The long-awaited book and the Bykovskii hypothesis.
I must confess to having experienced a moment of nostalgia upon being asked to review the present volume by Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Zimin (1920-80), one of whose earlier works was the subject of my first publication in this field, almost all of whose work I have read, with whom I once enjoyed a continued--if graphically exceedingly challenging--correspondence, and in whose footsteps I have repeatedly found myself treading. (1)
What follows, however, is a review of his book as it has appeared, not an article about its scandalous history, its complex author, or the ongoing debates over the questionable authenticity of Slovo o polku Igoreve (the Igor' Tale). Since these matters have been of such wide interest, however, a few words about them are probably appropriate as a preamble.
The story of this publication begins long before the first public presentation of Zimin's hypothesis at the "Pushkinskii dom" (Institute of Russian Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) in Leningrad on 27 February 1963. At that meeting, Zimin first presented his hypothesis: contrary to the long-standing and generally accepted view that the Slovo was produced by an unknown bard in the "Kievan" period, it in fact appeared late in the 18th century and was largely the work of a Ruthenian cleric, Ivan (in religion Ioil') Bykovskii (1726-98). That session produced something of a sensation and triggered a series of events (Oleg Tvorogov calls them "scholarly and ethical confrontations"--nauchnye i eticheskie kollizu) that have led, after some 42 years, to the appearance of this publication (5). (2) The historical details of those events remain somewhat obscure, although much continues to be written about them. (3) The recent (13 November 2006) "book party" (prezentatsiia) marking the publication of the present title demonstrates that the furor surrounding Zimin's hypothesis gives no indications of subsiding, in no small measure because he was by all accounts a historian whose energy, erudition, and dedication to his scholarship endeared him to a large number of colleagues--and exasperated a smaller number, some of whom wielded considerable influence in the old Soviet Academy of Sciences. (4)
Now to the book itself: in very general terms, it must be said that the volume is a fitting posthumous tribute to Zimin, and to the importance of his inventive and quite Herculean labors in the field of slovovedenie. For the general editorial quality and comprehensiveness of the edition, which has been carefully checked against numerous manuscript sources and provided with a comprehensive index and an updated (to ca. 1995) bibliography, the reader must be grateful to Zimin's widow, Valentina Grigor'evna, and to Oleg Tvorogov. (5) Tvorogov, despite his dedicated and long-standing contribution to this publication, indicates in the last words of his introductory essay that he remains convinced--as he was in 1963--that the Slovo is a "major work of ancient Russian literature" (pamiatnik drevnerusskoi literatury ). (6)
Zimin's monograph consists of eight long and fact-filled chapters and five complex appendices, in which he proposes a reconstruction of the texts of two versions of Zadonshchina, reproduces the Hypatian Chronicle's account of Igor"s campaign of 1185 and the Tale (Skazanie) of Mamai's Campaign, and offers his own reconstruction of the original text of the Slovo. His parting thoughts about the text and its sources precede the appendices (429-31).
It should be said at the outset that Zimin's knowledge and use of scholarly literature on the Slovo are throughout quite staggeringly comprehensive. Especially in his review of the opinions of others over the centuries (384-431), he seems to have overlooked almost nothing relevant; his survey will for decades remain unsurpassed in its scope and inclusiveness. (7) Although I speak below of a certain Russo-centrism, it must be acknowledged that Zimin's net was certainly cast far and wide, including even the work of Japanese scholars (420 n. 228).
The first two chapters (14-180) deal, respectively, with the so-called "Short" and "Extended" versions of Zadonshchina, which Zimin calls "one of the basic sources of the poetical inspiration of the author of the Slovo" (102), and with the textual relationship between the Slovo and the major versions of Zadonshchina. There can be little doubt that the textual relationship of Zadonshchina to the Slovo is important; Zimin has a number of original observations in these chapters, some of which were published long ago in various--often provincial--periodicals. (8) But there is much new material here as well, adduced primarily in Zimin's refutations of the views of his opponents.
