Talk:The Tale of Igor's Campaign/Archive 1

Style
Change for better style.Herbivore 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Language differences
The language differences between this document and early Russian to the north were immediately evident when this document was discussed in literary circles of Imperial Russia. Genyo 15:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is not about the litarary merits of the text but about its disputed authenticity. It mentions all kinds of obscure amateurs and foreigners who dared to challenge the monument, and yet it says nothing about all the great Slavic scholars who spent all their life studying Old East Slavic, for whom the idea to question its authenticity seemed utterly ridiculous. The 18th-century Russia had neither scholars to understand the Old East Slavic so perfectly, nor the great poets capable of creating such a masterpiece. As Nabokov put it, there is not a single work in the world literature that could approach the Lay by sheer range and complexity of its prose rhythms. ---Ghirlandajo 21:38, 06 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be too upset about it. You are not alone. It's a known problem with Wiki in general. For example, see K5 discussion or Slashdot discussion. --Gene s 08:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dobrovsky
Dobrovsky was not an 18th century Russian scholar (they would indeed have been unable to write a text like that). He was Czech, and the leading Slavist of his age. In addition, it is highly suspicious indeed that not a single manuscript has survived, and the authenticity of the Igor Tale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.183.7 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2005


 * This is not suspicious at all, given the age and content of the text. Nikola


 * Dobrovsky wouldn't be able to write a text like that since his views on the Old Russian grammar (as laid out in his magnum opus Institutiones) differed starkly from the views of the author of the TIC. Dobrovsky was a great Slavist, and the only person even approaching the qualifications of a falsifier needed to write a text like TIC, yet even he falls short. Besides, there is zero evidence supplied by Keenan for his authorship. Keenan simply assumes that TIC is a fake and then tries to find the author. Read Zaliznyak's article on Keenan's argument. 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---It is incredibly suspicious when other early East Slavic texts survive in multiple manuscripts and are quoted or show influence on other texts. The Igor Tale has not influenced a single other work of Old East Slavic Literature. It could be argued that Zadonshchina was influenced by the Igor Tale but the influence could have gone just as easily the other way. And Zadonshchina did influence other OES texts, which cannot be said of IT.


 * What other East Slavic texts have survived in "multiple" manuscripts? BloodyBastard (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I might be a little late in adding my two cents to the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I agree that requiring the existence of multiple extant manuscripts as a proof of authenticity is setting the bar unreasoonably high. In that case, much of what has come down to us from the ancient world, would have to be discarded out of hand. Beowulf, the great Anglo-Saxon oral epic which was very popular in early Medieval England, survived in a single manuscript which was nearly lost in a fire as well. If that could happen in a much more orderly society such as Medieval England, then I would imagine that amid centuries of Rus infighting and Mongol raids the manuscripta of this epic wouldn't necessarily have fared any better. Abvgd (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, you don't know much about the old Slavic manuscripts, do you. And no, it couldn't have easily gone the other way, as has been shown by numerous scholars, such as Tvorogov and Zaliznyak - the TIC was a source for Zadonschina, not otherwise. How can we tell? By studying parallel places in these texts, specifically the differences between the parallels. The results of the comparison are striking. Really, read Zaliznyak's book. One must really, really, really want to believe in inauthenticity of the TIC to accept such an absurd thesis that Z. was a source for the TIC. 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

has been the subject of scholarly debate even before Keenan's well-argued book came out. It may be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.183.7 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2005


 * It was, and I'll write something about it. But the debate is mostly over. Nikola


 * The debate is over, get over it. Even now you can find people with PhDs believing in 6000 y.o. Earth. You can find fringe elements in any field. This means nothing. The scholarly consensus is clear. 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

a good idea to actually read the book before condemning it. Keenan is not an "obscure amateur". Keenan is a professor at Harvard University. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~history/fac/keenan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.183.7 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2005


 * His page has been moved to http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/keenan/keenan.htm . Nikola


 * Keenan is not a linguist, yet he makes linguistic arguments (and makes a fool of himself; Hebraisms in the TIC, ROFL!). 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---No, that is not the same Edward Keenan.

