Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros47-2DossierThe Role of the Debate on the Aut...

Dossier

The Role of the Debate on the Authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign in the Emergence of a Revolutionary Direction in the Humanities

Mikhail Trunin
p. 197-213

Résumés

Parmi les sceptiques qui considèrent que la Geste d’Igor est un faux composé au xviiie siècle, trois érudits ont proposé les hypothèses les mieux fondées scientifiquement. Le premier a été le slaviste français André Mazon dont les arguments ont été réfutés par Roman Jakobson en 1948. Selon l’expression d’un autre grand linguiste du xxe siècle Andreï Zalizniak, les positions de Mazon « ont été scientifiquement anéanties » par Jakobson. La principale cible du même Zalizniak dans le livre où il démontre linguistiquement l’authenticité de la Geste d’Igor est l’historien américain Edward Keenan. Zalizniak examine également l’hypothèse d’un troisième sceptique dont l’activité se situe dans la période intermédiaire entre Mazon et Keenan, à savoir l’historien médiéviste Aleksandr Zimine. Mais si Zalizniak s’exprime au sujet des positions de Keenan avec un agacement non dissimulé (bien qu’il le réfute scientifiquement sans parti pris), chaque fois qu’il évoque Zimine, il juge nécessaire, en dépit de l’insuffisance de sa démonstration linguistique, de lui rendre hommage pour avoir audacieusement tenté « de rompre des lances contre la pensée unique officielle » et contre le statut de « vache sacrée » donné en URSS à la Geste d’Igor. Dans ce débat Zimine et sa conception avaient un opposant et un partisan à la fois : Juri Lotman. Lotman contestait la crédibilité de l’hypothèse de Zimine mais il la soutenait considérant les multiples problèmes dont souffraient les sciences sociales dans les années 1960 en URSS. Les relations entre Lotman et Zimine seront exposées dans l’article sur la base de la correspondance entre les deux savants (1963-1971), conservée dans les archives et pratiquement inconnue de la société savante. Dans la conclusion on proposera une réponse à la question pourquoi dans la première moitié de la décennie des années 1960, à la recherche d’une issue pour sortir d’une crise méthodologique et peut-être par des interactions interdisciplinaires avec ses collègues, a préféré à l’historien Zimine le cercle des jeunes linguistes moscovites. C’est la collaboration avec ces derniers qui a abouti à la création de l’École sémiotique de Moscou et de Tartu.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

This research was supported by the Estonian Research Council grant PRG319 and by the Tallinn University Research Fund (project TF2224).

Texte intégral

1. The Tale of Igor’s campaign: a 12th-century literary work

1The publication of Andrei Zalizniak’s The Tale of Igor’s Campaign: A Linguist’s Perspective in 2004—followed by expanded and revised editions in 2007 and 2008—marked a decisive moment in the two-century debate over the authenticity of this core text of ancient Russian literature. Through a rigorous linguistic analysis, Zalizniak demonstrated that The Tale could not have been an 18th-century forgery because it contains numerous linguistic features unknown to scholars of that era. Zalizniak’s primary line of evidence consists of meticulous linguistic scrutiny, revealing that the language of The Tale is essentially authentic ancient Russian of the 11th–12th centuries, slightly modified by orthographic and phonetic peculiarities typical of later 15th–16th-century copying. The many subtle linguistic details characteristic of pre-Mongol ancient Russian, which largely vanished in subsequent centuries, offer compelling evidence of the text’s authenticity: an 18th-century forger would hardly have been able to know and imitate them all.

2Zalizniak himself, however, acknowledges that absolute proof of authenticity cannot exist, as there always remains a theoretical possibility of an ingenious forgery. Consequently, he constructs a probabilistic argument, assessing the weight of each piece of evidence and the hypothetical scenarios in which any particular fact might not indicate authenticity. Ultimately, the cumulative weight of evidence strongly favours authenticity. Particularly persuasive is Zalizniak’s argument regarding the extraordinary competence required of a potential forger. Examining the task faced by such an 18th-century forger, Zalizniak concludes that such an author would have needed to be a uniquely gifted philologist. This hypothetical individual would have had to undertake ‘enormous labour’ and possess extensive expertise in nearly all areas of historical linguistics (Zalizniak 2008: 47). The ‘Anonymous Author’ (Аноним in Russian), as Zalizniak calls him, would have required profound knowledge of historical phonetics and grammar of ancient Russian, historical dialectology, and stylistics, as well as the ability to read numerous ancient manuscripts from different centuries, interpret orthography of ancient texts, and fluently handle Church Slavonic and standardized ancient Russian—all at a level vastly ahead of the science of his time. Zalizniak emphasizes that this hypothetical forger would have miraculously ‘leaped far ahead of the entire contemporary scholarly world’ (Zalizniak 2008: 70) single-handedly achieving results that took scholarship two centuries of collective efforts. Furthermore, this 18th-century genius would have had not only to amass such knowledge but also to foresee research tasks that were not even posed during his era (since scientific linguistics was only emerging in the 18th century). Zalizniak concludes: if The Tale were a forgery, its author would be no mere prankster or talented writer but a brilliant modern-era scholar who performed a feat of remarkable foresight (and simultaneously concealed these discoveries from his contemporaries and descendants). Nevertheless, Zalizniak considers the existence of such an individual extremely unlikely.