While the textual dependency of the Slovo upon Zadonshchina seems clear, it is hard to agree with Zimin's conclusion in the same section that "This (i.e., the fact that Zadonshchina became one of the basic inspirations of the author of the Slovo) could happen not only because of the similarity of the subject matter, but also because Zadonshchina ... was dose to folkloric texts [pamiatniki narodnogo tvorchestva].... The best pages of the Slovo ... are based not so much on Zadonshchina as on the age-old tradition of the epic inheritance, especially of the bylina" (103). Here we encounter an early example of Zimin's apparent wish to have things two rather contradictory ways--the text is both "folkloric" (see below) and "bookish": "the author is a major writer" (avtar--bol'shoi pisatel" ); "we have here a true man of letters" (pered nami--knizhnik ). Moreover, there are no byliny that can be attested before the 16th century--and the now-common meaning of bylina, that is, "narrative tale of past events" seems to have been invented by the author of the Slovo, perhaps on the basis of a copyist's error in one copy (ms. Undol'skii [Und.] 632) of Zadonshchina. (9)
There is a larger problem: given the scrappy nature of our sources, it is exceedingly difficult to draw conclusions about the direction of borrowing without separating the stages of the creation of the Slovo. One possibility that Zimin seems to have overlooked--and he overlooks very little in this work--is a comparison of the final 1800 text of the Slovo with the so-called "Malinovskii fragments" (zapiski Malinovskogo). (10)
Zimin's conclusion (180) after detailed comparison of the two texts seems correct, but partial: the author of the Slovo did not mechanically copy bits of Zadonshchina but created his own heroic epic by incorporating themes and snatches of text from the latter and from other sources. In addition, Zimin's notion that the borrowings appear in integral pieces or whole sections of the Slovo text seems quite plausible. He seems, however, not to have fully put to rest two important objections of those who consider Zadonshchina an echo (or two echoes) of the Slovo: the fact that the textual coincidences seem ciosest now to one ("kratkaia"), now to the other ("prostrannaia") of two main versions of Zadonshchina; and that the obvious borrowings (in whichever direction) appear ih different order in the two texts. It would seem that he has overlooked the fact that copies of both versions of Zadonshchina became available in St. Petersburg after the ukaz of 9 December 1791 (see below), and that once one separates the zapiski Malinovskogo from the main text of the 1800 editio princeps, both of these problems can probably be resolved. (11)
Chapter 3 deals with the Slovo's relationship to chronicle texts, especially the narrative s. a. 1185. Here Zimin concludes quite convincingly that there is, in the Slovo, "no credible [dostovernyi] historical material" that is not found in the Hypatian or Konigsberg (Radziwill) chronicles (224). He seems, however, to have missed a bet: since these texts were known in St. Petersburg in the 1790s, he might have combed the 18th-century editions or the manuscripts that were known at the time for tell-tale details. (12)
Chapter 4 brings together a number of observant readings that link the Slovo not only to various other sources (translations of Digenis Akritas and Josephus Flavius, the mysterious Povest" ob Akire premudrom, etc.) but to individual manuscripts (e.g., ms. Und. 632 ). These details of coincidence seem inexplicable within the chronological bounds of the traditional attribution of the Slovo.
As he concludes this chapter, Zimin parries a rhetorical hypothetical put forth by Dmitrii Sergeevich Likhachev (1906-99): "let us imagine that the author of the Slovo was writing in the 18th century. All parallels [with other texts] must [then] be considered sources of the Slovo." (Likhachev here produces an extended list of texts with identifiable parallels--some 16 known texts.) Zimin's counterthrust is simple and credible: many of the texts Likhachev lists influenced Zadonshchina, a main source of the Slovo; and not every single-word coincidence is necessarily a sign of filiation of texts. Zimin then lists in a chart on 254 (unnumbered) the texts he thinks served the author of the Slovo as sources: some chronicles that were published in 1767, the Iliad, Tatishchev's History, and so on. He singles out (255) the two chronicles mentioned above and Zadonshchina. One must also agree, on the evidence Zimin presents, that the author of the Slovo in all probability made use of some older Slavonic sources, or of some 18th-century echoes of them.
Chapter 5 deals with the "obscurities" (temnye mesta) of the Slovo. Almost every student of the text has had a crack at these, and Zimin apparently is familiar with all significant discussions of the subject that appeared before 1980. Unfortunately, he can get out of his depth in philological arguments, and he often mistakenly repeats the guesses of "specialists" who have preceded him. To give a single example: he deals at length with the history of the much-discussed word kharalug, which he groups with other alleged orientalisms that appear in both Zadonshchina and the Slovo (258-60). He follows Kari Heinrich Menges (1908-99) in claiming that the word is morphologically impossible; Boris Aleksandrovich Kolchin (fl. 1914-84) in pointing out that oriental steel is not found in 12th-century East Slavic archeological contexts; and Ananiasz Zajaczkowski (1903-70) in the claim that the word kharaluzhnyi cannot be connected with the language of the Polovtsians. Zimin fails, however, to note the systematic substitution, in otherwise parallel passages, of the "bulamyi" of Zadonshchina and Skazanie o Mamaevom poboishche by "kharaluzhnyi," and that "kharalug," a hapax legomenon, is probably a learned, but mistaken, back-formation from kharaluzhnyi. (13)
