Slovo o polku Igoreve ???

[Wendell W. Solomons]

Greetings folks!

Alexander Boguslawski seems to ask where such dedicated scholarly
research is going rationally on the list. 

On 03.05.1998 23:29 <frosset at wheatonma.edu> had previously written:

>The concept of author as we know it now did not exist then -- roughly put,
>a modern author is the spiritual and legal "owner" of a text, and changes
>to the text which are not his/her work or at least accepted by him/her are
>not considered part of the "authoritative" text. Hence copyrights etc.
>This view would be irrelevant to the Middle Ages. More relevant, especially
>to the issue of the *Slovo*, is the concept of an "open tradition"
>throughout the European Middle Ages.

From: Markus Osterrieder <u9511bw at mail.lrz-muenchen.de>

Even if the author was irrelevant, the tradition of the text itself was
not. It is not possible to read the "Slovo" purely as a work of art,
there is a political-ideological message in it as well, and this was
clearly intended, whether the text originated in the 12th or was
composed/rearranged in the 18th century under the reign of "Astraea"
Catherine II. And the political implication is even more dubious...

----------------

On 04.05.1998 19:42 ABoguslawski at rollins.edu wrote:

>Ascribing the work to some Masonic individual is, pardon my indignation,
>senseless.  If such an individual (genius) existed, he would have given
>us some other proofs of his incredible talents.

From: Markus Osterrieder <u9511bw at mail.lrz-muenchen.de

The author is unknown, it would be pure speculation to identify "some
Masonic individual" or any other individual as such. But the kruzhok of
the "discoverers" *had* a Masonic background, and there *were* political
goals going hand in hand with the edition. This is *fact*. And it would
contribute to a better understanding of the genesis of the Slovo, if this
wouldn't be ignored.

----------------

>>From solomons @ slt.lk now:

When Markus Osterrieder (above) mentions the political, it appeared
to me that the work he is doing has value without being re-run up and
down the general list where he has returned a blank.

Hieroglyphics have been deciphered by Egyptologists. Markus might do the
obvious, continue working with researchers in medievial history, compare
and contrast. This could even be rapidly dated using mathematical logic
and statistics. Today we have what the Egyptologists didn't have -- the
power of electronic computing science.

As far as a more general list like ours is concerned one could only
fish out general opinions. Why would he spend so much time with general
opinions ??? What is the purpose ???

Mark it, even when drawing a blank with general opinions, there is a
living to be made. Though the Cold War is over, Richard Pipes is out there
searching for theories to bring back the Iron Curtain. He has this great
NATO expansion plan for a start which Secy Albright has just got through
the U.S. Senate. It's some sort of fencing out, like with the Red Indians,
the reservations; or like with the aborigines in Australia.

Therefore the hint of a dubious, dangerous masonic political theory -- if
it passes muster on a list like ours -- well, it would be useful to Richard
P (and Zbigniev B; then, Strobe T sits in the State Department itself.)

Yet, watch out if that reservation should explode among its 6000 nuclear
warheads. That's a couple of hundred times more than was used in WW2.

Nothing in this world would cover up the "The Crime of the Century"
as Jeffery Sachs "reformed" Russia while Kremlinologists and numerous
other country specialists kept mum.

Since the new entrants to NATO can't afford to re-equip armies, the U.S.
taxpayer is going to need a lot of Masonic bogeymen and other threats to
justify paying for military hardware during peacetime now that the Iron
Curtain has been removed.

Albright was booed at the Town Hall meeting; Greenspan of the FED was
similarly booed previously in California about sending money overseas.
So we need bogeymen.

:------------------:
wendell w. solomons
management research
:------------------:

    &           &  Adolf Hitler, 1925 - The broad mass of a nation... will
    &           &  more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
 \  &   \       &  (Mein Kampf)
    &\,  ___  ,/&  
  \ & \\//"\\// &  Abraham Lincoln, 1809–65, 16th US President -  You may fool
    &  \('_')/  &  all the people some of the time; you can even fool some 
   (&'---`-'---'&  of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of
    &`"-.   .-"`&  the people all the time. (Quoted by biographer.)
    &###|===\###&
    #####\ \ \###
          \ \ \  
           \()()  

<URL>http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/anthropoetics/AP0201/interv.htm>

    Interview with Ren\e' Girard (1/2)

 Anthropoetics II, no. 1 (June 1996)

Interview with Rene' Girard
==========================

Markus Mu"ller

Department of French, UCLA
muller at humnet.ucla.edu

Q: Prof. Girard, the forthcoming issue of Anthropoetics is devoted
to your work and I would like to take the opportunity of this
interview to establish a dialogue between your work and Generative
Anthropology [...}

Prof. Girard:
[...]In my view the sacrificial crisis is a mimetic escalation and
it is of such a nature that it takes a tremendous shock, something
tremendously violent itself, to interrupt the scapegoat mechanism.
And the scapegoat mechanism, in order to be effective, must be une
grande chose, in other words people must really project their
tensions and aggressions against the victim.

Q: Sorry if I interrupt you here. You mean to say that
scapegoating cannot be done effectively if we are conscious of it?

Prof. Girard:
Exactly, there is no such thing as conscious scapegoating.
Conscious scapegoating is a modern parody of this scapegoating
which is of the order of propaganda, because it implies prior
representation. But for me the first representation is really the
sacred because if scapegoating works, that is, if you are not
aware of the projection against the victim and if the scapegoating
is unanimous, if the mimetic impulse is rigorous enough to make it
unanimous, which may happen only after a great deal of violence
and after a phase of what I would call partial scapegoatings... I
think that Shakespeare has something to say about that in Julius
Caesar. You know there is the phase of the conspiracy against
Caesar and the various factions fighting each other that
culminates in civil war. It's only at the end that you have a
complete and unanimous scapegoating. To make a long story short,
the first representations to me would be false representations of
scapegoating, which are the sacred. And scapegoating really means
that we are genuinely reconciled. [...]