3Alongside his purely linguistic analysis, Zalizniak thoroughly reviews the arguments of sceptics who have considered The Tale a forgery from Catherine the Great’s era, classifying them according to their scholarly rigor. He distinguishes several groups of opponents, ranging from those whose arguments rest on superficial observations to serious researchers whose doubts merit detailed examination.

2. Two centuries of debate over the authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign

4The renewed debate over the authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign in the early 2000s, which ultimately concluded with a convincing linguistic resolution, represented the final chapter of a longstanding controversy that began shortly after the text was discovered and made public at the end of the 18th century. While the entire 19th century can be seen as a prelude, sceptical voices emerged loudly and distinctly several times throughout the 20th century, particularly in its latter half. Zalizniak categorizes his opponents according to their scholarly competence and integrity. Among the least competent and most problematic critics, he places authors of frivolous hypotheses from the 1970s–1990s, notably Konrad Trost, Michael Händler, Rainer Aitzetmüller, and others. These researchers attempted to attribute the authorship of The Tale to various later historical figures, often in an entirely implausible manner. For instance, Trost suggested that The Tale was composed by Nikolai Karamzin, allegedly to support his theory about the linguistic divide between Russian and Church Slavonic. Other scholars searched the text for influences from various national literatures: Aitzetmüller, for example, saw Polish elements, while Händler identified Germanic influences. Zalizniak rightly points out that when research shifts from objective analysis to biased searches for evidence supporting preconceived theories, each sceptic conveniently identifies features within the text that suit their own hypotheses while ignoring contradictory evidence (Zalizniak 2008: 282–343).

  • 1  Simultaneously with Zalizniak, Olga Strakhova (whose article Zalizniak cites in expanded editions (...)

5No less irritation is evident in Zalizniak’s response to perhaps the most prominent recent sceptic, the American Slavist Edward Keenan, who published his book on The Tale in 2003—one year before Zalizniak’s own (Keenan 2003)1. Keenan declared The Tale a work authored by the Czech Slavist Josef Dobrovský, who visited Russia in 1792 and had access to various ancient Russian manuscripts. Zalizniak humorously and ironically ‘agreed’ with this choice, noting that Dobrovský indeed was an eminent Slavist of his time. Yet here arises a paradox: it is precisely Dobrovský’s exceptional linguistic expertise that makes his authorship of an ancient Russian forgery practically impossible. Dobrovský himself made characteristic errors in reconstructing and interpreting ancient Slavonic texts, which means any hypothetical forgery of a 12th-century text by him would inevitably contain mistakes—errors that are not found in The Tale. Although Keenan’s hypothesis is better argued than those of earlier sceptics, Zalizniak finds it irritating precisely because it conflicts with specific linguistic evidence. Keenan became captivated by an appealing theory of forgery—one that ultimately failed to withstand rigorous linguistic scrutiny.

6The early 21st-century debate between Zalizniak and Keenan echoes the logic of another famous confrontation that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s between the French Slavist André Mazon and the Russian-American linguist Roman Jakobson. Mazon was arguably the most authoritative early sceptic questioning the authenticity of The Tale. In works published shortly before World War II, Mazon proposed the hypothesis that the text was a forgery from the late 18th century (Mazon 1940). He speculated that its possible author could have been someone from the circle of Count Alexei Musin-Pushkin, the first publisher of The Tale, perhaps Musin-Pushkin himself or Nikolai Bantysh-Kamensky (Mazon later also considered Joel [Ioil’] Bykovsky as a possible author, a hypothesis addressed later in this study). According to Mazon, The Tale was a stylistic imitation inspired partly by European Romantic interest in antiquity and by Ossianic texts, highly popular at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries.

7Jakobson emerged as Mazon’s principal opponent, subjecting his arguments to rigorous criticism and systematically refuting all the hypotheses put forward by the French scholar. In an extensive study published in 1948, Jakobson meticulously dismantled Mazon’s claims, demonstrating their linguistic invalidity (Jakobson 1948). Specifically, he highlighted numerous errors made by Mazon in interpreting ancient Russian cultural realities and language, inappropriate comparisons with 18th-century Western European texts, and Mazon’s failure to account for complex linguistic and stylistic features that support the authenticity of The Tale. Jakobson’s linguistic arguments were so compelling that, according to Zalizniak’s characterization, Mazon’s constructions were ‘scientifically demolished’ by Jakobson (Zalizniak 2008: 15). Jakobson thus established the benchmark for refuting such claims through meticulous linguistic analysis and careful attention to textual details.

8Between the times of Mazon and Keenan, another sceptic, the Soviet medieval historian Aleksandr Zimin, actively engaged with the question of authenticity. Zimin proposed his own version of the origin of The Tale, attributing authorship to Archimandrite Joel Bykovsky. According to Zimin’s hypothesis, Bykovsky created the text not as a deliberate forgery but as a historical stylization. Subsequently, the text was presented as an ancient Russian by its publisher, Musin-Pushkin.

9Zimin’s concept gained considerable resonance within the scholarly community both in the USSR and abroad immediately after his presentation at the Institute of Russian Literature on February 27, 1963 (see Sokolova 2010: 5–7, 20–35). Roman Jakobson showed particular interest in Zimin’s hypothesis, learning about it from reports by Soviet colleagues as early as March of that same year (see Sokolova 1994: 234, 239, 246). Jakobson considered the question of the authenticity of The Tale extremely significant, both academically and culturally, and sought to promptly incorporate discussion of Zimin’s work into the afterword of the fourth volume of his Selected Writings, entitled ‘Slavic Epic Studies.’ However, Jakobson initially had access only to brief summaries of Zimin’s conclusions and lacked a detailed justification of his position, prompting him to urgently request additional materials on Zimin’s report from Dmitrii Likhachev.