Chapters 6 and 7 in my view have the greatest forensic significance, because, pace Andrei Zalizniak and others, the question of the creation of the Slovo is at base a historian's question. (14) It is true, of course, that historical or comparative linguistics can--and in the given case, must--assist the reader in interpreting textual evidence, but in the end, a text is a historical artifact, and the act of its creation is an event of cultural history. In consequence, the preponderance of the documentary evidence, when such exists, must outweigh speculations about whether or not given word-forms (often hypothetical or reconstructed) were in use in a given time and place. It could be argued, indeed, that Zimin himself spent rather too much time and energy on philological matters, which, as his opponents have pointed out, were not really his forte. He is right, however, to point out, with Nikita II'ich Tolstoi (1923-96), that "the hortos of [later] Slavonic were established in Belarus [v Zapadnoi Rusi] at the turn of the 17th century, making their way first to Kyiv (Kiev), and thence to Moscow." (15)
By 304 Zimin is drawing some preliminary conclusions about the author of the Slovo: he (it seems quite improbable that the author was a woman) was well educated and poetically talented; his language apparently contains lexical traces of Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Polish; he was a cleric. Quite abruptly at this point in his extended forensic discourse, Zimin turns to Ioil' Bykovskii (304). Much of what follows is deductive speculation: that Ioil', haring studied in the Mohyla Academy in Kyiv, was broadly educated (shiroko obrazovannyi); that he was at home in Church Slavonic, Polish, and nonMuscovite East Slavic (Ruthenian); that he might have known orientalisms because he had studied in Kyiv, where Turkish words were widely known ; that details in the Slovo refer to specifically Kyivan topography. (16)
Zimin's association of some themes and stylistic features of the Slovo with Russian literary culture of the last decades of the 18th century seems convincing and faithful to the text, as does his reference to the foreign-policy concerns of the Catherinian period and the ukaz of 9 December 1791, which ordered that historical manuscripts be sent from monasteries throughout the land to the library of the Holy Synod, then under the curatorship of Count Aleksei Ivanovich Musin-Pushkin (1744-1817) (328-30). Zimin's juxtaposition of some phrases of the Slovo with some of Bykovskii's sermons (330), however, seems forced and probably demonstrates only that echoes of biblical rhetoric were present in both. At any rate, even Zimin's impressive labors failed in locating more than a few sermons (330), and it would appear that there are few textual links, other than religious cliches, between them and the Slovo.
By contrast, some of Zimin's juxtapositions of certain literary features of the Slovo with those of other 18th-century works, such as the Rossiiada of Mikhail Matveevich Kheraskov (1733-1807), seem quite reasonable, although I hesitate to accept his reasoning in explaining their differences: "All these differences had their roots in the difference between the Weltanschauung of Kheraskov, who was expressing the ideas of the liberal gentry, and that of the author of the Slavo, with his democratic notions. The fact is that it was not the Rossiiada but the Slovo that was destined to play the leading role in the development of the genre of heroic poetry" (334-35).
Finally, it is not the case that "no writer or other figure of the 18th century, aside from the publishers (i.e., Musin-Pushkin and Malinovskii), N. M. Karamzin, and Ivan Bykovskii knew [byl znakom s] the manuscript of the Slovo" (338). In fact (depending, ofcourse, on what one considers to have been a "manuscript" of the text), both Ivan Perfil'evich Elagin (1725-93) and Kheraskov seem to have referred to the text itself before it appeared in print. (17)
In this section as elsewhere Zimin seems to wish to have things both ways: Bykovskii is a highly educated churchman but also a man of the (unspecified) people; in a collection of songs that may have belonged to Bykovskii, Zimin claims to find "overtones of genuine sympathy for the peasant" (notki iskrennego sochuvstviia k krest'ianam ). Elsewhere he turns aside arguments against an 18th-century origin of the Slovo: "These considerations would be true, if one were speaking of a "semi-official" [ofitsioznoe] work, [but] ... the Igor" Tale is popular [narodna] both in its ideational content and in the folkloric origins of its basic imagery and means of expression" (331). (18)
More generally, although Zimin's argument rightly makes much of the fascination with allegedly "popular" themes among highly sophisticated and Europeanized Russian literati in the latter 18th and early 19th centuries, it fails to place that vogue within general European literary history, and specifically within the widespread vogue for "Ossianic" literature. (19)
The book makes much of these "folkloric traditions" and at a number of junctures points out similarities to texts considered "folkloric." (20) In an author as skeptical as Zimin, such an embrace of hoary scholarly myth is surprising, given the almost total lack of documentary evidence of the existence of any such texts in Russia until roughly the middle of the 17th century, and the near-certainty that they ultimately derive from more formal literary texts. (21)
Chapter 7 (339-85) addresses itself to "how the Slovo fell into A. I. Musin-Pushkin's hands and why he represented it as a 12th-century text." Zimin rightly stresses the importance of Catherine II's 1791 ukaz; indeed, it can be demonstrated that the vast majority--perhaps all--the early texts that bear some textual relationship to the Slovo were to be found in the Synodal Library between 1791 and 1797. Zimin argues that this ingathering presented an unprecedented opportunity for someone to create an "archaic" text like the Slovo.
