagans are not unique”, for example, there are 
the following variants in “The Sermon on Idols”: “‘пероуноу хърсоу. и мокоши. и 
виламъ’ (the edition of Novgorod St. Sophia Library), ‘пероуноу. хорсоу мокоши. 

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 206 206 
Виламъ’
37
 (Chudovo edition)”, among others (Бесков 2008: 111). It seems that the 
omission of “and” between Chors and Dazhbog’s names in the Laurentian Codex may 
be considered accidental, meaningless.
The mythological attempts to explain the presence of two solar deities in the list of 
only six characters are also unsuccessful. Rybakov’s opinion is often referred to here: 
“White Light (Universe) refers to the sun as Dazhbog (the deity of light and sun) refers 
to Chors (the deity of only one heavenly body), as Apollo to Helios” (Рыбаков 1981: 
433). However, the complicated interrelation between Apollo and Helios is not a common 
concept for European paganism, “in Greek mythology such overlapping and functions 
partition are the result of long-term development and rise of Apollo: he was not a deity 
of sun at first” (Клейн 2004: 243). It is well known that 
“[…] early in the development of ancient Greek religion, Apollo was a cruel 
and gloomy deity, and one of his most ancient functions was the function 
of destroyer. And the solar nature began to be attributed to this deity quite 
late: the texts, where Apollo and Helios-Sun had been equated with each 
other, had appeared only since 5th century B.C.” (Васильев 1999: 57–58). 
The views, having travelled a unique and long path in Greece, cannot be applied to the 
Slavic material, where thereby there are too many solar deities. However, the approach 
under which Dazhbog is not a solar deity, can solve this issue. Only Chors is a solar 
deity of the East Slavs can do so, as Vasilyev also shows. At the same time, when the 
researcher writes: “but the solar nature of Dazhbog is indisputable” (Васильев 1999: 27), 
he nowhere even attempts to substantiate this opinion, let alone even any consideration 
of it; the thesis is given a priori as an axiom. Unfortunately, it is commonplace in the 
literature despite all the specified instances of it not fitting.
Third, Dazhbog is not infrequently identified with Svarozhich; in many modern Slavic 
languages, including Russian, a patronymic is formed from a name by means of a suffix 
-ич (-ich) that is an obligatory constituent of a personal name of Russians, Ukrainians, 
and Belarusians (e.g., Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy has a patronymic Nikolayevich as 
Nikolay’s son, etc.). There also was such a word formation in Old Russian. The iden-
tification of Fire-Svarozhich from the Sermons against Pagans with Dazhbog could be 
concluded from it, or, more frequently, that they were brothers from their father Svarog, 
for example (Гейштор 2014: 160). However, it was noted above that word Svarozhets 
generally denoted the Fire Deity, where the suffix -ets gives a diminutive meaning: “little 
Svarog” (Brückner 1918: 148–149). In essence, the suffix -ich could also be used in such 
a meaning at all times (best of all, it has been preserved in modern Russian in the words 
of feminine gender having two suffixes, such as лисичка [lisichka] (“little fox” from 
лиса [lisa] “fox”), водичка [vodichka] (“little water” from вода [voda] “water”), etc.). 
37
 In other words, if the absence of conjunction “and” between the names allegedly allows to identify or draw 
together the characters, Perun and Chors “can” merge, and in some cases even female deities Mokosh and 
Vilas “can” merge with them as well.

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 207 207 
Thus, although Dazhbog was Svarog’s son, he is no Svarozhich or Svarozhets. Neither 
in the Russian mythology nor in the paganism of the Baltic Slavs (the native speakers 
of West group of Slavic languages), where the deity Zuarasiz was mentioned early in 
the 11
th
 century by Bruno of Querfurt (in a letter to the German king St Henry II); or the 
deity Zuarasici was mentioned in the 1010s by Thietmar of Merseburg (“Chronicon”, 
VI, 23)
38
 if the correlation of these gods with the East Slavic Fire-Svarozhets is possible.
Both “little” Svarozhets and “big” Svarog, even if there was any difference between 
them, except origin (East and South Slavic, respectively), are the deity of fire as clearly 
follows from the sources; although the former is more like a deified flame proper, and 
the latter rather appears in the form of a blacksmith. Let me particularly note one more 
historiographic stereotype: a popular theory of cognation between the Sanskrit word 
“svarga” (“sky”) and Svarog’s name. This alleged proximity is almost impossible from 
the linguistic point of view (Мансикка 2005: 297; Фасмер 1986: 569–570). Another 
weighty theory derives Svarog’s name from the Slavic notion “свара” [svara], i.e., quarrel, 
discord, relating it to the function of chastising deity, for it is Svarog that had introduced 
punishment for betrayals (Фасмер 1986: 569; Гейштор 2014: 157). However, the ety-
mology deriving the word from the Slavic root “вар” [var], meaning “boiling”, “broth”, 
should be considered preferable, (Гальковский 2013: 16), including those word with a 
prefix “s-” (cf. “сварка” [svarka] (“welding”), “сварить” [svarit] (“to boil”), and similar.
DAZHBOG AS THE SLAVIC SKY FATHER
Thus, Dazhbog is not a solar deity, since the Chors was that deity; and Dazhbog has no 
function of the fiery deity, although Dazhbog is Fire Deity’s son in the Slavic mythology. 
In that case, whom could Dazhbog be considered in accordance with the sources? Let me 
note his most obvious function in the Old Russian texts, namely the role of an ancestor 
for “Dazhbog’s grandchildren” in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”. Regardless of whoever 
these grandchildren may be, either the Russians in general (which seems the most probable 
to me) or only a princely family, in any event, Dazhbog acts as Parent God, Father God.