10Having previously opposed Mazon’s theories decisively, Jakobson remained an unwavering advocate for the authenticity of The Tale in Zimin’s case as well. Yet, unlike his sharp judgments toward Western sceptics, Jakobson approached Zimin’s hypothesis cautiously, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the Soviet historian’s full argumentation. Zimin did not merely repeat Mazon’s thesis of The Tale as a late 18th-century literary forgery; rather, he attempted to provide a new historical and textual foundation for its late origin, thereby attracting Jakobson’s attention. Nevertheless, Jakobson expressed concern about the potential influence of Zimin’s hypothesis on Western researchers and Slavist students, for whom Soviet scholars held significant authority in Russian literary studies. Eventually, Jakobson learned more details about Zimin’s hypothesis through Soviet colleagues and recognized the necessity of critically examining it. Although the complete text of Zimin’s work remained inaccessible to Jakobson, he attempted to reconstruct Zimin’s arguments from the materials available to him. Ultimately, Jakobson offered a more comprehensive analysis of Zimin’s hypothesis in the ‘Retrospect’ of the fourth volume of his Selected Writings.

11Jakobson dismantled Zimin’s claims by exposing their methodological weaknesses and reliance on anachronistic assumptions. He emphasized that Zimin’s attribution of The Tale to a late 18th-century forger ignored the profound linguistic, stylistic, and intertextual ties between The Tale and early East Slavic literary traditions. Jakobson pointed out that Zimin’s analysis was tainted by ‘a ludicrous invention’ (Jakobson 1966: 694) and that his rejection of The Tale’s antiquity was driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of ancient Russian grammar and lexicon. He also criticized Zimin’s failure to account for the oral and poetic dimensions of the text, which align it with pre-Mongolian literary practices rather than 18th-century forgery. Jakobson concluded that Zimin’s approach, rather than revealing new insights, represented an arbitrary dismissal of extensive linguistic and comparative literary evidence (Jakobson 1966: 699).

12As a historian, Zimin indeed lacked adequate philological expertise. However, while it was important for Jakobson to respond promptly to the topical scepticism of Zimin in the 1960s, linguist Zalizniak, analyzing Zimin’s work post factum (Zimin himself had died in 1980, and his book on The Tale was published only in 2006—as a historical artefact of scholarship), placed him in a special category despite clearly recognizing the linguistic amateurism of his arguments. Why did Zalizniak take this approach? It is because Zimin, despite his scepticism about the authenticity of The Tale, approached the issue with genuine scholarly conscientiousness and a clear pursuit of objectivity. Unlike radical sceptics, whose arguments were often sensationalist, Zimin based his conclusions on a thorough examination of the available historical evidence. This, according to Zalizniak, earned Zimin a greater degree of respect, even if his hypothesis ultimately proved untenable.

13A distinctive feature of Zimin’s hypothesis was that he did not consider The Tale a deliberate forgery aimed at deceiving the public. Zalizniak emphasizes that Zimin’s arguments were primarily grounded in historical analysis: doubts about mentions in chronicles, attempts to identify a possible author, and uncovering the motivations behind the text’s creation. At the same time, Zimin paid considerably less attention to linguistic evidence, which, according to Zalizniak, provides the most compelling proof of the authenticity of The Tale. Zimin carried out extensive research, analyzing chronicles and biographies of individuals potentially involved in the forgery. His hypothesis forms a coherent historical conception rather than an arbitrary fantasy. Nevertheless, although Zimin attempted to demonstrate that linguistic data did not contradict The Tale’s later origin, Zalizniak concluded that he was unable to convincingly support this claim. Therefore, Zalizniak classifies Zimin in a separate category of sceptics: he regards him as a serious opponent who proposed an original, albeit incorrect, hypothesis.

3. Scholarly and ideological debates surrounding the authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign

14Zalizniak asserts that ‘the linguistic part of Zimin’s arguments is unprofessional and cannot serve as justification for his hypothesis.’ However, he immediately makes a reservation: ‘It would be unfair to limit ourselves to this dry statement alone. […] Regardless of scientific agreement or disagreement, we must pay tribute to Zimin’s courageous and sincere attempt to challenge the official dogma and the sacred-cow status attributed to The Tale of Igor’s Campaign in the USSR’ (Zalizniak 2008: 211). Prominent historian Valentin Yanin shared this sentiment, writing: ‘Though I do not accept <Zimin’s> concept, I perceived with profound respect the courage of a scholar who dared oppose the official interpretation that nearly equated The Tale to the Communist Party Manifesto’ (quoted in Sokolova 2010: 16).

15Zimin developed his hypothesis about the late origin of The Tale through a series of textual, historical, and linguistic arguments. In his book, he drew attention to anomalous linguistic elements within the text, which, according to him, could not be explained within the traditional framework of ancient Russian origins. Zimin argued that The Tale demonstrates stylistic and syntactic features far more characteristic of 18th-century literature than of ancient Russian texts of the 12th century. Specifically, he pointed out numerous parallels between The Tale and Zadonshchina (a text from the late 14th to early 15th centuries), concluding that The Tale might have been a later stylization partly based on the Zadonshchina. Furthermore, Zimin insisted that the chronicle records do not support the existence of The Tale prior to its publication by Musin-Pushkin in 1800. The absence of earlier references, in Zimin’s opinion, also indicated its later origin.