He then spends several pages (344 ff.) speculating upon which texts might also have been found in Iaroslavl', where he places Bykovskii, although there is no proof that Bykovskii was either there or in St. Petersburg at the time--indeed, the exceptionally industrious and resourceful Zimin has not been able to establish documented life events (dates or locations) for Bykovskii between 1788 and his death in 1798--that is, during the very period when the first hints of the existence of such a text were circulating (326, 337).
Zimin also (340 ff.) goes into the much-debated question of the history and characteristics of the putative "Musin-Pushkin manuscript," thought by many to have been the source of the editioprinceps of 1800. By examining the conflicting and ambiguous testimony of alleged "eyewimesses," he demonstrates the high probability that no such manuscript ever existed. Then, however, he quite surprisingly jumps to the conclusion that a convolute obtained by Musin-Pushkin from Ioil' Bykovskii (containing a khronograf from the library of the Iaroslavl' Monastery of the Savior) must also have contained the original text of the Slovo. (His description of the relations between MusinPushkin and Konstantin Fedorovich Kalaidovich [1792-1832] is faulty, probably because he disregarded the abundant evidence of the latter's mental illness and his abject sycophancy with respect to the count.) (22)
One can readily agree with a number of Zimin's more detailed conclusions in this section:
* that the famous colophon (pripiska) in the Apostol of 1307 served as one source of the Slovo. (One cannot, however, fully agree with his method, which relies on some rather speculative historical and metrical analysis--or with his speculation that the relevant portion was added by Musin-Pushkin to the basic text provided by Bykovskii [346-55]);
* that the famous "Tmutorakan' stone" was a fabrication (363-68). (23) (Zimin's discussion of the meanings of the word bolvan could have benefited from the consideration of the meanings of the word in other, especially West Slavic, languages);
* that ras. Und. 632 was particularly important for the creator of the Slovo (371); and
* that, as Iurii Levin has since pointed out in some detail, (24) the late 18th-century Russian reading public was very familiar with "Ossianism" (376 ff.).
It is somewhat odd, but logical in view of the structure of his argument, that Zimin's survey of previous scholarship on the Slovo (386-431) is the last, rather than the first, chapter of his book. Here he is, quite understandably, at pains to demonstrate that doubts about the authenticity of the Slovo arose immediately--indeed, before the first publication in 1800--and that efforts to rebut the arguments of skeptics began almost immediately after it appeared. He provides an impressive list of scholars and literary figures who expressed doubts (390-92), singling out the views of Metropolitan Evgenii of Kyiv and Halych (Evfimii Alekseevich Bolkhovitinov, 1767-1837), author of what was for decades the most authoritative Russian literary encyclopedia. (25) Zimin summarizes the bizarre and unequal "correspondence" between Konstantin Kalaidovich and Count Musin-Pushkin (387-90), quite justifiably singling out Kalaidovich as worthy of the gratitude of later generations, since it was his importuning of the imperious Musin-Pushkin that we have to thank for some very important historical details (393). Zimin stresses the comments of those who heard West Slavic elements in the Slovo; these observations suit his argument, as he portrays Bykovskii as a product of a Polish-Ukrainian educational system (394 etpassirn).
This portion of the text provides a good--even exhaustive--summary of the views of Mikhail Trofimovich Kachenovskii (1775-1842), Ivan Belikov (fl. ca. 1834), Osip Ivanovich Senkovskii (Jozef-Julian Sekowski, 1800-53), and others (395 ff.). Senkovskii's views (e.g., that the Slovo "smells strongly of Ossian" [397-98]) are particularly important to Zimin's arguments: elsewhere he mentions that Senkovskii, with a reference to the fabrications of Vaclav Hanka (1791-1861), wrote that "[after the appearance of 'Ossian'] there mysteriously appeared here the Slovo, and in Bohemia the famous Kralevedvorsky rukopis was suddenly discovered" (400). Of course, as Zimin points out, Senkovskii did not have the advantage of assurance that Hanka himself had created the "ancient Bohemian" texts, as this was demonstrated only later (404).
Zimin seems particularly attracted to the Polish scholar Senkovskii, who was a skeptic, because of the latter's suspicions that the Movo was written either by an alumnus of the L'viv Academy, or a Halychian alumnus of the Kyivan Academy. In general, Zimin avidly quotes the Polish scholars (400 ff.) who have pointed out West Slavic and Belarusian elements in the text. All this suits his hypothesis about Bykovskii, but there can be other explanations of the same phenomena. And, while it is true that Dmitrii Nikitich Dubenskii (d. 1863), who provided a detailed philological commentary in his 1844 edition of the Slovo, identified a number oflexical similarities with the "Old Czech" fabrications produced by Hanka, the simplest explanation for that fact might be that Hanka was influenced by the 1800 edition of the Slovo. (26)
There can be more convincing explanations for other features of the Slovo as well. It contains, to be sure, a number of rather arcane Church Slavic elements, but how did they get there? Zimin does not really provide convincing evidence that they were introduced by Bykovskii, rather than some other churchly imposter.
