Artemka -
Thank you for your always erudite response.
You have well stated that this debate is a far-reaching one and will entertain, perplex, and fascinate Slavic scholars for many years to come.
If I might respond to your latest entry re: the actual definition of Лихый (Likhyj), were this adjective to mean "swift" as you have argued, then its usage in the "Church Regulations of Yaroslav" from the 1200s CE would not have made sense. In that document so contemporary to the 1047 CE usage of "Likhyj", this adjective is used to describe the type of illness for which a man can lawfully divorce his wife. The examples given for this type of illness are specifically "blindness" and "long disease." Neither of these have as a common characteristic their being "swift." Blindness can occur both swiftly or slowly. Long-lasting disease, by very definition, is anything but "swift" and likewise can be contracted both swiftly and slowly. Thus, "likhyj" (Лихый) could not have meant "swift" at that time nor earlier in 1047 CE. Instead, the only definition that does fit this 13th Century usage would be something akin to "prolonged" or "never-ending" (which both "blindness" and "long disease" most certainly are).
As regards your mention of "Upir'" as being a proper name, the 1495 CE occurrence you give is over 400 years after this first-ever usage of the term in recorded history. By then, "Upir'" could very well have become an actual name. However in 1047 CE when first this name appears, no such personal name is found anywhere else. The explanation is not too difficult to imagine. Prior to becoming names, one was often identified by their occupation (Smith, Miller, Shoemaker, Taylor, etc.) or by some other identifying feature that set them apart from others, be it color (Black, White, Green, Brown, etc.) or description (Small, Short, Longfellow, etc.) or place of origin (Scott, York, etc.). And so also, would it appear, was the case with "Upir'" prior to the vilifications that later demonized the name and changed it to "vampir."
As regards your argument that calling himself "insatiable vampire" would have had him killed, I would agree were this what would have been understood at that time. However, I fear you are forgetting the importance again of historical context. In 1047 CE, the term "vampire" as we understand it did not exist, nor did it hold any supernatural meaning whatsoever. As I translated earlier, the term Upir' Likhyj merely meant "Insatiable Feaster." And this could very easily have been understood or explained has having reference to this priest's obvious "feasting" upon the words of Christ and the prophets whose books he translated. This would have had no sexual or immoral connotation at all, much less a supernatural or demonic one. Only this priest and those like him would have understood its far deeper meaning. And what leads us to believe that, indeed, a far deeper meaning was intended? Why the very fact that apparently centuries later this deeper and far more sensual meaning was understood given that within a few centuries the term Upir' had by then been demonized and vilified and all those to whom this now-horrific term was applied were feared by females (particularly) and hunted down and killed. And through later ages, the name itself changed from "Upir'" to "Vampyr," which latter term we know today in its Anglicized form: "Vampire." Thus, today, the term "Vampire" is the very antithesis of its original namesake: an apparently humble, well-educated, mortal Christian priest working as a translator under Vladimir II of Novgorod.
Moving on... yes, I have heard the theory before of this Christian priest having been Öpir Ofeigr, also a priest at approximately this same time period. However, as we both know, the evidence for this is wholly circumstantial and extremely tenuous at best. Thus while I find the theory somewhat intriguing, yet I find it too poorly evidenced to be worthy of serious scholarly consideration.
As always... fascinating stuff for those truly desiring to unlock the historical truths behind the myths. It is a delight to discuss with another likewise interested and similarly educated these subjects of such intriguing perplexity.
Artemka, -- Thank you again!