16Zimin also argued that the text of The Tale does not fit into the literary context of the 12th century. In his view, pre-Mongolian literature was characterized primarily by hagiographical and chronicle genres, rather than by distinct poetic stylizations based on intricate interplay with forms and rhythmic structures. Zimin believed that the style of The Tale significantly differed from that of all other ancient Russian texts, thereby raising doubts about its authenticity. Consequently, Zimin proposed that the author of a text such as The Tale could have been an individual from the 18th century who had access to a wide array of historical sources and understood the artistic principles of medieval literature. This reasoning led Zimin to propose Archimandrite Joel Bykovsky as a possible author, arguing that educated clerics of that period had an interest in such stylizations.

17However, ideological constraints in the Soviet Union prevented a purely scholarly discussion of Zimin’s hypothesis. Within Soviet historiography, The Tale of Igor’s Campaign was regarded as a symbol of national heritage, and its authenticity was treated as an unquestionable axiom. Any attempt to challenge this status was perceived as a dangerous revision of the foundations of Soviet cultural policy. Zimin, who worked on his book until the end of his life, was acutely aware of its ‘heretical’ nature. In December 1978, two years before his death, he wrote in his diary: ‘The attempt to revise traditional views on the dating of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign was a struggle for a scholar’s right to freedom of thought. The issue was not whether I was right or wrong, but whether the ‘heretical’ book should be published or not. This struggle resonated warmly in the hearts of many people of goodwill, partly because they were disgusted with the official pseudo-patriotism that flourished in the <19>40s and 50s’ (quoted in Sokolova 2010: 16).

18A public discussion of Zimin’s hypothesis was initially planned soon after his presentation on February 27, 1963, partly due to preparations for the Fifth International Congress of Slavists held in Sofia in September of the same year. However, due to a variety of reasons—both organizational and ideological—this discussion was postponed for almost a year. As the published proceedings of the congress reveal, the Soviet delegation chose not to address the sensitive issue of the authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign at all. The text is mentioned in the literary reports only twice: once as an example of genre classification by Dmitrii Likhachev (1963: 49) and again in a discussion about the loss of secular poetry in ancient Rus’ by Iakov Lurie (Lur’e 1963: 72). None of the Soviet presentations touched upon questions of authorship, origins, or textual criticism of The Tale—nor did they mention the names of Mazon or Zimin. This absence of reaction to Zimin’s hypothesis, especially relevant in 1963, indicates a deliberate avoidance of a topic considered ideologically risky on the international stage.

  • 2  Sokolova reports that in October 1977, seventy copies of Zimin’s mimeographed book held at the Arc (...)

19Zimin was permitted to compile his paper into a book, which was mimeographed under the auspices of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences in early 1964. This edition, with a circulation of only 101 copies, was intended exclusively for internal use: copies were distributed to participants of the upcoming discussion with an obligation to return them afterward (though not everyone complied2). The discussion took place from May 4–6, 1964, at the Institute of History in Moscow, and its results were soon published (see Kuchkin & Tvorogov 1964; also Sokolova 2010: 595–630). Nevertheless, Zimin’s book remained inaccessible to the broader scholarly community, and the author himself was allowed to sporadically publish his conclusions only several years later (see Pilshchikov & Trunin 2015: 30–31).

20The discussion of Zimin’s hypothesis in May 1964 unfolded in an atmosphere of heightened ideological and administrative tension. Despite the event’s scholarly status, its organizational conditions were far from academically open: access was strictly controlled. According to eyewitnesses, several specialists directly involved with the subject were denied entry, while others present had no connection to either medieval studies or The Tale itself. As one participant recalled, ‘Young men, presumably staff from the Presidium, stood at the doors… checking entrants’ names against a list’ (Sokolova 2010: 84). Later, not only Zimin but other participants—including those who disagreed with his hypothesis—acknowledged that this manner of organizing the discussion was ‘inappropriate for an academic community’ (Sokolova 2010: 83–86). Zimin himself did not attend the discussion on the first day but later delivered a response. In a letter to Juri Lotman dated May 10, 1964, he described his immediate impressions vividly:

On May 4–6, there was a wild, cynical reprisal against me behind closed doors. […] Doctors put me in bed on April 30, but [the meeting was not postponed]. When I learned about the torrent of dirt poured on me on May 4, I was compelled to appear despite illness on May 5–6 and take all the blows. […] The conclusion was […]: ‘The work is scientifically untenable. A follower of Mazon. The Tale should be studied not according to Mazon but according to Marx. The question of publication is not within our competence.

  • 3  I have managed to assemble a complete corpus of the correspondence between the two scholars. Zimin (...)

My own speech, and the speeches of those who tried to support me, were interrupted by hysterical shouts. […] Yet, dear friend, I consider this ‘discussion’ a complete victory. It proves my colleagues have nothing substantive against me—only abuse. Of course, they did point out some mistakes, omissions in my literature review, and posed some textual questions. Well then! We’ll sort it out—no one will bring me to my knees! (Lotman, Zimin 1963–1971).3

4. Lotman and Zimin

21The history of the publication and discussion of Zimin’s book illustrates the ideological pressures surrounding the study of The Tale in the Soviet Union. Juri Lotman, whose correspondence with Zimin has been cited earlier, occupied a unique position as both critic and supporter regarding Zimin’s hypothesis. Lotman was critical of the scholarly validity of Zimin’s claims but supportive regarding the sociological problems facing Soviet academia, which have also been outlined above. In his letter dated April 3, 1964, Lotman informed Zimin: ‘Today I received a mimeographed copy [of your book] and an invitation to the discussion of your work […] marked absurdly as ‘secret.’ Because of this marking, I was not given the invitation itself but only shown it at the ‘special department’ of our university. I can imagine what the discussion will be like. I will not participate because: 1) I am indeed feeling unwell; 2) I cannot say that you have convinced me, yet I do not wish to engage in debate with you under such circumstances. I request that my review, which I have already sent you, be read out’ (Lotman, Zimin 1963–1971).