Indo-European mythology knows well that image; the name of this god reconstruct-
ed as *Dyeus-Phater. The deity “Dyaus Pitar ‘Sky Father’” (in Sanskrit Dyauṣpitṛ́ and 
similar variants) has been mentioned more than once in Indian Vedas, including the most 
ancient one, “Rigveda” (15
th
–10
th
 centuries B.C.). Although, according to Erman, this deity 
“goes back to Common-Indo-European period”, nevertheless, “as far back as ‘Rigveda’, 
the worship of Dyaus was reflected at the extinction stage, later Dyaus was mentioned 
rarely” (Индуизм Словарь 1996: 190, 375); and thunderer and conqueror Indra appears 
as the chief deity in “Rigveda”. In Greek myths, Zeus acts as Sky Father; in essence, 
his name with the epithet “Father”: Greek Ζεύς πατέρ [Zeus pater] has the same stem as 
38
 Later, this deity turned into Riedegost (and similar variants of spelling) first in Adam of Bremen’s chronicle 
(II, 21) (Адам Бременский 2011: 41), and then in chronicle of Helmold of Bosau (XI–XII centuries); with 
Thietmar having called in this way only the town, where deity Zuarasici was worshipped (Ловмянский 2003: 
139–152).

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 208 208 
Dyaus Pitar and the Roman name of Sky Father Jupiter (Latin *I(o)u-pater). In many 
Indo-European languages, the word “deity” (for example, Sanskrit “deva”, Greek “θεός” 
[theos], Latin “deus”, etc.
39
) also derives from Proto-Indo-European *dyeu-, originally 
meaning “sky”. Likewise, the word “father” is also resembling in various Indo-European 
languages (Slavic “отец” [otets], “батя” [batya]).
The Scandinavian deity Týr, well-known for Icelandic myths, develops from a hy-
pothesized Proto-Germanic deity named *Tīwaz; and the denotation of “Tuesday” derives 
from the English form of this deity’s name. In the Balts’ folklore, Dievas (Lithuanian 
Dievas, Latvian Dievs; this word also means the notion “God” proper) is a supreme deity, 
although the thunderer Perkūnas (Lithuanian Perkūnas, Latvian Pērkons), whose name 
is similar to the Slavic Perun,
40
 sometimes is opposed to him in that role. It is interesting 
that in a number of cases Sky Father is “pushed” to the sidelines of the mythology (as 
Scandinavian Týr having lost his hand, or Indian Dyaus Pitar, whose certain conflict with 
Indra is visible), and sometimes the Sky Father and the Thunderer are the same character 
(Zeus, Jupiter). It seems that during some period of time similar (or even identical) images 
of Sky Father and Thunderer began to separate in Indo-European communities, with the 
Thunderer (if he separated in mythology) beginning to play a more significant role in 
military aristocracy within the period of settling apart the Indo-Europeans, and pushing 
aside formerly supreme Sky Father. In other cases, no separation has taken place, and 
then only the function of Sky Father was pushed to the sidelines as compared with the 
military and powerful one (Кутарев 2016b: 134–138).
The Slavic thunderer Perun in no way proves to be a Father/Ancestor in the sources. 
At the same time, the images of Sky Father and Thunderer are separated in the Balts, the 
closest to the Slavs, as well as other North Indo-Europeans. In this way, “it was worth 
supposing the Slavs’ thunderer’s latent struggle with the deity of the sky for superiority 
in the pantheon, which was between Zeus and Cronos
41
 in the Greeks, and between Indra 
(and, perhaps, even Parjanya substituted by him) and Dyaus in the Indo-Aryans” (Клейн 
2004: 139); and between Perkūnas and Dievas in the Balts. Then why can we not see the 
Slavic parallel to Dievas, which is suggesting itself? Where is the very Sky Father, who 
has become the Slavs’ successor of Proto-Indo-European *Dyeus-Phater?
Dazhbog is fit to be the Sky Father upon a great number of criteria at once, while no 
other Slavic deities meet all of them. Firstly, Dazhbog is an ancestor (i.e., Father Deity), 
which clearly follows from the image of “Dazhbog’s grandchildren” in “The Tale of 
Igor’s Campaign”. Secondly, he plays a significant part in mythology without being, 
nevertheless, the supreme deity. 
“As a deity of thunderstorm and thunder, Perun (Indo-European *Per(kw)un-
o-s), whose ‘sacral roots’ go back to the time of Indo-European commonality, 
39
 The word “диво” [divo] (“marvel, miracle”) from same stem has been preserved among the Slavs.
40
 It is believed that the Baltic mythology, as well as the Baltic languages are the closest to the Slavic according 
to the origin.
41
 Klejn is likely to have made a misspelling here (corrected by me): struggle, which “was between Zeus and 
Chronos”.

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 209 209 
was related to the military sphere and considered to be a patron of warriors 
and their leader as far back as that time. With ‘the beginning of the heroic 
era of settling apart the Indo-Europeans, evidently, since the end of III mil-
lennium B.C.’, the role of military function had been growing in the social 
structure of the Indo-European tribes, which put the deity of thunderstorm 
in the forefront in their pantheon. It is quite natural that within the period 
of forming the Old Russian state and a lot of military activities of the first 
Kiev princes, Perun turned into the patron deity of them and the prince’s 
armed force” (Васильев 1999: 213). 