In sum, Zimin is not equally convincing about everything. The book, moreover, seems to be something of a relic of late Soviet scholarship. Who today would single out Kari Marx as the "genius who founded scientific socialista" (404) or reler to the 1917 Revolution as the "Great October Socialist Revolution" (417). It would be hard (bur not, of course, impossible) to find a contemporary Russian author who could write, "only a Marxist understanding of the ideological phenomena in the history of Russia in the feudal period gives a reliable basis for the study of literature and social thought" (430), or stress the "arch-reactionary" political conservatism of people like El'pidifor Vasil'evich Barsov (1836-1917). In the same spirit, Zimin goes out of his way to point out that Barsov's three-volume study of the Slovo was dedicated to "the obscurantist [mrakobes] K. P. Pobedonostsev" (407).
Zimin quotes almost every skeptical view of the Slovo that has been expressed by any specialist and mentions even the doubts harbored by such non-specialists as Leo Tolstoy, Aleksei Remizov, Ivan Goncharov, and Nikolai Gumilev (408 ft.). His survey is exhaustive--even to the point of listing specialists in medieval Russian literature who did not--what is implied, probably, is "chose not to"--study the Slovo themselves (411). But to support his final conclusion he quotes almost everyone who points out nonRussian East Slavic elements, bookish elements, or Church Slavic echoes in the text. He does so even when he disagrees with an author's general or summary conclusion. (27)
Since he goes to such lengths to point out these features, I find it surprising that Zimin seems to agree with D. S. Likhachev that the language of the Slovo has no "regional" (oblastnye) traits, and that he builds on that observation the conclusion that their absence makes impossible the appearance of the work during the so-called "period of feudal fragmentation" (426). This view is the more surprising for the fact that elsewhere (passim) Zimin himself stresses the importance to his conclusion of the presence of Ukrainianisms and Belarusianisms in the text.
Zimin's inclusion of "folklore" as a "basic" source in his unnumbered chart on 254 reflects his conviction, expressed throughout, that the Slovo was somehow a "narodnyi" composition. Which brings us to two problems: what, precisely, is narodnyi (331), and which naroddoes Zimin associate with the text?
As to the first, Zimin seems to have things both ways: if his man Ioil' Bykovskii was a moderately literate and educated Belarusian cleric, a graduate of the Mohyla Academy (typical of migrants to Russia in his time), and the rather flat-footed author of the sort of text that Zimin quotes (330), how do we demonstrate his "folksiness"? (28)
Which of the possible "narodnye" poetical and rhetorical traditions was Bykovskii embodying in his work? This matter can be resolved only ifZimin thought--as he apparently did--that the "russkii narod" somehow subsumed Ukrainians and Belarusians. Such seems to have been the case, as he was a convinced Marxist for whom categories of class overshadowed those of national affiliation. Such a view seems at first to be simply a formula that dates the text, but it also reveals Zimin's deep Russian patriotism, which he may have felt had been put under question by his re-dating of the Slovo.
Much of chapter 6 consists of a history of the Romantic fascination with "folklore" in Russian educated circles in the second half of the 18th century. Zimin was convinced that the "Song of Igor's Campaign" was popular both in its ideational content and for the folkloric origins of its basic imagery and means of expression (narodna i po ideinomu soderzhaniiu i po fol'klornomu proiskhozhdeniiu osnovnykh obrazov i sredstv vyrazheniia ). The use of this terra seems somewhat anachronistic: in a very real sense, "folklore" had not yet been invented. (29)
Zimin is probably right, nonetheless, to associate the Slovo with a certain current of Russian popular literature (demokraticheskaia literatura) of the 1760s and 1770s (312) and to link such phrases as "krovat' tisovaia" with the collections of allegedly "folkloric" texts published (and probably largely composed) by Mikhail Dmitrievich Chulkov (1743-92), Vasilii Alekseevich Levshin (1746-1826), and Mikhail Ivanovich Popov (1742-90). (30) It is somewhat surprising that in this section Zimin seems not to mention Andre Mazon (1881-1967), who was apparently the first to note the similarity of these popular texts to parts of the Slovo. (31)
For Zimin the Slovo is "the 'swan song' of old Russian [starorusskii] letters, and its deep popular roots and progressive ideas place it at the head of a whole series ofwonderful poetic works about the Russian people and irs distant past ... a striking example of the commonality of the cultural traditions of the fraternal Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian peoples" (431).