22The review Lotman refers to has also been preserved in the archives. It states:

Zimin’s manuscript […] represents an extraordinarily original scholarly work, characterized by extensive erudition and bold research. The book is so rich in intriguing ideas and observations that summarizing them in a brief review is simply impossible. Personally, unlike Zimin, I believe The Tale of Igor’s Campaign is an authentic work of 12th-century Russian literature. Nevertheless, I deem it necessary to emphasize that publishing Zimin’s work, whose central thesis argues for the later origin of this remarkable text, is an urgent scholarly necessity (Lotman 1964).

23Lotman then enumerates four reasons why Zimin’s book should be made available to a broader scholarly audience (I quote them here in full):

1. Scholarly literature on The Tale is cluttered with numerous inadequately substantiated and, overall, scientifically inferior studies. The publication of Zimin’s book would have a sobering effect on many authors, compelling them to formulate their arguments more rigorously and reminding them that many assumptions in this area of literary history are accepted as proven, although no one has actually proven them to be true. Thus, the emergence of Zimin’s book would force proponents of the early origin of The Tale to critically reassess their arguments, ultimately benefiting scholarly truth (and I believe the truth is that The Tale is an authentic work of Kievan literature). Precisely as a supporter of the early origin of The Tale, I insist on the publication of Zimin’s book.

2. Zimin’s book contains numerous valuable insights that contribute significantly to scholarship, regardless of whether The Tale is a literary work of the 12th or 18th century.

3. Zimin’s position differs fundamentally in its social implications from the widespread scepticism about The Tale’s authenticity found abroad. Foreign sceptics argue that The Tale is a forgery and that its study should cease. Zimin, however, occupies a diametrically opposite stance: he considers The Tale a brilliant work of Russian literature and, from his perspective, does everything possible to thoroughly clarify issues related to its origin.

4. Publishing Zimin’s book would demonstrate to foreign sceptics that Soviet scholarship is not afraid of debate on this matter, that Soviet literary historians do not guard biased theses, but instead defend truth, which is developed through free discussion on pressing scholarly issues. Consequently, refusing to publish Zimin’s work would produce results least desired by proponents of the early origin of The Tale: the global scholarly community would interpret it as a fear of discussion and a lack of convincing arguments supporting the authenticity of The Tale as a 12th-century literary work (Lotman 1964).

24Lotman concluded the same letter dated April 3, 1964, expressing full support to Zimin, despite clearly disagreeing with him on the key scholarly question:

I wish you fortitude and good health—the upcoming battle, it seems, will be far from pleasant. Try not to be disheartened. As for the scholarly aspects of your book, we will debate them later in a more normal environment. For instance, why not come to Tartu in late May […]? You could rest, detach yourself from the Moscow turmoil, and we could argue at leisure without hurling political accusations at each other (Lotman & Zimin 1963–1971).

25Particular attention should be paid to this invitation extended to Zimin to visit Tartu, as it will be significant for the subsequent discussion.

26In the early 1960s, Lotman was teaching ancient Russian literature at the University of Tartu and actively engaging in research on the subject. One of the core areas of his interest during this period was The Tale of Igor’s Campaign. For the collection entitled The Tale of Igor’s Campaign: a 12th-Century Literary Work (1962) edited by Dmitrii Likhachev prior to Zimin’s emergence as a prominent sceptic, Lotman wrote an extensive article in which he addressed the question of the text’s authenticity through the prism of its reception among writers at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Lotman meticulously analyzed one of the sceptics’ main assertions: the hypothesis that The Tale was an extensive allegory reflecting the political realities of its alleged time of creation—the reign of Catherine the Great. Lotman rejected this hypothesis by pointing out that the plot of The Tale was incompatible with the literary and ideological tendencies of the 18th century. He found it improbable that a national epic would be based on the historical material of an unsuccessful military campaign and feature ‘princes who committed politically erroneous actions’ (Lotman 1962: 383) as its main heroes. Lotman examined the reception of The Tale by various intellectual circles from the 18th to early 19th centuries—from Tatishchev and Lomonosov to Radishchev, freemasons, and early romantics who were influenced by Ossianic poetry—but found no texts that could plausibly have influenced The Tale had it been a forgery. Lotman’s conclusion was categorical: ‘Assertions that traces of literary tastes from the late 18th and early 19th centuries can be found in The Tale have no basis and crumble upon moving from general assertions to specific research’ (Lotman 1962: 395). Even after the publication of The Tale in the early 19th century, its comprehension remained difficult, and attempts to interpret the text through the literary tradition of the modern era resulted in serious distortions. According to Lotman, this difficulty stemmed from the unique status of The Tale as an authentic 12th-century work.

