Slovo o polku Igoreve

[Francoise Rosset]

I remember extensive discussions of this issue when I was in graduate
school, since one of our instructors was a specialist on the subject.
(I do not know whether he is on this list).
The general consensus among scholars then was that the *Slovo* was
most likely authentic, and the primary argument was the one mentioned
by Robert Orr: it would be a damn good forgery, indeed, too damn good.

The other crucial point to remember on the issue of authenticity
is that not every word nor even every concept in the *Slovo* need be
authentically traceable to a medieval original. It is likely that
items were added by successive transcribers, without making it a fake.
Since many medieval manuscripts/texts all over Europe suffered or were
embellished by various "remaniements," and since such additions cannot
be purged without the existence of an provably authentic original manu-
script, the consensus I heard was that the *Slovo* is most probably a
true original with likely layers of additional material.

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.

Since I am not a medievalist, I offer this as the view I have heard/read
most often, and for what it's worth, I find it compelling because it does
answer most of the questions.

-Francoise

Francoise Rosset                          phone:  (508) 286-3696
Department of Russian                     e-mail: frosset at wheatonma.edu
Wheaton College
Norton, Massachusetts 02766