Slovo o polku Igoreve
Kamneva, Natalia
nyuka at Claritech.com
Thu May 7 20:37:04 UTC 1998
It is a very interesting discussion! I heard about it when I was young (
in 1962 ), and
I didn't know that it is still a subject for a discussion. I would like
to know your opinion
and , especially, Shurik's ( Lesha's ??? ) point on it.
-----Original Message-----
From: keenan at fas.harvard.edu [SMTP:keenan at fas.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 3:55 PM
To: SEELANGS at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Slovo o polku Igoreve
Dear Colleagues,
I append, as promised, some "theses" that form the basis of my
forthcoming
book, in the hope
that they might stimulate and at the same time shape our
discussion. I am
well aware that in the
end only the detailed evidence and argument that I hope to
provide in the
book can resolve
these tangled matters, but it seems useful for the moment to
have at least a
full and careful
summary of my current views available to others. And it seems
quite
inappropriate for me to
"lurk" while others are discussing these matters on line.
At the same time, as you can imagine, I doubt that I shall be
able to
respond to each and every
posting on every aspect of the matter. To do so, I judge from
the traffic
of the past few days,
would be a full-time proposition, and I desperately want to get
this fat
manuscript off my desk.
So here a few propositions for you, some of which will be of
more interest
than others, depending
on one's own special field. Please note the care with which I
use modifiers
like "probably,"
"possibly," "plausibly," and the like. There are still many
minor aspects
of the story that are not
clear to me. Conversely, when I say "all," or "none," I am
being equally
careful and mean to
indicate that further doubt is unwarranted.
(Apologies for the absence of French and Czech diacritics.)
....................
TO LAY THE GHOST OF THE "LAY OF THE HOST OF IGOR"
I. One cannot plausibly reconstruct, on the basis of
documentary sources,
either the details
of the "discovery" of the putative original manuscript of the
Igor Tale
["IT"] or its paleographical
characteristics. All statements by "eye-witnesses" concerning
these matters
are mutually
contradictory or demonstrably false. There is no missing
"Iaroslav
Chronograph," and no
documented proof of the existence of any portion of the IT
before 1792 or 1793.
II. By contrast, one can indeed demonstrate, on the basis of
the authentic
correspondence
of the principals, that no "original" manuscript was lost in
1812 -- or,
more precisely, that no one
spoke explicitly of that loss, even when pressed on the matter
by an
enthusiastic fellow believer,
when discussing the burning of Musin-Pushkin's house, or when
republishing
the IT in 1819. It is
indeed possible with some confidence to trace the development of
the
"destruction legend,"
which did not acquire any general currency even among
enthusiasts until some
time after Musin-
Pushkin's death in 1817.
III. Speculations about the mythical "Musin-Pushkin
manuscript" proving
baseless,
historians are left with more conventional documentation -- and
with the
text itself, the only
unimpeachable source, apparently, of what we know and can learn
about its
origins and
authorship. After nearly two centuries of efforts to explain
its numerous
orthographic, lexical,
morphological, stylistic and thematic "puzzles," an unacceptable
-- even
growing -- number
remains without answers.
IV. A new attempt to resolve them requires a clear-eyed
reappraisal of the
"scholarly
tradition," many components of which are quite deplorable. I
have in mind
not only the pillorying
of Andre Mazon and Aleksandr Zimin; the very tools of philology
have been
bent to the shape of
an imagined original text. Dictionaries and other reference
works are
corrupted by "ghost" words
and speculation deriving from dogmatic belief in the
authenticity of the
tale; a vast array of
secondary non-scholarly behaviors has influenced neighboring
disciplines and
crossed national
boundaries.
V. Consequently, one must re-open the inquiry and
re-interrogate all
available witnesses.