None of those who know anything about the subject, including Russian scholars in the area, dispute Keenan's enormous qualifications, though that does not mean he is necessarily right in his view on the Igor Tale. And Keenan, too, spent his life studying Old East Slavic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.183.7 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2005


 * Enormous qualifications? Entire life? On his page, most listed works are about Malagasy, not a single one of them has anything to do with a Slavic language. Nikola


 * You really should read Zaliznyak's long and careful demolition of Keenan's "study". 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---You're looking at the wrong Keenan's webpage. Keenan trained a generation of Harvard Slavic scholars to read Old East Slavic, along with several other famous linguists.

Also, it is somewhat suspicious that the text was found at a time when the Czechs and other Slavs in the Habsburg Empire were trying to show the historical value of their culture; it just came in too handy. And how did Czech words get in there, especially if they haven't been found in any other comparable work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.183.7 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2005


 * This is not an argument! What "czech words" have been found in text? In what "comparable works" they havent been found? BloodyBastard (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not a single Czech word in the TOC. The so-called Bohemisms in the TIC are Keenan's invention, an artifact of his "method". By this method one could find any language in the TIC - Polonisms, Ukrainisms, whatever. One example: Keenan claims that since in the TIC the word "rana" means a "strike", while in Russian it means "wound", it means that this is a Bohemism - in Czech it does mean "strike". Except in Old Russian it also meant "strike". All his "Bohemisms" are ambiguous like that. Basically, at first he found a "fitting" author (Dobrovsky) and then tried to find as much evidence in the text as he could, ignoring simple logic. 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---It is also suspicious that Dobrovsky's students were behind the so-called Czech Forgeries.


 * Well, if Dobrovsky was such a linguist as you describe him, the last thing he would do would be inserting some Czech words in the text. This argument is moot. Nikola 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dobrovsky's student Hanka was a forgerer, and in his private writings Dobrovsky castigated him as a bastard for these very forgeries. How could a man outraged by forgeries be a forgerer himself? Unless he was mentally ill, that is. I guess that could explain why Dobrovsky also quoted the TIC as a normal source in his private papers not intended for public consumption, or why some of the linguistic rules outlined in his Institutiones differ so strikingly from the rules which the TIC follows and which Dobrovsky had to know if he was the author. This explains it all! Dobrovsky was mentally ill! TIC is still a forgery! Now, need I tell you what type of people finds such argumentation persuasive? 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tut tut, all this is muddying the waters. The authenticity of the Igor Tale is not proved by wrongly calling Keenan a "journalist", as he is in the article, or by misleadingly substituting a namesake, the UCLA linguist to which Nikola refers us. The Keenan whose book you should read before you burn it is a highly respected Harvard Slavist and historian. See http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~history/facultyPage.cgi?fac=keenan\ Let's have some respect for the facts, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.250.243 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2005


 * I am not going to dispute the autority of professor Keenan. I just want to know exactly what ideas his scepsis is based on? Nothing conviencing have been put forward so far:( BloodyBastard (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To repeat, Keanan is not a linguist, he has been set right by linguists, his research is no longer relevant. That's about it. 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ghirlandaio, you need to grow up
You have been presented with evidence time and time again that Edward L. Keenan is a distinguished professor of Slavic history and the head of the Dumbarton Oaks Library research center run by Harvard University (not some random journalist whose character you can feel free to impugn).


 * Neither Keenan nor any other historian is competent to judge on the authenticity of the 800-year-old literary text. It takes a linguist to do so. I'm not aware of any linguists who question the authenticity of this work, as this is impossible. --Ghirlandajo 06:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---Keenan has had extensive philological training and is more than adequately prepared for this work.

You need to put your nationalism aside for a moment and rethink your commitment to the truth. Also, you need to learn the English orthography. It's the "Igor Tale" not "the Igor's Tale."