27Nevertheless, as we have previously noted, Lotman was sympathetic toward the efforts of the Soviet sceptic Zimin. In 1966–1967, after the active phase of the debate had subsided, Lotman twice publicly emphasized the necessity of publishing Zimin’s work: first in Estonian, in a review co-authored with Sergei Isakov of the Estonian translation of The Tale by August Annist (Issakov, Lotman 1966: 188), and then in Russian in the article ‘On the honour–glory opposition in secular writings of the Kievan Era,’ which initiated a public debate with Zimin regarding the interpretation of the concluding formula of The Tale, ‘Glory to the princes, and honour to the retinue’ (more on this will follow).

28The correspondence between Lotman and Zimin indicates that Lotman had agreed to read the manuscript of Zimin’s book as early as February 1963, and received the text by the end of that year. Lotman delayed returning the manuscript and providing feedback on Zimin’s hypothesis several times. Lotman’s letter to Zimin dated January 30, 1964, begins with an earnest compliment rather than a mere formality:

Your work is read with unwavering attention. This is due not only to its topic but also to the distinct features of your research ‘handwriting’ that characterize all your works familiar to me. Your effort to dispel mystical fog from a scholarly issue and defend the right of scholarship to ‘scepticism,’ that is, to doubt all sorts of fetishes, evokes my sympathy and civic respect. Hence, I sincerely hope for the publication of your book, and since I foresee the likely direction its discussion will take, I certainly will not publicize my disagreements with you. […] Nevertheless, I wish to share my views frankly in a private letter. Unfortunately, your interesting book has not convinced me. It is difficult to judge oneself, but I would like to believe this is not due to scholarly conservatism or attachment to habitual ideas and thoughts. When I began reading your book, I was prepared for a shift in my usual horizons, ready for what had seemed true to be proven false. In scholarship, I am rather an anarchist, and liberating myself from rigid and seemingly unshakeable truths always brings me deep joy. Yet, I repeat, your book did not convince me. Having read it rapidly, I cannot now systematize all my remarks and doubts. I will mention only some of them (Lotman & Zimin 1963–1971).

29Lotman formulates four main objections to Zimin’s hypothesis. The first objection expands upon the arguments he presented in his 1962 article:

Your thesis about the possibility that The Tale was composed in the 18th century does not hold up. Date it however you wish, but I am absolutely convinced it does not belong to the 18th century. Even if one insists on this dating, a much wider range of arguments would be needed. First of all, the question must be raised about the literary method of this work. You yourself speak of it as a significant (indeed, even great) literary phenomenon. But what exactly is its artistic type, and what is its place within 18th-century literature? Ossian, The Manuscript of Dvůr Králové, and La Guzla were all literary hoaxes, yet each of them occupies a well-defined place in the literature of their genuine epoch, closely aligned with specific literary and social movements that are incomprehensible without them. But what does The Tale align with in Russian 18th-century literature? […] The facts you have gathered about Bykovsky are certainly intriguing, but they fail to convincingly demonstrate that he was an outstanding, gifted writer […]. Yet the question is not even about the scale of talent—this is always debatable and impossible to measure (undoubtedly, there were people in the same milieu more gifted than Bykovsky)—nor is it about his affiliation with progressive […] ideas. What must be done is to extract the ideological and artistic structure that remains once the Zadonshchina is subtracted from The Tale, and then find a plausible place for this structure within the 18th century, specifically within Bykovsky’s own literary output (Lotman & Zimin 1963–1971).

30Lotman’s second counterargument concerns general methodology in scholarly research:

Your book would significantly benefit from greater impartiality. If you openly acknowledged the weaknesses of your own arguments, explicitly addressed the difficulties that would arise from the victory of your position, adopted a more questioning rather than assertive stance, and—most importantly—clearly distinguished facts from hypotheses, and hypotheses from mere conjectures, your case would be considerably strengthened. At present, an impartial reader, who seeks truth rather than the replacement of one kind of hypnosis with another, cannot help but feel that he is being persuaded at all costs, sometimes simply hypnotized. What should emerge as the final result of an investigation is instead taken both as its initial premise and ultimate conclusion (Lotman & Zimin 1963–1971).

31Lotman’s third observation is brief, yet it ultimately proved decisive for resolving the question of The Tale’s authenticity: ‘The linguistic aspect of your arguments is highly vulnerable. I think it would have been advisable to consult an expert in the history of the Russian language’ (Lotman & Zimin 1963–1971). This problem later received considerable attention from Zalizniak, whose verdict is clear: ‘Zimin, when presenting linguistic arguments, genuinely did not realize he was intruding into an area for which he was utterly unprepared’ (Zalizniak 2008: 211). According to Zalizniak, ‘An even more serious error made by Zimin—unfortunately extremely characteristic of most non-linguists—is that in linguistic phenomena he sees only superficial, easily observable features. He is entirely unaware of the deeper mechanisms operating within language, and therefore has no idea how difficult it is to forge the effects of these profound regularities’ (Zalizniak 2008: 226).

32Finally, Lotman’s fourth polemical argument proved relevant to his subsequent scholarly thought:

You state that if The Tale is indeed a 12th-century text, then all subsequent development of Russian literature represents regression. But this is not an argument. Aren’t we witnesses to, and historians continually confronted with, phenomena of regression? Regression in culture, morality, and even the human condition itself? And isn’t the relativity of these concepts clear to historians? How can one position Hitler after Heine? Is the entire European culture not a regression compared to Aeschylus? Can we morally place anyone in the 19th century alongside Rousseau, or any of our contemporaries alongside Chekhov? (Lotman & Zimin 1963–1971).

