Why is the legendary epic ‘The Tale of Igor's Campaign’ a ‘Russian Shakespeare’?

The history of Russian literature has its own “Shakespearean question”. Just as English-speaking researchers have been arguing for centuries about whether a glovemaker’s son and a provincial actor could have written ‘Romeo and Juliet’, ‘Hamlet’ and ‘A Midsummer Night's Dream’, Slavists have been breaking spears for two centuries over the work of Old Russian literature of the 12th century, describing the unsuccessful campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversky against the Polovtsians in 1185.

If no one doubts the authenticity of Shakespeare's works - the author himself raises questions, in the case of ‘The Tale of Igor's Campaign’ all is not so clear. The original manuscript, found in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery by Count Alexei Musin-Pushkin, a collector of antiquities, burned up in the fire of 1812, along with most of his collection. However, two copies remained. One is a luxurious one, made in the 1790s for Empress Catherine II by professional scribes.

The second is Musin-Pushkin's own copy, made a little earlier than Catherine's copy. It was used in the preparation of the first edition of 1800. This list (copy) is important for comparison with Catherine's copy and for studying the history of the preparation of the first edition. It contains some discrepancies and notes that are not in the Catherine copy, reflecting the individual work of the editors.

And there are also written out quotations from historian Nikolai Karamzin, as well as a paraphrase in his famous work ‘The History of the Russian State’. All this confirms the fact that the historian was familiar with the manuscript before its first publication, that it really existed and was burnt in a fire.

Nevertheless, doubts that ‘The Tale of Igor's Campaign’ is not a work of the 12th century, but a forgery from the 18th century, arose almost immediately. Why?

1) “It is written too beautifully.” – The style and artistic language of the work is poetic and imaginative. Could one write like this in such ancient times?

2) Some linguistic forms and words contradicted the then-current ideas of researchers about the Old Russian language of the 12th century.

3) Historical details of the description of Igor's campaign, other princes and geographical names were considered inconsistent with known historical facts (although many of these “inaccuracies” later found an explanation).

4) Only one ancient copy of the ‘Tale’ and the absence of references in other chronicles or monuments of Old Russian literature. All this suggested that simply on the wave of patriotic upsurge of the 18th century, Russians “wanted their own epic” and quickly wrote it.

However, just as the “Shakespeare question” was eventually resolved in favour of William Shakespeare, subsequent studies of ‘The Tale’ have shown that the work is authentic, after all. 

Among other arguments, these three remove all questions of authenticity.

First: The discovery of “Zadonshchina” in the 19th century. Another work of Old Russian literature, but later, late 14th - early 15th centuries, written presumably by Sophonii from Ryazan, which glorifies the victory of Dmitry Donskoy over Mamai. It contains direct quotes, as well as stylistic and figurative borrowings from ‘The Tale of Igor's Campaign’. This means that the author was familiar with the ‘Tale’ and deliberately quoted it. At the same time, the language of ‘Zadonshchina’ is less ancient than that of the ‘Tale’.

Second: Birch bark letters found in the 20th century. They confirmed the existence of many words, grammatical forms and turns used in the ‘Tale’, which were previously considered dubious.

Third: Historical realities. The details of Igor's campaign, the genealogy of princes, geography, the customs and beliefs mentioned find numerous confirmations in chronicles and other sources of the 12th-13th centuries.

Thus, the modern scientific consensus is that ‘The Tale of Igor's Campaign’ is a genuine monument of the 12th century and not a late forgery.