However, Dazhbog has remained among the most important worshipped characters 
of East and South Slavs (perhaps, the West as well? For the deities’ names of Poland 
and Czech until the 15
th
 century are unknown) together with solar deity Chors and some 
other deities. Putting Perun in the forefront was likely taking place simultaneously with 
pushing the very Dazhbog to the sidelines, whose role of an ancestor, however, was not 
forgotten even 200 years after the Christianization of Rus, when “The Tale of Igor’s 
Campaign” was being created.
Of no small importance, linguistic research may also be involved here. Only Stri-
bog’s name was attempted to be explained as an evolution of Proto-Indo-European name 
*Dyeus-Phater among the significant deities of the Slavs, representing its etymology as 
“father deity” (Рыбаков 1981: 432). However, as Toporov notes, “evidently, it is necessary 
now to reject (or at least seriously reconsider) deriving of the first element of this name 
from the word denoting father (Indo-European *patri>Slavic stri) as it was done by many 
researchers, and interpret stri- as an imperative from verb stьrti “stretch”, “spread” as 
R.O. Jakobson suggested in his works as well” (Топоров 1995: 529; Фасмер 1986: 777; 
Клейн 2004: 244). The mysterious “Div” (demon or bird) being referred to only in “The 
Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, at one moment shouting from a tree, at another being thrown 
down to the land, evidently does not fit for the Sky Father as to the status (СПИ 1800: 9, 
25; СПИ 1985: 37, 40). The name of “Diy or Dyw, the deity of rain and sky, i.e. Zeus” is 
of literary and undoubtedly Greek origin, also known for some Sermons against Pagans. 
“However, in Russian, this word was used in the sense of pagan deity in general. Our 
ancestors did not worship Diy. Diy has got into our Olympus due to the ancient scribes’ 
knowledge of Byzantine historical literature”
42
 (Гальковский 2013: 11–12). The Slavs 
have no other male deities similar to the name *Dyeus-Phater.
What is the etymology of Dazhbog’s name? Here we come across another historiographic 
“axiom” that seems to be better to be considered again. Dubensky’s theory proposed as 
far back as the first half of 19
th
 century appears to be established: “he explained the first 
half of the name (‘Dazhd-’) as an imperative from verb ‘дать’ [dat] (‘to give’): Dazhd-
bog: ‘Дай Бог’ [Dai Bog] (‘God grant’). On this basis, the name Dazhdbog is defined 
42
 For example, the very Slavic translation of Malala’s “Chronographia” says (I, 20 = I, 13): “Зеоусъ єго же 
и Дыѧ наричют” (“Zeus that is also called Diy”), original: “Ζεύς ὃν καὶ Δίαν καλοῦσιν’” (Истрин 1994: 29; 
IMC 2000: 14).

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 210 210 
as ‘giving god’
43
 […]; ‘deus donator’” (Соколова 1995: 80). However, as stated, the 
form of the name “Dazhdbog” (containing two letters “d”) is represented in the sources 
in an absolute minority: only two records of the Hypatian Codex mention it (and even 
then, they do not always follow this spelling), and none of the editions of the Laurentian 
Codex has it. It never appears in the Sermons against Pagans, and as stated, there is one 
spelling “Dazhd-Bozha” and another “Dazh-Bozha” (both in genitive) in “The Tale of 
Igor’s Campaign”. Istrin points out the exclusive form “Дажьбогъ” in the reconstructed 
Slavic translation of Malala (Истрин 1994: 69–70).
This overwhelming prevalence of form “Dazhbog” containing no second letter “d” 
requires a philological explanation, and it was offered. Having considered many exam-
ples, the linguists have established that the palatalization with “j” occurred in different 
ways in various groups of Slavic languages. Say, proto-Slavic word *mĕdjā ‘border’ 
has acquired the form “мєжда” (“mezhda”) in the South Slavs (in Old Slavonic); Old 
Russian “мєжа” (“mezha”) in the East Slavs, but, for example, Polish “miedza” or Czech 
“meze” in the West Slavs. Similarly, if Dazhbog’s name derives from the imperative of 
a word “dat” in various Slavic languages, the Old Slavonic (Bulgarian and Macedonian) 
form would be Dazhdbog (from “dazhd”), the East Slavic form Dazhbog (from “dazh”), 
and reconstructed Lechitic one *Dadzьbogъ (Old Polish Dadzibog), whereas Old Czech 
would be *Dazьbogъ.
44
 Since the East Slavs adopted written language and literature 
in Old Slavonic from the South Slavs, the Bulgarian and Macedonian forms have long 
prevailed in the Old Russian book-learning, being the standard there despite other forms 
of the Old Russian proper.
However, it seems that another explanation of the prevalence of the form “Dazhbog” 
in the sources is more probable. Many researchers “considered the form ‘Dazh-Bog’ to be 
original, and the first part of the name (‘Dazh-’) to be a possessive adjective from extinct 
Slavic word ‘дагъ’ [dag] (cf. Gothic dags, German Tag, etc.), i.e., day, light (A.N. Afa-
nasyev, I.I. Sreznevsky, F.I. Buslaev, A.S. Famintsyn, L.P. Yakubinsky, B.A. Rybakov
45
). 
43
 At Jakobson’s suggestion, the meaning “wealth, good” was also looked for in the part “-bog” of Dazhbog and 
Stribog’s names, but this context (even if it was derived from the acknowledged Iranian etymology of a word) 
would be strange to be seen only in two names, without applying to all other occurrences of quite independent 
word “бог” [bog] (“god”) (Соколова 1995: 80).
44
 I thank Zenkin for tips on linguistics.