33In Volume 5 of Tartu Sign Systems Studies Lotman published a polemical note written by Zimin in response to his own essay ‘On the honour–glory opposition in secular writings of the Kievan Era’ and added his own reply. The debate, initially focused on the final line of The Tale, reconstructed by Jakobson as ‘Glory to the princes, and honour to the retinue’ (despite the absence of the word ‘honour’ in the original ending), once again shifted towards the question of authenticity.

34Zimin described Jakobson’s conjectures as ‘purely subjective’ and argued that the use of ‘honour’ and ‘glory’ in The Tale did not align with their occurrences in other ancient Russian texts (Zimin 1971: 466). Regarding Lotman’s claims, Zimin stated that they only reinforced his belief that The Tale was a forgery. Lotman not only dismissed Zimin’s argument but also countered it with a broader theoretical statement that foreshadowed his later concept of cultural explosion: Zimin’s objections are based on a scholarly presumption that is worth discussing. Interest in the evolutionary methods of natural science proliferated in nineteenth-century philology, and the idea that having one well-documented link could always help in reconstructing the one that preceded it was quite popular. Russian literature of the 15th–16th centuries has been extensively researched and described. But suppose we are unable to determine which of its features were inherited from 11th–12th-century writings. In that case, we are more likely to become suspicious of what we did manage to find rather than our ability to reconstruct what was lost. The Tale of Igor’s Campaign stands out against the backdrop of late medieval culture as an oddity; it does not quite ‘add up’ in that context. But imagine that an unforeseen catastrophe had destroyed every work of literature written before 1860, as well as any mention of them, and only Eugene Onegin was spared. Would we be able to ‘reconstruct’ Pushkin, even from literature that came from an adjacent period?’ (Lotman 1971: 473–474). Lotman concluded that such reconstruction would be impossible. He argued that beyond the evolutionary model, history also follows another model—one driven by culture, which develops in brief but intense surges, progressing rapidly but not accumulating steadily. These moments of rapid advancement are interspersed with standstills, breaks in historical continuity where successive links are weakened. In such cases, he asserted, the evolutionary method of reconstruction proves to be an unreliable research tool.

35The debate with Zimin, beginning with specific textual and historical issues, led Lotman to broader theoretical generalizations. In his debate with Zimin, Lotman first articulated his doubts about the absolute productivity of the evolutionary paradigm in the humanities, advocating instead for a model of nonlinear cultural development characterized by periods of breaks and rapid qualitative leaps. These ideas, emerging from the debate with Zimin, were further developed in Lotman’s subsequent work, culminating, by the end of the 1980s, in his renowned concept of ‘culture and explosion,’ which became one of the most recognizable elements of his intellectual legacy.

36In parallel with his research interests, Lotman actively pursued institution-building activities throughout the 1960s. His interest in Zimin, his repeated invitations for Zimin to visit Tartu, and his efforts to include the Moscow historian in his informal intellectual circle were part of a broader quest for new forms of interdisciplinary and interregional collaboration. The above-quoted correspondence between Lotman and Zimin reveals that in the spring of 1964, Lotman invited Zimin to Tartu to discuss their disagreements ‘in a more normal environment,’ that is, without ideological pressure. However, this invitation went unanswered. Later, in the summer of 1968, instead of Tartu, Zimin travelled to the Estonian resort town of Pärnu. A letter Lotman had sent him there never reached him, temporarily causing frustration in their correspondence. In the spring of 1970, when the heated debates surrounding The Tale of Igor’s Campaign had somewhat subsided, Zimin lamented to Lotman: ‘There is much I would like to discuss, and it always saddens me deeply that you do not even call me when you come [to Moscow]’ (Lotman & Zimin 1963–1971).

37Despite personal difficulties and occasional misunderstandings, Lotman’s interaction with Zimin illustrates the broad scope of Lotman’s exploratory efforts during a period when the circle of Tartu-Moscow semioticians had not yet solidified, and his choice of future collaborators remained open. Eventually, Lotman’s attention shifted toward Moscow linguists whom he also met in the autumn of 1963. It was his collaboration with Boris Uspenskij, Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, Vladimir Toporov, Isaak Revzin, and others that gave rise to the renowned Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics. Nevertheless, this brief and ultimately unrealized episode of intellectual rapprochement between Lotman and the ‘dissident’ historian Zimin underscores the range of possible trajectories that Lotman’s academic alliances could have taken in the early 1960s. In the end, the collaborative project that would come to be known as the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics emerged as a conscious alternative to institutional insularity—an attempt to build a scholarly community grounded in openness, intellectual plurality, and methodological rigor.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Issakov, Sergei & Juri Lotman. 1966. Vanavene kangelaslugu eesti keeles. Keel ja Kirjandus 3. 188–199.

Jakobson, Roman. 1948. L’authenticité du Slovo. Le geste du prince Igor’, épopée russe du XIIe siècle, texte établi, traduit et commenté sous la direction d’Henri Grégoire, de Roman Jakobson et de Marc Szeftel, assistés de J. A. Joffe. New York: Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, t. VIII. 235–360.

Jakobson, Roman. 1966. Retrospect. Selected Writings, vol. 4: Slavic Epic Studies. The Hague: Mouton. 635–704.

Keenan, Edward. 2003. Josef Dobrovský and the Origins of the Igor’ Tale. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies.

Kuchkin, Vladimir & Oleg Tvorogov. 1964. Obsuzhdenie odnoi kontseptsii o vremeni sozdaniia ‘Slova o polku Igoreve’. Voprosy istorii 9. 121–140.

