Dear List,
I had been curious about Nabokov's apparent search for
a godly and unique "prime word" ( or, as with numbers, for a
succession of "primes"?) and recently quoted Brian
Boyd's (RY) comments on Nabokov's
short-story "Slovo" (The Word), written in January 1923: "he wakes up to real life with no recollection of the magic
word. "
Today I found J.A.V.Haney's, 1992, commentaries on IT (
Igor's Tale) offering an interesting explanation about this Russian term
- as it was used in a title:"Slovo o pulku
Igoreve".
Such references might be of interest
to those who, like me, speak no Russian. It has ressonances with our present discussion
with lay (mine) mentions to Saussure's "signifiers";
also to VN's apparently
irreverent inclusion, in TRLSK , of the name Olga Olegovna
Orlova, or to Oleg in PF.
(Perhaps Matt Roth would care to add
a comment on this work, its translations & VN?)
Here is the excerpt from J.A.V.
Haney's text as it is available in the
internet:
"This title["Slovo o pulku Igoreve"], as given
in the first edition, may not have been part of the twelfth-century
text[*]. The word slovo appears frequently as a genre
designation in Old Russian literature, but it is difficult to know precisely
what was meant by it. It seems safe to assume that a slovo was intended for oral
presentation, that its themes were not primarily lyrical, but political, and
above all moral and philosophical. It is close to the Greek logos and Latin
sermo. It might be translated as 'discourse' and be less misleading than other
possibilities: a "song" implies fixed melos and more than the metrical
accompaniment which the poem was likely to have had; a "lay" suggests not only a
song but also much more of a narrative structure than the Slovo seems to be. The
"tale'" would suggest more fiction than is the case, while "poem" overemphasizes
the formal aspects of the work, which is nonetheless a poem [...] The
word pulk is an ancient borrowing from Germanic. It has several meanings,
including: campaign, trcop, battle, encampment, and folk--its English
cognate."
..................................................................................................................
[*]
: This Commentary necessarily comprises a complex array of literary, historical,
textual and linguistic information relating to a work probably composed in the
twelfth century and copied out as we know it in the fifteenth, then presented in
its first modern edition nearly two centuries ago. It has been discussed
enigmatically ever since [...] These strophes are not divisions marked in any of
the sources for the poem but instead represent the supposition that the poem is
constructed with alternating passages: some in the Igor poet's own time (the
even-numbered strophes) and the others in a style used by the poet to evoke more
ancient times (the odd-numbered strophes) [...]. Any lineation of the text is a
matter of hypothesis. The manuscript source for the first edition of the work
and for the copy made for the Empress Catherine II, our only surviving sources
for the Slovo knew no such divisions. It was apparently written in "run-on"
fashion, without divisions of words, let alone such phenomena as strophes or
stanzas. We can be rather certain, in fact, that the scribe who laboriously
copied out the tale, probably in the early fifteenth century, did not know that
it was a poem, so different were its language and prosodic principles from the
standard of his own time.[...] In the Old Russian text they were not by 1185
pronounced finally in a "word," but that they had assumed their ultimate roles
within the word is less clear[...]. Modern usage obscures history and has
unfortunately afforded the opportunity for nationalism to raise its ugly head
[...] Old Russian is the language in which the Slovo was written, and it depicts
incidents that took place in a land called Rus.[...] It must be remembered that
in all likelihood the Slovo was intended for oral recitation, whether it was
first written down or whether even orally composed and then committed to
parchment The anonymous poet could assume from his twelfth-century audience a
familiarity not only with the Kievan Rus of the late twelfth century, with its
peculiar flora and fauna, but also a familiarity with the political events of
the time, be they the local squabbles of the descendants of Oleg [...] The
listener knew that the princes of the Kievan area were weak and but dimly shared
in the glory of the "golden age" that ended with the death of Vladimir II
Monomakh (in 1125). That listener also presumably knew the story of the Rus land
and people from the dim and distant tenth century. A poet's sly hints and
allusions, his irony and his metaphors, however recondite they seem to the
twentieth~century reader, were immediately intelligible and, one may assume,
enjoyed.[...] [...] Though the poet could likely have assumed that his audience
would know the genealogies of the princes who figure in the Slovo the modern
reader needs an introduction[...] All claimed descent from Prince, later Saint,
Vladimir I, who ruled in Kiev from 980 into 1015 and made Christianity the state
religion. Vladimir's reign divides the pagan and Christian eras, the 'two ends
of time' recognized by the poet and given such thematic importance [...]
Igor Sviatoslavich was born in 1151. He was the eldest son of Prince Sviatoslav
Olgovich (son of Oleg), and he was prince in Novgorod-Seversk from 1179 until
1198 when he succeeded his cousin Iaroslav Vsevolodovich as prince in Chernigov.
Igor ruled in Chernigov until his death in 1202. The poem makes no mention of
Igor's father, but it is much concerned with his grandfather, Oleg
Sviatoslavich[...] The descendants of Monomakh were from 1113 until the Mongol
invasions of the thirteenth century the real rulers of Rus, while the
descendants of Oleg (including Igor, his brother Vsevolod and his various
cousins such as Sviatoslav of Kiev and Iaroslav of Chernigov) ruled less
important territories and were subject to the whims of the princes of the
Monomakh line. (J.A.V.Haney)