45
 Klejn may be also added to this list, who writes about the extreme uncommonness of the formation of the word 
from imperative of a verb: in his opinion, it is more logical to regard “it as a later comprehension (according to 
consonance). The assumption […] that Dazh- is a natural Russian palatalization of ancient Indo-European word 
‘dag’” that is concerned with the notion of day and heat “is likely to be more correct”; it is also easier to get to 
the Serbian form Dabog through this assumption (Клейн 2004: 242). Kareev also wrote: “Dazh means ablaze, 
burning, from root dag (‘to burn’); Lithuanian degu (‘I am burning’); German Tag; Carantanian дъж-ница 
(‘dawn’), etc.” (Кареев 2011: 33). Tvorogov also has not called Dazhdbog (though preferring this spelling) 
solar (in contrast to Chors, “the deity of sun and light heavenly body”) in his latest works, pointing out only 
his function of “the deity of light and giver of good” (БЛДР 2000: 501). Maintaining the same etymology, 
nevertheless, Hilferding derived the deity’s solar function, he wrote: “as to another name of the deity of Sun, 
Dazhbog, it also seems to contain a notion of burning, fire: we have no doubt in correctness of derivation of 
this name that was first proposed by honourable Mikutskiy as we know, it was derived from the ancient root 
даг [dag] – ‘burn’ (Sanskrit dah, Lithuanian degu, degti ‘I burn’, ‘to burn’, Slavic дёготь [dyogot’ ‘tar’], and, 
with regular alternating of д in ж [d in zh], жьгу, дожигаю, [zhgu, dozhigayu ‘I burn’, ‘I burn up’] etc.): thus, 
Dazhbog means a burning deity” (Гильфердинг 2013: 259–260 прим. 699).

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 211 211 
Sreznevsky considered the extant word having the same root ‘дъжница’ [dzhnica] 
(dawn) in the Carantanian language
46
 to be the evidence of the existence of the word 
‘dag’ in Slavic. Deriving ‘Dazh’ from ‘dag’ (interchange of ‘g’ and ‘zh’), Yakubinsky 
considered the form Dazhdbog wrong” (Соколова 1995: 80). Thus, it seems that this 
version of etymology has been undeservedly passed over. Although, as to the extent of 
my knowledge, none of the researchers proved its incorrectness and impossibility, or 
at least a little convincingness; and it constantly occurs in individual works of both the 
second half of the 20
th
 century (Соколова 1995), and the 21
st
 century (Клейн 2004), it 
is not noticed and “forgotten” to be mentioned, since another view “came into vogue” 
(despite shortcomings). Meanwhile, this approach perfectly combines with all those 
research studies that were carried out above and is perfectly fit for Dazhbog: the Sky 
Father concerned with day and light. It is also easy to explain the infrequent appearance 
of the form containing the second letter “d”:
“Dazhdbog: one geographical name in Mosalsky uyezd
47
 also sounds like 
this; this form can strengthen an opinion of those, who […] derive this 
name from the imperative of verb дати. However, I look at things in a 
different way: when people forget the real meaning of a word, they often 
resort to a small change in pronunciation to adapt the word to the sounds of 
another, more familiar word, by means of that change” (Кареев 2011: 32). 
Therefore, the form “Dazhdbog” containing second letter “d” is secondary (ср. Ляўкоў 
1992: 67–68), which is clearly shown to us by the sources.
Thus, we can talk about the probability of etymology of the name Dazhbog as the 
Slavic evolution of Indo-European *Dyeus-Phater
48
 and the corresponding mythological 
change. The stem Dazh- correlates with *Dyeus-, and “-bog” could substitute for “-father” 
(*-Phater), however, having been preserved as a function in mythology. The etymological 
chain appears: Dazhbog’s name derives from Proto-Slavic *dagъ (day); while the very 
word “день” [den] undoubtedly goes back to Proto-Indo-European *dyeu-. The outline 
of my reconstruction is as follows:
Proto-Indo-European *Dyeus > Proto-Slavic *dagъ (“day”) > Proto-Slavic 
Dazh-
As a result, in my opinion, Dazhbog is a Slavic version of the evolution of the In-
do-European image of Sky Father (*Dyeus-Phater) just as Dievas functions as that in the 
Balts. Both Dazhbog’s features of ancestor proper (“Dazhbog’s grandchildren” in the 
“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”) and etymology speak for this. At the same time, Dazhbog 
46
 To put it more precisely, this word is dialecticism of Slovene.
47
 In the west of Kaluga Region in Russia. However, I have not found such a name on a modern map.
48
 In 2015, in Moscow I talked about it with a reknowned specialist in Indo-European studies Vyacheslav V. 
Ivanov, who said that such a reconstruction was not without difficulties, but was possible to be considered.

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 212 212 
has no particular “rivalry” in this domain, for he is the only deity that combines both the 
possibilities of etymological development from *Dyeus-Phater and functional similarity 
with him. I see no need to finally reject his relation to solar and fiery functions as well; 
they could be well related to the archetype of Sky Father one way or another as in other 
Indo-European mythologies. However, in my opinion, surely, it was not prevailing, for 
when approached closely, it is clear that Chors acted as the chief solar deity, and Svarog/
Svarozhets as the fiery one. While the warrior Thunderer Perun was the closest to the 
militarized part of society and princes, evidently the cult of Dazhbog, whose function 
of “father” concerned not only folk and people but also the world, harvest and plenty 
in general, was more significant for common people being drawn to agriculture; in this 
regard, he truly was the giver and distributor of good. Surely, Perun was also responsible 
for harvest to some extent, being concerned with rain, but it seems that it is difficult to 
name at least one deity of the Slavic pantheon that would not be somehow concerned 
with fertility. However, Dazhbog’s emphasis thereon was particular and specific.