 * The Britannica editors obviously need to learn what you call orthography too, as they translated the title as "The Song of Igor's Campaign" (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042069). And you need to learn a rule to sign your comments, too. --Ghirlandajo 06:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mistake?
Слово о плъку Игоревѣ Shouldn't it be Слово о пълку Игоревѣ I'm not an expert, but the transliteration says so :) -Iopq 01:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it should. --Ghirlandajo 07:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, and I also fixed the transliteration. -Iopq 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing Plot
The "Plot" part doesn't say much about the plot. Please have a go at it, this sounds like an interesting story, TIA.

Bias
"As Vladimir Nabokov put it, there is not a single work in world literature that could approach the tale by sheer range and complexity of its prose rhythms. 18th-century Russia had neither the scholars to understand Old East Slavic so perfectly, nor the great poets capable of creating such a masterpiece."

---Indeed, 21st century scholars haven't even been able to understand it. The text is a linguistic mess and is not representative of Old East Slavic language at ANY stage of its development. Nationalist Russian scholars just assume that anything the don't understand is a lost word that the genius author of the IT alone preserved. Believing in the IT's authenticity take so many leaps of faith and stretches of the imagination that only willfull blindness allows anyone to support its authenticity. Of course, Russian scholars have made an industry out of the study of IT and have a vested (economic) interest in seeing it maintain its exalted position in the canon.


 * Tripe like the above is all that the conspiracists have as an argument, I'm afraid. All other arguments have been shot down by scholars such as Zaliznyak. The fact is that linguistic characteristics of the text preclude it from being a fake - too many linguistic rules not known in 18th century (or earlier) and discovered only in 19-20th centuries are in play in the TIC and it would be simply impossible for any author of that time to follow them all without undertaking a study that would foreshadow the work of numerous later scholars. They couldn't have written the 12th century text that fits in with all the other texts without making any glaring mistakes. Zaliznyak shows it only too well, I recommend his book. He demolishes the linguistic "arguments" of critics such as Keenan or Zimin, shows their incompetence in linguistic area. All whines about "linguistic mess" are unsubstantiated opinions by non-linguists, to quote the South Park, "...and I base this on absolutely nothing". The situation is actually the reverse: the text fits its claimed time perfectly. As things stand now, the blind faith is all the conspiracists have. There are people who deny evolution, there are people who deny the Holocaust, and then there are people who deny the authenticity of the Tale of Igor's Campaign. 91.77.2.170 (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It's me again.

This is biased. The alternative is to write "Vladimir Nabokov once said..." --VKokielov 05:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Change for better style.Herbivore 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this considered a novel?
If this work is considered a novel, please feel free to add to the top of this article (I'm just surfing by from another article so I don't know enough regarding this subject to make an informed judgement on whether it is applicable to the wikiproject or not). 23skidoo 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a novel...no way, no how. -Matthew Herrington

Yuri Lotman argumensts
"However, Yuri Lotman's opinion supports the view of inauthenticity of the Tale, based on the absence of a number of semiotic elements in the Russian language before the 18th century that are present in the Tale, notably "Russian Land ("русская земля")".

The famous Primary Chronicle (which was written before Tale) starts with
 * "Се повести временныхъ летъ .... отъкуду есть пошьла руськая земля и къто въ неи почалъ пьрвее къняжитию и отъкуду руськая земля стала есть"

what means
 * "These are the stories of begone years .... where the russian land has came from(or derived from ) and who was its first knyaz and where has the russian land appeared from (or has begun from)...."

So Yuri Lotman lies:) BloodyBastard (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Panslavism agenda
"Historians and philologists, however, still continue to question the tale's authenticity, due to an uncharacteristic modern nationalistic sentiment (cf.Panslavism) contained therein (Omeljan Pritsak inter alia). The Tale is sometimes considered to have an agenda similar to that of Kraledvorsky Manuscript."