Phrases like these reveal Zimin as very much a man of his time. In his final paragraphs he quotes Likhachev to the effect that in the 18th century the Slovo would be a literary trifle (bezdelushka ) and replies, "No, the Slovo does not turn out to be a trifle when we study [its] profound meaning and distinctive literary form in close connection with the intellectual conflicts and literary process of Russia at the end of the 18th century" (431).
Zimin's is by now a work of another age, and these observations are not intended to detract from the fact that he was--and remains--right about many more fundamental matters: that the widely accepted version of the early history of the discovery and first publication of the text is largely mythological; that all scholarship based upon the assumption of authenticity is gravely flawed; that the text derives from the chronicles and Zadomhchina and not vice versa; that the text as we have it was cobbled together in the late 18th century on the basis of texts available to a learned cleric with literary pretensions, a nose for Romanticism, and some considerable knowledge of Slavonic. (32) One can, finally, agree with his antepenultimate declaration
that the author of the Slovo was a "full-blooded son of the Enlightenment" (430).
I believe, however, that the jury ultimately will find that Zimin has picked the wrong "full-blooded son of the Enlightenment" from the line-up of possible suspects.
P.O. Box # 99
Deer Isle, ME 04627 USA
(1) Review of Reformy Ivana Groznogo: Ocherki sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Rossii serediny XVI v. (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi literatury, 1960), in Kritika 1, 1 (Cambridge, MA, 1964): 6-15.
(2) Here and below, parenthetical page numbers refer to the book under review.
(3) A very detailed and well-documented, if somewhat defensive, recent summary of the affair has been written by Lidiia Viktorovna Sokolova: "Novye mify o starom." For the moment it can be found at odrl.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=3229. The introductory material of the present volume also contains narratives by the editors, Valentina Zimina and Oleg Tvorogov.
(4) As is clear from the invitation to the event, which lists the many authoritative participants. Their number and renown notwithstanding, in fact little of substance was said about the work itself, most speakers having chosen to praise Zimin's courage or to fulminate against "official" Soviet historiography. For a summary of the proceedings, go to www.rsuh. ru/news.html?id=54104.
(5) My choice of 1995 is imprecise, although essentially accurate. The vast majority of newer references are to the Entsiklopediia Slova o polku Igareve, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1995) (hereafter ESPI), but at least one (351) refers to the more recent Svodnyi katalog slaviano-russkikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia v Rossii, stranakh SNG i Baltii. XIV vek (Moscow: Indrik, 2002-). It would appear that only two typographical errors, both non-Cyrillic, have eluded detection: "Luman H. Legters" for Lyman (Howard) Legters (429 n. 310); and "texte pusse" for "texte russe" (410 n. 153).
(6) Tvorogov does not define the term "drevnerusskii." For his unwavering views, see his contribution, "Zimin Aleksandr Aleksandrovich," in ESPI, 2: 222-25; and the entry "Tvorogov Oleg Viktorovich" by his co-editor, Lev Aleksandrovich Dmitriev (1921-93), in ibid., 5: 101-5. More generally, see the obituary of Dmitriev by Evgenii Aleksandrovich Maimin (1921-97) in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 48 (1993): 5-18.
(7) One might point out the absence of some relevant 18th-century literature, e.g., the Russian translation of Orlando Furioso by Lodovico Ariosto (1474-1533) (Neistovyi Roland. Geroicheskaia poema G. Ariosta. trans. Petr Stepanovich Molchanov, 3 vols. [Moscow: M. Ponamarev, 1791-93]); and, with regard to oriental elements, of Franz Erdman's "Sledy aziatizma v Slove o polku Igoreve," Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia (1842), pt. 35, no. 9, sec. 2: 19-46. One might have thought as well that in so complete a survey, Josef Jungmann's 1810 translation and commentary might have found a place (Vladimir Francev, ed., Slovo o pluku Igorev : Rusky tekst v transkripci cesky preklad a vyklady Josefa Jungmanna z r. 1810 [Prague: Slovansky ustav, 1932]).
(8) Especially, for some reason, in the Uchenye zapiski of the Nauchno-issledovatel'skii institut pri Sovete Ministrov Chuvashskoi ASSR, Cheboksary. See fasc. 31, 138-55; fasc. 36, 216-39; fasc. 47, 91-111. Three articles that appeared in more influential metropolitan journals are now available in English translation: Russell E. Martin and Donald Ostrowski, eds., A. A. Zimin and the Controversy over the Igor' Tale (Russian Studies in History 45, 2 ).
(9) Other copies (e.g., ms. Sinodal'nyi [Sin.] 790) read "Po delom Ipo] bylym." The 1800 edition of the Slovo seems to contain the first appearance of the word (in this meaning) in print, but the new sense became widespread by the time Aleksandr Pushkin used it in his poem "Svat Iran, kak pit' my stanem" (A. S. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 10 vols. [Moscow, Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1948], 3, pt. 1: 308). In the same edition, 3, pt. 2: 1245, a note indicates that the poeta was written in the summer of 1833. One should perhaps note that the word was new: Pushkin, who was very traditional and meticulous about stress patterns, rhymes "nebylitsy, byliny" with "pravoslavnoi stariny." Zimin's note at this point (106 n. 7) refers the reader to an appendix, apparently (bur misleadingly) to 444 n. 26.
