What Textual Criticism and Linguistic Analysis Tell Us about the Origin of the
Igor′ Tale
Session 14-30 (Roundtable) Northeastern Room, Sunday, 2009-11-15, 10:00 A.M.–11:45
A.M.
Chair: David J. Birnbaum, University of Pittsburgh
Panel abstract: Opinions about the dating of the Igor′ Tale
tend to reflect the professional specializations of their proponents, which often
results in conversations that run at cross-purposes. In particular, while recent textual
criticism supports the priority of the Zadonščina (e.g., Zimin) or the
Igor′ Tale’s contemporaneity with that fifteenth-century text (e.g.,
Bobrov, Šibaev), recent linguistic argumentation (e.g., Zaliznjak, Strakhov) supports
the twelfth-century origin of the Igor′ Tale. This panel presents fresh
overviews and reappraisals of the textological and linguistic arguments in light of
recent scholarship. Our goal is, of course, not to resolve these perplexities (which are
likely not resolvable), but to draw attention to them and provide them with some
context.
Donald Ostrowski, Harvard University
-
Slovo o polku Igoreve: The Text Critical
Arguments
Abstract: Doubts about the authenticity of the Slovo o polku
Igoreve (Igor′ Tale) have been expressed since its first
publication in 1800. A major part of the debate focuses on the relationship of the
Igor′ Tale to Zadonščina, a text composed in the
mid-fifteenth century, which shares as many as sixty-five similar passages with it.
The traditional scholarship views the Igor′ Tale as an authentic text
(non-deceptive) that was composed in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century
and thereby its readings are primary in relation to those in
Zadonščina. Another tradition has developed that argues the text was a
forgery (i.e., intentionally deceptive) composed in the eighteenth century and sees
the readings in Zadonščina as primary. Still others have recently
proposed it to be an authentic text (although unintentionally deceptive) written
perhaps in the mid-fifteenth century at the same time as Zadonščina,
thus accounting for apparent primary readings in both texts.
Olga B. Strakhov, Harvard University Library
-
Linguistic Issues of the Igor′ Tale
Abstract: Generations of linguists who have studied the
Tale’s grammar have agreed that it follows the norms established by
scholars on the basis of other Old Russian texts of the twelfth-thirteenth
centuries. When we compare the morphological and syntactic features of the
Tale with those of its closest counterpart, the
Zadonščina, we regularly find that the Igor′ Tale is
more “correct” morphologically, that is, that it displays earlier forms. The
Zadonščina’s mistakes in the use of forms and constructions that
had become obsolete by the time of that text’s compilation appear nonproblematic to
those who assume the Zadonščina’s secondariness. The situation becomes
more complicated if we take the opposing side and assume that the Igor′
Tale is secondary to the Zadonščina. In this case we have to
admit that although the purported forger showed a great deal of compliance with the
Zadonščina’s vocabulary, phraseology, poetic devices and imagery,
he showed no conformity whatsoever with its grammar.
-
Parallels between Slovo and
Zadonščina
Harvey Goldblatt, Yale University
- On the Texts and Changing Contexts of the Slovo
o polku Igoreve and the Zadonščina (paper)
Abstract: If we take sufficient note of the less than fully
positive results derived from much of the “authoritative” research carried out on
the Slovo o polku Igoreve (henceforth, Slovo), we might
conclude that we need to place more emphasis on an “empirical” reading of the texts
and shy away from a priori assumptions or conclusions about the needed
direction(s) for our research. The initial purpose of my remarks—through an
examination of recent studies on the Slovo—is to highlight some of the
basic features that inform critical methodologies and interpretative traditions
still widely accepted among scholars. They aim, in particular, to show how recent
practices and thought processes connected with different disciplines assume special
importance for an assessment of the principles to be applied when exploring the
origins, nature, and function of the Slovo, not in isolation but within
the broader context of its cultural environment(s). My remarks, therefore, first
focus on certain well-ensconced interpretations of the Slovo and take
them as a point of departure for recent attempts to provide definitive answers to
many of the basic questions surrounding the “authenticity” of the
Slovo, its meaning, and its place in the Old Rus′ literary tradition.
My comments then deal with the textual documentation of the Zadonščina
(henceforth, Zad) and its relationship to the Slovo. Based
on the research carried out to date, and with careful consideration given to the
complex conditions that governed the process of textual transmission in Slavia
orthodoxa, my paper discusses the “changing texts” of the Zad with a
view towards determining (i) whether one can even posit the existence of an
“original text” or “archetype” for the work and (ii) whether it is possible to speak
of the “common textual material” and relationship between the testimonies of the
Zad and the Slovo in terms of “borrowings” or “direct
textual dependence.”
- On the Texts and Changing Contexts of the
Slovo o polku Igoreve and the Zadonščina
(handout)
Discussant: Robert Romanchuk, Florida State University
Additional reading