 * Yes, the ideas of Panslavism in slavic poem!! This is something incredible indeed :)


 * The presence of other fake manuscripts doesnt prove the inauthenticity of Tale by any means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodyBastard (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Epos Name in Ukrainian
It is written in the main article "Modern Ukrainian: Слово о полку Ігоревім, Slovo o polku Ihorevim". This title was used in the Soviet times and is not accurate, because in modern Ukrainian the word 'полк' differs in meaning from the Midieval language: now it means 'regiment', before it was 'campaign', also the preposition 'о' is not used in modern Ukrainian (we use 'про' instead), so the correct title used in modern Ukrainian is 'Слово про Ігорів похід' ('Slovo pro Ihoriv pohid').

For example, here is one of the translations to the modern Ukrainian: http://litopys.org.ua/slovo67/sl36.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.222.144 (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Panslavism
Historians and philologists, however, still continue to question the tale's authenticity, due to an uncharacteristic modern nationalistic sentiment (cf.Panslavism) contained therein (Omeljan Pritsak inter alia).

Is the editor who wrote this still around? How did Panslavism make it into this article? Sotnik (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tale of Igor's Campaign
I'm curious why the title is translated in this way when the actual meaning of the title is "regiment" and not campaign, even if that is the substance of the text?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you took some time to study the issue you would learn that the old russian meaning of "polk" differs from the modern one. 91.77.2.170 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fringecruft
Olzhas Suleimenov may be an "anti-nuclear activist" but he's definitely not a scholar. His personal opinion is not notable at all. We cannot list opinions of every Kazakh/Tatar/Kyrghiz poet in an encyclopaedic article about, say, Beowulf. Why should we accommodate it it here? --Ghirla-трёп- 22:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suleimenov is a major POET, and his opinion certainly counts, as much as Seamus Heaney's opinion counts re Beowulf.Galassi (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt this. If Suleimenov has published artistic work based on the poem, it can be discussed in a separate "reception"/"adaptations" section, but not under the academic discussion of the poem's authenticity. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Guttural G in Old Slavic
Glebchik's repeated removal of proper Old Slavic transliteration in favor of neoRussian is vandalism. See Proto-Slavic language"For many Common Slavic dialects—including most of West Slavic, all but the northernmost portions of East Slavic, and some western parts of South Slavic— *g lenited from a voiced velar plosive to a voiced velar fricative ([ɡ] → [ɣ]). Because this change was not universal and because it did not occur for a number of East Slavic dialects (such as Belarussian and South Russian) until after the application of Havlík's law, Shevelov (1977) calls into question early projections of this change and postulates three independent instigations of lenition, dating the earliest to before 900 CE and the latest to the early thirteenth century.[60]"Galassi (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an original research. For Old Russian (Old East Slavic) "г" sources use "g". And it's not in Old Slavic (Proto-Slavic) language. — Glebchik (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not have rules for transliteration of the Old Slavonic but "plku Igoreve" is referenced to an Academic source while Ihoreve is not. I would prefer to leave spelling Halych rather than Galich as this is the spelling used in the historical section of the Halych article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After the second thought I have removed the contentious Old Slavonic transliteration. There are no reliable enough sources for a single one transliteration and this deteriorates into dispute which modern language is closer to the Old Slavonic Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

BloodyBastard on Yuri Lotman
BloodyBastard boldly claims that 'Lotman lies'. However, this is not the case. In fact, the opinion of Lotman's expressed in the article to which Wikipedia refers, is a bit misrepresented in the Wikipedia article. Lotman in fact cited MULTIPLE examples of the 'Russian land' concept from medieval sources. What he refuted was the possibility of a 18th-century hoax, because the concept of 'Russian land' was alien to the 18th-century Russia and was only re-created as a political idea in the Romantic era, being taking just from TIC and other Old Russian literature.95.25.46.127 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Text needs help
This article seems to go in circular arguments, saying there is a consensus that the text is authentic, then starting again in the next paragraph with people who argue it is not authentic. Needs to be improved, and it is hard to follow.Parkwells (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)