(10) Published in facsimile and admirably described by Lev Aleksandrovich Dmitriev in his Istoriia pervogo izdaniia "Slova o polku Igoreve" (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1960), 152-254.
(11) The literature on the relationship of the Slovo to Zadonshchina is immense; one can start with Oleg Tvorogov's "Slovo o polku Igoreve i Zadonshchina," in Slovo o polku Igoreve i pamiatniki Kulikovskogo tsikla: K voprosu o vremeni napisaniia, ed. D. S. Likhachev and L. A. Dmitriev (Leningrad: Nauka, 1966), 526-34.
(12) Galina Nikolaevna Moiseeva and Miroslav (Mavrikievich) Krbets (1924-2003), Iozef Dobrovskii i Rossiia: Pamiamiki russkoi kul'tury XI-XVIII vekov v izuchenii cheshskogo slavista (Leningrad: Nauka, 1990), 31, 50, et passim. Later (219 ff.), Zimin points out detailed textual similarities with the Konigsberg text, published in 1767. At one point (219 n. 267), he refers the reader to chap. 6, where I have been unable to locate the relevant discussion.
(13) Tvorogov inserts at this point (258 n. 17) a helpful reference to his own article in ESPI, s.v. kharalug.
(14) Andrei Anatol'evich Zalizniak, "Slovo o polku Igoreve". Vzgliad lingvista (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul'tury, 2004). See, in particular, Zalizniak's remarks about relative probabilities on 164 ff. Cf. Alan Timberlake, "On the Imperfect Augment in 'Slovo o polku Igoreve,'" in Roman Jakobson: Texts, Documents, Studies, ed. Henryk Baran et al. (Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi institut, 1999), 771-86.
(15) He refers (302 n. 1) to Tolstoi's "Vzaimoomosheniia lokal'nykh tipov drevneslavianskogo literaturnogo iazyka pozdnego perioda," Slavianskoe iazykoznanie (Moscow, 1963), 244-45; the article has been reprinted as "Vzaimoomosheniia lokal'nykh tipov drevneslavianskogo iazyka pozdnego perioda (vtoraia polovina XVI-XVII v.)," in N. I. Tolstoi, Istoriia i struktura slavianskikh literaturnykh iazykov (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), 52-87. One notes that ESPI apparently contains no reference to Tolstoi's article, nor do Zimina and Tvorogov mention its re-publication.
(16) On Turkic elements in the Slovo, see my note in the "Marginalia" section of Slavonic and East European Review 80, 3 (2002): 479-83.
(17) Elagin in marginal notes to the manuscript of his Opytpovestvovaniia o Rossii, not published until 1803; Kheraskov in his poem, "Vladimir" (published in his Tvoreniia in 1796). The editors rightly refer (303, unnumbered additional note) to Vladimir Petrovich Kozlov's Kruzhok A. I. Musina-Pushkina (Moscow: Nauka, 1988) but fail to point out that a more convincing correct dating of Elagin's notes, retracted in the 1988 volume, was originally given by Kozlov (once Zimin's son-in-law) in "'Slovo o polku Igoreve' v 'Opyte povestvovaniia o Rossii' I. P. Elagina," Voprosy istorii, no. 8 (1984): 23-31.
(18) Here as elsewhere it is not clear just which "narod" Zimin has in mind; he immediately goes on to speak ofUkrainian dumy and laments.
(19) "Ossianism" is repeatedly discussed (376, 387, 395, 398,400,409, 419, 431), bur primarily in a Russian, not general European, context.
(20) Thus "the whole system of imagery [obraznyi stroi] of this remarkable work is by nature profoundly popular. The author of the Slovo belonged to the living folkloric ambiance of his time" (255).
(21) One might think the texts written down around 1620 for Richard James to be "folkloric," but James's songs are highly literary and full of similarities with Western late-Renaissance texts. The common error apparently arises from the fact that they are secular in content and written in Russian, rather than Slavonic. The best edition remains that of Pavel Konstantinovich Simoni (1859-1939), Velikorusskie pesni, zapisannye v 1619-20 gg. dlia Richarda Dzhemsa na krainem Severe Moskovskogo gosudarstva (Sbornik Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnostiAkademii nauk, 82, no. 7 [St. Petersburg], 1907). Not surprisingly, there do exist some slightly earlier Ukrainian texts; see A. A. Potebnia (1835-91), "Malorusskaia narodnaia pesnia po spisku XVI v.," Filologicheskie zapiski 2 (Warsaw, 1877): 1-53. See also the unjustly ignored publications by Mikhail Nestorovich Speranskii (1863-1938), "Iz materialov dlia istorii usmoi pesni," Izvestiia AN SSSR, series 7 (Otdelenie obshchestvennykh nauk), no. 10 (1932): 901-34; and especially his separate publication of the Ukrainian texu from the same manuscript in Pervisne hromodianstvo ta ioho perezhytky na Ukraini 3 (Kyiv: Derzh. vyd-vo Ukrainy, 1929), 2: 51-52.