Likhachev, Dmitrii. 1963. Sistema literaturnykh zhanrov drevnei Rusi. Slavianskie literatury: Doklady sovetskoi delegatsii, V Mezhdunarodnyi s’ezd slavistov (Sofiia, sentiabr’ 1963), ed. by V. Vinogradov, A. Robinson. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 47–70.

Lotman, Juri. 1962. ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’ i literaturnaia traditsiia XVIII – nachala XIX veka. ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’ – pamiatnik XII veka, ed. by D. Likhachev. Moscow, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 330-405.

Lotman, Juri. 1964. Otzyv o knige A. A. Zimina ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’ (unpublished typescript). Tallinn University, Juri Lotman Semiotics Repository, fund 3.7, file SV-F3.7-21, 5 pp.

Lotman, Juri. 1971. Eshche raz o poniatiiakh ‘slava’ i ‘chest’’ v tekstakh Kievskogo perioda. Trudy po znakovym sistemam 5. 469–474.

Lotman, Juri & Aleksandr Zimin. 1963–1971. Correspondence (unpublished manuscripts). Zimin’s letters: University of Tartu Library, Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books, fund 135, file Bz539; Tallinn University, Juri Lotman Semiotics Repository, fund 1.1, unpaginated. Lotman’s letters: Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), Aleksandr Zimin collection, delivery inventory, file 318, unpaginated.

Lurie [Lur’e], Iakov. 1963. O sud’bakh perevodnoi belletristiki v Rossii i u zapadnykh slavian v XV–XVI vv. V Mezhdunarodnyi s’ezd slavistov (Sofiia, sentiabr’ 1963). Slavianskie literatury: Doklady sovetskoi delegatsii, ed. by V. Vinogradov, A. Robinson. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 71–88.

Mazon, André. 1940. Le Slovo d’Igor. Paris: Droz.

Pilshchikov, Igor & Mikhail Trunin. 2015. K sporam o ritmicheskoi prirode ‘Slova o polku Igoreve’ (Neopublikovannyi otzyv Ju. M. Lotmana o stat’e L. I. Timofeeva i ego mesto v nauchnom kontekste 1960-x – 1970-x godov). Russkaia literatura 1. 30–57

Sokolova, Lidiia. 1994. K istorii spora o podlinnosti ‘Slova o polku Igoreve’ (Iz perepiski akademika D. S. Likhacheva). Russkaia literatura 2. 232–268.

Sokolova, Lidiia. 2010. Istoriia spora o podlinnosti ‘Slova o polku Igoreve’: Materialy diskussii 1960-kh godov. St. Petersburg: Pushkinskii Dom.

Strakhova, Ol’ga. 2006. Novaia kniga o proiskhozhdenii ‘Slova o polku Igoreve’: shag nazad. Slavianovedenie 2. 37–65.

Zalizniak, Andrei. 2008. Slovo o polku Igoreve: vzgliad lingvista. 3rd ed., expanded. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi.

Zalizniak, Andrei. 2008a. The Problem of the Authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences 78(3). 209–211.

Zimin, Aleksandr. 1963. Slovo o polku Igoreve (Istochniki. Vremia sozdaniia. Avtor). Moscow: AN SSSR, Institut istorii.

Zimin, Aleksandr. 1971. O stat’e J. Lotmana ‘Ob oppozitsii chest’ – slava v svetskih tekstakh Kievskogo perioda’. Trudy po znakovym sistemam 5. 464–468.

Zimin, Aleksandr. 2006. Slovo o polku Igoreve. St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin.

Haut de page

Notes

1  Simultaneously with Zalizniak, Olga Strakhova (whose article Zalizniak cites in expanded editions of his book) demonstrated the inadequacy of Keenan’s arguments concerning the circumstances of the alleged forgery of The Tale (Strakhova 2006). Notably, all the substantial critiques of Keenan’s English-language book were written and published in Russian, thus remaining accessible primarily to Slavists. Only a brief summary of Zalizniak’s arguments is available in English; see Zalizniak 2008a. Keenan’s book, meanwhile, was addressed in English-language scholarship mostly in passing and without detailed critical engagement.

2  Sokolova reports that in October 1977, seventy copies of Zimin’s mimeographed book held at the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences were officially destroyed; three copies were retained by the Archive, while the remaining ones were never returned, in violation of the instructions (Sokolova 2010: 100). One such unreturned copy was preserved in Lotman’s personal library and is now held in his archive at Tallinn University.

3  I have managed to assemble a complete corpus of the correspondence between the two scholars. Zimin’s letters to Lotman are preserved primarily in Lotman’s archive at the University of Tartu Library (Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books), with a few letters held at the Juri Lotman Semiotics Repository at Tallinn University. Lotman’s letters, preserved in Zimin’s archive, were obtained by me courtesy of Vladimir Kozlov (1949–2025), Zimin’s son-in-law, from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I am also grateful to Natalia Zimina for granting access to her father’s archive.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Mikhail Trunin, « The Role of the Debate on the Authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign in the Emergence of a Revolutionary Direction in the Humanities »Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 47-2 | 2026, 197-213.

Référence électronique

Mikhail Trunin, « The Role of the Debate on the Authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign in the Emergence of a Revolutionary Direction in the Humanities »Histoire Épistémologie Langage [En ligne], 47-2 | 2026, mis en ligne le 05 janvier 2026, consulté le 07 juin 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/hel/9045 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15jtp

Haut de page

Auteur

Mikhail Trunin

Tallinn University, School of Humanities

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search