These fall naturally into three distinct categories: 1) the
"eye-witnesses"
(Musin-Pushkin,
Malinovskii, Selivanovskii) whose testimony is solicited after
1812 by the
unreliable, mad
Kalaidovich; 2) documented "sightings" of the/a text of the IT
-- NB not
"Musin-Pushkin's
manuscript" -- before 1800 (Ivan P. Elagin [1792-3], Kheraskov
[1796],
Karamzin [1797]); 3) the
witness of the texts themselves, that is, the Editio Princeps,
the so-called
"Catherinian copy," the
"Malinovskii papers," and a few other pre-1800 traces. Although
it is
readily apparent that the
"eye-witnesses" impeach themselves and one another, and that the
"sightings," while irrefutable,
are limited in their import, both are helpful in reconstructing
the milieu
in which the IT took final
form. These texts, properly construed, are themselves eloquent
and
unimpeachable witnesses
to the process of creation of the text, which took its
near-final form in
mid-1798.
VI. The close study of the "Malinovskii papers" reveals
clues as to how the
text was put
together, and permits us to talk of first and second "states,"
before and
after the integration of the
"fragments" found in Malinovskii's archive. These fragments
contain, as
clearly delineated and
integral units, the well-known passages from the "Apostol" of
1307 and the
late version of the
"Molenie Daniila Zatochnika," as well as compact borrowings from
specific,
identifiable copies of
the Zadonshchina (especially ms. Sin. 790) and the "Skazanie o
Mamaevom
poboishche"
(Timkovskii's copy). Elagin clearly copied the incipit from a
version of
the "first state;"
Kheraskov and Karamzin probably saw or were told of the same
version. A new
chronology of
the history of the text, 1792/3-1800, can be constructed with
some confidence.
VII. The consideration of textual (lexical, morphological)
features leads to
the conclusion that
the two "states" were probably the work of a single author. The
scrutiny of
"original" passages
(i.e., those not clearly related to the texts mentioned just
above) permits
the delineation of an
authorial persona, characterized by an extraordinary familiarity
with
Slavonic languages and
narrative texts, especially Biblical and historical; by a deep
interest in
Slavic valor and unity; by a
fascination with sound and light effects -- especially bird and
animal
sounds; by a deist
equanimity with regard to paganism, Christianity, and a
personified nature;
and, paradoxically,
by a deficient familiarity with certain specifically East Slavic
linguistic
and historical realities.
This author is also familiar with the Hebrew Old Testament and
Targum, with
Classical and
Biblical Greek and Latin, and with the Italian Renaissance.
VIII. Josef Dobrovsky (1753-1829) was probably the only person
of his
generation who could
properly understand the IT, and he is in all likelihood its
creator. His
early biography and training
in Biblical and Slavic studies suit him uniquely for that role.
His work in
the manuscript
collections of Saint Petersburg and Moscow in 1792-93 (including
Musin-Pushkin's) provided him
access to precisely those manuscript copies of all known
possible sources
that have the most
telling similarities to the text. (His surviving notes record
his use of
such crucial items as the
1307 Apostol, ms. Sin 790, and the Hypatian copy of the Primary
Chronicle.)
He arrived in
Russia at the peak of interest in Ossian and fascination with
Tmutorokan'.
His Slavofil (his word)
views, his later reactions to the publication of the IT, and his
response to
the forgeries of
"medieval Czech" poems by his students Hanka and Linde are all
congruent
with this conclusion.
IX. Reexamination of the text reveals that a large number --
almost all --
of its well-known
"obscurities" (hapax legomena, garbled passages, out-of-place
"polonisms"
and "classicisms,"
pagan/Christian contradictions, geographical and genealogical
absurdities,
etc.) can be resolved
in light of the hypothesis of Dobrovsky's authorship. In
particular, the
often-discussed "Turkic"
lexemes are in their majority (leaving aside proper names)
Slavic, Hebrew,
or Italian in origin.
X. Tentative conclusions:
1. The original text of the IT was composed in
several stages or fragments,
starting
in 1792 or 1793, by Dobrovsky, as an "imitation" of the
Zadonshchina, which
he had just read, or
as Ossianic "variations" on its themes. It is probable that
Dobrovsky did
not set out to perpetrate
a hoax, and did not intend that these "fragments" be published
(see 7,
below). He showed the
"first state" to Elagin, and subsequently, after returning to
Prague, sent
him (or perhaps
Malinovskii) additional "fragments."