In this sense, Scandinavian paganism appears to be the closest for comparison, where 
Thor and Odin are attached to warriors, leaders and elements, and Freyr to fertility (cf. 
Adam of Bremen (IV, 26)): in Sweden, there was a pagan temple of Uppsala, where “there 
are statues of three deities worshipped by people. […] Their powers are distributed in the 
following way: ‘Thor, the Swedes say, reigns in the air, controls thunder and rivers, winds 
and rains, fair weather and harvests. The second one is Wodan, which means ‘frenzy’, 
who wages wars, gives people courage in battles against the enemies. The third one is 
Fricco that grants peace and pleasures to the mortal people’” (Адам Бременский 2011: 
108).
49
 In this case, Perun (and Veles to some extent?) can be compared with Thor and 
Odin, and analogy may be drawn between Freyr and the very Dazhbog. However, “it is 
not impossible that the pagan East Slavs worshipped Christian God in Dazhbog” as the 
Balts worshipped him in Dievas (Мансикка 2005: 295; Ляўкоў 1992: 67).
It is not unusual that, being the Sky Father, Dazhbog appears to be Svarog’s son. Fire 
is a chthonic, ancient, and creating element, with which the archetype of creating demi-
urge blacksmith (mythological insight of the Big Bang?) was coordinated. For example, 
Olympian deities headed by Zeus represent the third generation, struggling with the Titans 
preceding them; the deities of the Irish Celts – Folk of the goddess Danu – appeared 
later also struggled for power over Ireland with the Formorian giants in the epic Battle 
of Magh Tuireadh. Similarly, the Germans had Ymir and other giants that existed until 
the deities, who appeared later and fought against their predecessors. In Indians’ Vedas, 
this conception is also well-known, there are “two kinds of creatures: deities and asuras 
[giants – O.K.]. And the deities were younger, and asuras older. They have fought against 
each other for these worlds”
50
 (Упанишады 2003: 72). Although Dazhbog could be the 
49
 English translation is made according to the Russian edition. Original (Latin): “statuas trium deorum ven-
eratur populous […]. Quorum significationes eiusmodi sunt: ‘Thor’, inquiunt, ‘presidet in aere, qui tonitrus et 
fulmina, ventos ymbresque, serena et fruges gubernat. Alter Wodan, id est furor, bella gerit hominique ministrat 
virtutem contra inimicos. Tercius est Fricco, pacem voluptatemque largiens mortalibus’”.
50
 Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, I, 3.1. Original (Sanskrit): “tataḥ kānīyasā eva devāḥ, jyāyasā asurāḥ, ta eṣu 
lokeṣv aspardhanta”.

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 213 213 
winner in the struggle for the supremacy in the world in the Slavs’ myths having not 
reached us,
51
 later he was pushed to the sidelines by the militarized part of society and 
its cult of Perun: it is that condition in which these two supreme deities have been fixed 
by the Old Russian sources.
52
REFERENCES
53
Brückner, A., 1918: Mitologja słowiańska. Krakow: NAU.
Čok, B., 2015: Kamnoseško izročilo o znamenjih na portalih in kolonah po Krasu. Nesnovna 
krajina Krasa (ur. Katja Hrobat Virloget in Petra Kavrečič). Koper: Založba Univerze na 
Primorskem. Pp. 99–134.
IMC, 2000: Ioannis Malalae Chronographia. Rec. I. Thurn. Berolini: Walter de Gruyter.
Kutarev, O. V., 2019: Description of Rod and Rožanicy in Slavic mythology: B. A. Rybakov 
and his predecessors’ interpretations. New researches on the religion and mythology of 
the Pagan Slavs (ed. by Patrice Lajoye. Paris: Lingva). Pp. 33–45. PDF: https://vk.com/
doc-120497_509056662
Kutarev, O. V., 2021: The analysis of the sources on Slavic deity Dazhbog: Hypatian Codex; Serbian 
legends of Dabog. Сборник научных статей по итогам работы Международного 
научного форума «Наука и инновации – современные концепции» (г. Москва, 26 
февраля 2021 г.; отв. ред. Д.Р. Хисматуллин. – М.: Инфинити). Pp. 104–125. PDF: https://
vk.com/doc-120497_591698209
Słupecki, L. P., Zaroff, R., 1999: William of Malmesbury on Pagan Slavic Oracles: New Sources 
for Slavic Paganism and its two Interpretations. Studia Mythologica Slavica 2. Pp. 9–20.
Адам Бременский, 2011: Деяния архиепископов Гамбургской церкви. Славянские хроники. 
Москва: Русская Панорама. С. 7–150. [Adam Bremenskij 2011: Deyaniya arhiepiskopov 
Gamburgskoj cerkvi. Moskva: Russkaya Panorama. Pp. 7–150.]
Бесков, А. А., 2008: Анализ мифологической составляющей восточнославянского язычества: 
Дис. … канд. филос. наук. Нижний Новгород. [Beskov, A. A., 2008: Analiz mifolog-
icheskoj sostavlyayushchej vostochnoslavyanskogo yazychestva: Dis. … kand. filos. nauk. 
Nizhnij Novgorod.]