(22) Reticence about such matters, of course, was customary in Zimin's time. The interested reader should consult Petr Alekseevich Bezsonov (Bessonov, 1828-98), Materialy dlia zhizneopisaniia K. F. Kalaidovicha i osobenno dlia izobrazheniia uchenoi ego deiatel 'nosti (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1892), 42ff.; and the entry on Kalaidovich by "K-shov" (Konstantin Vasil'evich Kudriashov, 1885-1962) in Novyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar' (St. Petersburg: Brokgauz-Efron, 1911-16).
(23) For a recent review of the matter, see Brian J. Boeck, "A Tale of Two Stones: Comparing Contested Epigraphic Artifacts from Kensington Minnesota and Kievan Rus'," in Festschrift for Thomas Noonan 2, ed. Roman K. Kovalev (Russian History/Histoire russe 32, 4 ): 297-312; and Boeck, "Stone of Contention: Medieval Tmutarakan' as a Measure of Soviet Archeology in the 1950s and 1960s," Ruthenica 4 (Kyiv: Institut istorii Ukraini, 2005): 32-46.
(24) Iurii Davidovich Levin, Ossian v russkoi literature: Konets XVIII-pervaia tret' XIX v. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1980). The editors have correctly added this reference to Zimin's text (editors' note on 376).
(25) I.e., Slovar' russkikh svetskikh pisatelei, sootechestvennikov i chuzhestrantsev, pisavshikh v Rossii (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1845, repr. Westmead, UK: Gregg International Publishers, 1971). Zimin points out that Evgenii's letter (28 February 1828) to Vasilii Grigor'evich Anastasevich (1775-1845) appeared earlier with deletions that distorted its sense (391 n. 35), and he especially thanks Evgenii Beniaminovich Beshenkovskii (later Eugene Beshenkovsky, Slavic bibliographer at the Columbia University Library), who brought the letter to his attention (392 n. 39).
(26) At this point (404 n. 113), the editors introduce a reference to Tvorogov's article about Dubenskii in ESPI (2: 141-44), bur in fact that article contains no mention of Hanka's fakes.
(27) E.g., Nikolai Kallinikovich Gudzii (1887-1965), who thought the Slovo ancient, and written by a druzhinnik of Sviatoslav of Kyiv from Chernihiv (417).
(28) See K. V. (Konstiatyn Vasil'ovych) Kharlampovych (1870-1932), Malorossiiskoe vliianie na velikorusskuiu tserkovnuiu zhizn', 1 vol. (no more publ.) (Kazan: M. A. Golubev, 1914, repr. The Hague: Mouton, 1968).
(29) According to the OxfordEnglish Dictionary, the term was apparently first used by Ambrose Merton [W. J. Thoms] in 1846 (Athenaeum 22 Aug. 862/3): "What we in England designate
as Popular Antiquities, or Popular Literature (though ... it ... would be most aptly described by a good Saxon compound, Folk-Lore, the Lore of the People)." The Russian word is clearly borrowed.
(30) See, for example, M. D. Chulkov, Sobranie raznykh pesen (Sochineniia Mikhaila Dmitrievicha Chulkova [St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1913], 1); M. I. Popov, Opisanie drevnego slavianskogo iazycheskogo basnosloviia, sobrannogo iz raznykh pisatelei, i snabdennogoprimechaniiami (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1768); and V. A. Levshin, Russkie skazki, soderzhashchie drevneishie povestvovaniia o slavnykh bogatyriakh, skazki narodnye i prochie ..., 10 pts. (Moscow: n.p., 1780-83).
(31) Andre Mazon, Le Slovo d'Igor (Paris: Droz, 1940). Elsewhere, however, Zimin gires a detailed description of Mazon's views (419 ff.).
(32) Zimin writes that the seemingly encydopedic knowledge of the author "fits completely within [our] notion of a major expert on Russian antiquities, popular poetry, and ecclesiastical letters" (vpolne ukladyvaetsia v predstavlenie o boi "shom znatoke russkikh drevnostei, narodnoi poezii i tserkovnoi pis'mennosti ).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Keenan, Edward L.|
|Article Type:||Book review|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2007|
|Previous Article:||Informers and the state under late stalinism: informant networks and crimes against "Socialist Property," 1940-53.|
|Next Article:||Historians and textology.|