2. Elagin's papers having passed after his death to
Musin-Pushkin,
Kheraskov and
Karamzin somehow learned of the existence of the text(s). They
both alluded
to "fragments,"
unmistakably some portion of the IT text, in print.
3. After Karamzin's explicit public announcement of
the discovery in 1797,
Musin-
Pushkin appears to have instructed Malinovskii to prepare an
edition.
4. Malinovskii was primarily (almost solely?)
responsible for the
preparation of the
final text, which occupied him from mid-1798 until the
appearance of the
first edition in 1800.
5. Dobrovsky was unaware of this activity, and was
taken by surprise by the
appearance of the text Editio Princeps in 1800. But he chose
not to
challenge the text's
authenticity (as he would later, for a time, not expose his
students'
fraud), and subsequently
always treated the subject very circumspectly.
6. It is quite possible that neither Musin-Pushkin
nor Malinovskii knew the
real
origin of their text, but both certainly knew that they had
never seen an
"ancient manuscript."
(Malinovskii may well have known more than he told Musin-Pushkin
about
theorigin of the text.)
Hence their obfuscation in dealing with Kalaidovich, and
Malinovskii's
ill-fated commission in
1815 to Bardin to fabricate an "ancient" copy.
7. The question of motivation is exceedingly
complex, not only because we must
set aside the prejudices of our age about authenticity and our
sense of the
grandeur of the IT, but
because Dobrovsk} was without doubt gravely afflicted with
manic-depressive
illness, and we
cannot know his mental state when he began and continued to work
on his
"fragments." But the
views reflected in his voluminous writings and correspondence --
some sane,
some clearly
delirious -- comport well with the "message" of the IT, to the
extent that
the latter can be
established.
I've tried in these brief paragraphs to provide a sense of how I
now see the
text and its history.
There remain, for me, many unanswered questions and, I do not
doubt, many
unanswerable
ones. As we approach a general discussion, let me make three
appeals to all:
Please remember that most questions anyone might pose -- about
textual
relations, about lost
manuscripts, about motivations and behaviors -- will arise from
the
seemingly intolerable
contrast between common probabilities, on the one hand, and what
might
appear to be highly
improbable conclusions (e.g., that a famous Bohemian Gelehrter
might,
without wishing it, have
bamboozled the Russian learned public.) But the most improbable
belief in
this whole field of
culture history is the belief that such a text could have
appeared in East
Slavic territory in the
late twelfth century, whereas the appearance of one more
Ossianic text
anywhere in Europe or
America in 1793 is so probable as to be quite unremarkable, were
it not for
the length of its
successful run.
Remember, too, that I say nothing about the poetical or other
literary
merits of the text, though I
have spent far too much of my life considering them. It doesn't
really
matter to my argument
whether this is a work of great artistry, a learned bagatelle,
or a
delirious pastiche. I do,
however, think that here we can agree with Dmitrii Likhachev,
who made a
thoughtful point in his
remarks prepared for the public humiliation of Aleksandr Zimin
in 1962, a
copy of which he
helpfully sent to Roman Jakobson at the time: since generations
of Russian
geniuses -- poets,
sculptors, graphic artists and musicians -- have been inspired
by the IT to
create great works of
art, the IT itself must have been written in the twelfth
century, where it
towers over the literary
landscape as a work of genius; had it been written in the
eighteenth, it
would have been a "mere
trifle" (_bezdelushka_).
Remember, finally, that Zimin was right when he wrote to
Likhachev that "the
Igor Tale is, after
all, not an article of faith, but a subject of scholarship."
And Likhachev
was profoundly wrong
when he wrote to a member of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party,
"the question of
[the authenticity of] the Igor Tale is one of significance to
our nation."
Russian culture and
national self-esteem can easily survive -- and in my view will
benefit from
-- the removal of this
alien organism, which has become a malignant impediment to
self-examination
and historical
understanding.
Edward L. Keenan
Professor of History
Harvard University
Robinson Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-2556 FAX: 496-3425
More information about the SEELANG
mailing list