БЛДР, 2000: Повесть временных лет (по Ипатьевской редакции). Библиотека литературы 
Древней Руси. Т. 1. Санкт-Петербург: Наука. С. 62–315. [Povest’ vremennyh let (po 
Ipatyevskoj redakcii). Biblioteka literatury Drevnej Rusi. T. 1. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. 
Pp. 62–315.]
Васильев, М. А., 1999: Язычество восточных славян накануне крещения Руси: Религиозно-
мифологическое взаимодействие с иранским миром. Языческая реформа князя 
Владимира. Москва: Индрик. [Vasilyev, M. A., 1999: Yazychestvo vostochnyh slavyan 
51
 Dazhbog is likely to be logically seen as Mother Earth’s husband that way that is poorly personified in the 
folklore (as Mat Zemlya) and the sources (for example, “zemlya-mat” (Mother Earth) (“землѧ мати”) was 
referred to in the Primary Chronicle of 988 as the element worshipped by the Christians (БЛДР 2000: 161; 
Лавр. стб. 114–115; Ипат. стб. 100)), but it is still treated with remarkable respect by the Slavs.
52
 And, perhaps, Procopius of Caesarea as well, who wrote in 6th century about the fact that in the paganism 
of the Slavs “the creator of thunderstorm” dominates (Гейштор 2014: 98–99).
53
 All dates for internet resources are given on 15. 04. 2021.

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 214 214 
nakanune kreshcheniya Rusi: Religiozno-mifologicheskoe vzaimodejstvie s iranskim mirom. 
Yazycheskaya reforma knyazya Vladimira. Moskva: Indrik.]
Гальковский, Н. М., 2013: Борьба христианства с остатками язычества в Древней Руси. 
Москва: Академический проект [both volumes in one book; the second volume is a 
reprint of 1913 (p. 263–572), with page numbering x+264 (p. 300 in 2013=p. 36 in 1913)] 
[Galkovskij, N. M., 2013: Borba hristianstva s ostatkami yazychestva v Drevnej Rusi. 
Moskva: Akademicheskij proekt.]
Гейштор, А., 2014: Мифология славян. Москва: Весь мир. [Gieysztor, A. 2014: Mifologiya 
slavyan. Moskva: Ves’ mir.]
Гильфердинг, А. Ф., 2013: История балтийских славян. М.: Русская Панорама. [Hilferding, 
A.F. 2013: Istoriya baltijskih slavyan. M.: Russkaya Panorama.]
Зализняк, А. А., 2008: «Слово о полку Игореве»: взгляд лингвиста. Москва: Рукописные 
памятники Древней Руси. [Zaliznyak, A.A. 2008: «Slovo o polku Igoreve»: vzglyad 
lingvista. Moskva: Rukopisnye pamyatniki Drevnej Rusi.]
Индуизм Словарь, 1996: Индуизм. Джайнизм. Сикхизм: Словарь (под общ. ред. М. Ф. 
Альбедиль и М. Ф. Дубянского). Москва: Республика. [Induizm. Dzhajnizm. Sikkhizm: 
Slovar’ (pod red. M. F. Albedil i M. F. Dubyanskogo). Moskva: Respublika.]
Ипат., 1908: Ипатьевская летопись: Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 2. Издание 
второе. Санкт-Петербург. [Ipatyevskaya letopis’: Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej. T. 
2. Izdanie vtoroe. Sankt-Peterburg.]
Истрин, В. М., 1994: Хроника Иоанна Малалы в славянском переводе. Москва. PDF: https://
vk.com/doc-120497_589964358 [Istrin, V. M., 1994: Hronika Ioanna Malaly v slavyan-
skom perevode. Moskva.]
Кареев, Н. И., 2011: Главные антропоморфические боги славянского язычества. Исследования 
в области древней мифологии. Москва, Либроком. [Kareev, N. I. 2011: Glavnye antro-
pomorficheskie bogi slavyanskogo yazychestva. Issledovaniya v oblasti drevnej mifologii. 
Moskva, Librokom.]
Килимник, С. I., 1964: Український рік у народних звичаях в історичному освітленні. Т. 1 
(Зимовий цикль). Вiннiпег. [Kilimnik, S.I. 1964: Ukrainskij rіk u narodnih zvichayah v 
іstorichnomu osvіtlennі. T. 1 (Zimovij cikl). Winnipeg.]
Кирпичников, А. И., 1885: Что мы знаем достоверного о личных божествах славян. Журнал 
Министерства народного просвещения. Сентябрь 1885. № CCXLI (241). Санкт-
Петербург. С. 47–65 (вторая пагинация). [Kirpichnikov, A.I., 1885: Chto my znaem 
dostovernogo o lichnyh bozhestvah slavyan. Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosvesh-
cheniya. Sentyabr 1885. № CCXLI (241). Sankt-Peterburg. Pp. 47–65 (vtoraya paginaciya).]
Клейн, Л. С., 2004: Воскрешение Перуна. К реконструкции восточнославянского язычества. 
Санкт-Петербург: Евразия. [Klejn, L. S., 2004: Voskreshenie Peruna. K rekonstrukcii 
vostochnoslavyanskogo yazychestva. Sankt-Peterburg: Evraziya.]
Кутарев, О. В., 2015: Древнерусский Дажьбог, сербский Дабог и греческий сын Гефеста 
Гелиос. Acta Eruditorum. 2015. Вып. 19. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство РХГА. С. 
101–109. LJ: https://dajbojic.livejournal.com/5180.html [Kutarev, O. V. 2015: Drevnerusskij 
Dazhbog, serbskij Dabog i grecheskij syn Gefesta Gelios. Acta Eruditorum. 2015. Vyp. 
19. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatelstvo RHGA. S. 101–109.]
Кутарев, О. В., 2016a: История мистификаций и домыслов в области славянского пантеона 
(до середины XIX в.). Язычество в современной России: опыт междисциплинарного 
исследования (под ред. Р. В. Шиженского). Нижний Новгород: Мининский университет. 
С. 133–160. PDF: https://vk.com/doc-120497_442906131 [Kutarev, O. V., 2016a: Istoriya 

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 215 215 
mistifikacij i domyslov v oblasti slavyanskogo panteona (do serediny XIX v.). Yazychestvo v 
sovremennoj Rossii: opyt mezhdisciplinarnogo issledovaniya (pod red. R.V. Shizhenskogo). 
Nizhnij Novgorod: Mininskij universitet. Pp. 133–160.]
Кутарев, О. В., 2016b: Славянский Дажьбог как развитие индоевропейского Бога Сияющего 
Неба (Дьеус-Патер). Философия и культура №1. С. 126–141. DOI: 10.7256/1999-
2793.2016.1.17386 PDF: https://vk.com/doc-120497_437685885 [Kutarev, O. V. 2016b: 
Slavyanskij Dazh’bog kak razvitie indoevropejskogo Boga Siyayushchego Neba (D’eus-Pa-
ter). Filosofiya i kul’tura №1. Pp. 126–141.]
Кутарев, О. В., 2018: О причинах (не)упоминаний славянского язычества в западноевропейских 
источниках VI–XIII вв. SocioTime. Социальное время. №3 (15). С. 113–122. PDF: https://
vk.com/doc-120497_486090289 [Kutarev, O. V., 2018: O prichinah (ne)upominanij slavy-
anskogo yazychestva v zapadnoevropejskih istochnikah VI–XIII vv. SocioTime / Social’noe 
vremya. №3 (15). S. 113–122.]
Лавр., 1926: Лаврентьевская летопись. Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 1. Издание 
второе. Ленинград. [Lavrentyevskaya letopis’. Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej. T. 1. 
Izdanie vtoroe. Leningrad.]
Ловмянский, Г., 2003: Религия славян и её упадок. Санкт-Петербург: Академический проект. 
[Łowmiański, H., 2003: Religiya slavyan i eyo upadok. Sankt-Peterburg: Akademicheskij 
proekt.]
Ляўкоў, Э. А., 1992: Маўклівыя сведкі мінуўшчыны. Мiнск. [Levkov, E. A., 1992: Mavklіvyya 
svedkі mіnuvshchyny. Minsk.]
Мансикка, В. Й., 2005: Религия восточных славян. Москва: ИМЛИ РАН. [Mansikka, V. J., 
2005: Religiya vostochnyh slavyan. Moskva: IMLI RAN.]
Письменные памятники, 2003: Письменные памятники истории Древней Руси (сост. Я. Н. 
Щапов). Санкт-Петербург: Блиц. [Pis’mennye pamyatniki istorii Drevnej Rusi (sost. Ya. 
N. Shchapov). Sankt-Peterburg: Blic.]
Рыбаков, Б. А., 1981: Язычество древних славян. Москва: Наука. [Rybakov, B. A., 1981: 
Yazychestvo drevnih slavyan. Moskva: Nauka.]
Соколова, Л. В., 1995: Дажьбог (Даждьбог). Энциклопедия «Слова о полку Игореве»: В 5 т. 
Санкт-Петербург: Дмитрий Буланин. Т. 2. С. 79–82. [Sokolova, L. V., 1995: Dazhbog 
(Dazhdbog). Enciklopediya «Slova o polku Igoreve»: V 5 t. Sankt-Peterburg: Dmitrij 
Bulanin. T. 2. S. 79–82.]
СПИ, 1800: Ироическая пѣснь о походѣ на половцовъ удѣльнаго князя Новагорода-Сѣверскаго 
Игоря Святославича. Москва: Въ Сенатской Типографiи. Первое издание «Слова о 
полку Игореве»: https://dajbojic.livejournal.com/4207.html [Iroicheskaya pѣsn’ o pohodѣ 
na polovcov udѣl’nago knyazya Novagoroda-Sѣverskago Igorya Svyatoslavicha. Moskva: 
V Senatskoj Tipografii.]
СПИ, 1985: Слово о полку Игореве. Воинские повести Древней Руси. Ленинград: Лениздат. С. 
36–44. https://dajbojic.livejournal.com/4549.html [Slovo o polku Igoreve. Voinskie povesti 
Drevnej Rusi. Leningrad: Lenizdat. Pp. 36–44.]
СРНГ, 2002: Словарь русских народных говоров. Вып. 36. Санкт-Петербург: Наука. [Slovar’ 
russkih narodnyh govorov. Vyp. 36. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka.]
Степенная книга 1775: Книга степенная Царскаго родословiя содержащая исторiю Россiйскую 
съ начала оныя до времёнъ государя Царя и Великого князя Iоанна Васильевича, 
сочинённая трудами Преосвященных Митрополитов Кипрiана и Макарiя. Ч. 1. 
Москва: Императорский университет. [Kniga stepennaya Carskago rodosloviya soder-
zhashchaya istoriyu Rossijskuyu s nachala onyya do vremyon gosudarya Carya i Velikogo 

OLEG V. KUTAREV OLEG V. KUTAREV 216 216 
knyazya Ioanna Vasil’evicha, sochinyonnaya trudami Preosvyashchennyh Mitropolitov 
Kipriana i Makariya. CH. 1. Moskva: Imperatorskij universitet.]
Творогов, О. В., 1983: Материалы к истории русских хронографов. 2. Софийский хронограф 
и «Хроника Иоанна Малалы» (Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы.) Ленинград: 
Наука. Т. 37. С. 188–192. [Tvorogov, O. V., 1983: Materialy k istorii russkih hronografov. 
2. Sofijskij hronograf i «Hronika Ioanna Malaly» (Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury). 
Leningrad: Nauka. T. 37. Pp. 188–192.]
Творогов, О. В., 1987: Хроника Иоанна Малалы. Словарь книжников и книжности Древней 
Руси. Ленинград: Наука. Вып. 1. С. 471–474. [Tvorogov, O. V., 1987: Hronika Ioanna 
Malaly. Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnej Rusi. Leningrad: Nauka. Vyp. 1. Pp. 471–474.]
Топоров, В. Н., 1995: Об иранском элементе в русской духовной культуре. Святость и 
святые в русской духовной культуре. Москва: Гнозис. Т. 1. [Toporov, V. N., 1995: 
Ob iranskom elemente v russkoj duhovnoj kul’ture. Svyatost’ i svyatye v russkoj duhovnoj 
kul’ture. Moskva: Gnozis. T. 1.]
Упанишады, 2003. М.: Восточная литература. [Upanishady, 2003. M.: Vostochnaya literatura.]
Фасмер, М., 1986: Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка, Том 3. Москва: 
Прогресс. [Fasmer, M., 1986: Fasmer M. Etimologicheskij slovar’ russkogo yazyka, Tom 
3. Moskva: Progress.]
DAZHBOG: STAROŻYTNE SŁOWIAŃSKIE POGAŃSKIE BÓSTWO 
LŚNIĄCEGO NIEBA
Oleg V. KutareV
Artykuł szczegółowo analizuje obraz słowiańskiego pogańskiego bóstwa Daźboga 
i proponuje rewizję ugruntowanych w literaturze naukowej, ale jak się uważa, 
nie zawsze udanych poglądów na jego temat. Pierwszym etapem niniejszych 
rozważań będzie przegląd informacji na temat bóstwa, które pojawiają się w 
źródłach pisanych. Dziś nie ma większych wątpliwości co do tego, że Dadźbóg 
był znany zarówno wczesnośredniowiecznym Słowianom wschodnim (Ruś), jak 
i południowym (X-wieczni Bułgarzy), którzy mieli czcić Dadźboga oraz jego 
ojca – boga ognia Swaroga. W badaniach nad omawianym problemem szczegól-
ną uwagę zwraca się na kreowaną w XII-wiecznym piśmiennictwie ruskim rolę 
Daźboga jako Przodka. Pogląd ten zbudowano na gruncie zarówno średniowiecz-
nej onomastyki, ale także obecności tego boga na Słowiańszczyźnie Zachodniej 
sugerujących jego prasłowiańską genezę. Rozważana jest również obecność 
Daźboga i prawdopodobnie pokrewnej postaci Daboga w folklorze wschodnio- i 
południowosłowiańskim XIX–XX wieku. Następnie szczegółowo przeanalizowano 
najważniejsze stereotypy historiografii dotyczące Daźboga. Przede wszystkim zaś 
pogląd upatrujący w nim bóstwo solarne, który komplikuje obecność w obecność 
w ruskim panteonie innego niewątpliwie słonecznego boga Chorsa. W oparciu 
o przedstawione materiały źródłowe i analizy postawiono tezę, że przesłanki, na 

DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY DAZHBOG: THE ANCIENT SLAVIC PAGAN DEITY OF THE SHINING SKY 217 217 
których przypisuje się Daźbogowi rolę bóstwa słonecznego, są niewystarczające 
i wymagają innego wyjaśnienia. Takie postawienie sprawy może dowodzić, że 
Dadźbóg nie był tożsamy ze Swarożycem a tym samym, wbrew ogólnie przyję-
tym poglądom, nie był bogiem ognia. Kolejnym etapem niniejszych rozważań 
jest analiza etymologiczna teonimu Dadźbóg. Wykazano, że powszechna inter-
pretacja tego imienia jako “boga dającego” nie do końca znajduje potwierdzenie 
w źródłach. Dość prawdopodobna jest bowiem inna etymologia, ukazująca go 
jako boga Ojca-Nieba, znanego wśród wielu ludów indoeuropejskich. Nie jest 
to pogląd nowy, jednak z upływem czasu został “zepchnięty na dalszy plan” i 
zupełnie niezasłużenie zapomniany w historiografii. Po drugie, należy zauważyć, 
że obraz Ojca-Nieba w mitologii słowiańskiej jest właściwie nieobecny, ale w 
kontekście badań opartych na mitologii porównawczej oraz językoznawstwie 
wydaje się wysoce prawdopodobny, a nawet konieczny. Jeśli więc mielibyśmy 
poszukiwać takiego bóstwa w wierzeniach Słowian to postacią najlepiej pasującą 
do roli Ojca-Nieba jest Dadźbóg. Wskazują na to: rola przodka, prawdopodobne 
prasłowiańskie pochodzenie oraz etymologia. Przeprowadzona analiza dowodzi też 
poglądu, że z upływem czasu Gromowładca, jako patron zmilitaryzowanej części 
społeczeństwa wysunął się na pierwszy plan i tym samym zepchnął Daźboga do 
drugorzędnych ról w słowiańskiej mitologii.
Oleg Vladislavovich Kutarev, Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy, 
St Petersburg, Russia; etnogenez@mail.ru