Standing somewhat apart in the cycle of stories about the Battle of Kulikovo is a work briefly called “Zadonshchina,” which has different titles according to the lists. The timing of the text's creation remains controversial. The most substantiated point of view is that “Zadonshchina” was written in the 80s. XIV century, since in 1392 the two cities mentioned in it - Tarnovo and Ornach - were captured and destroyed: one by the Turks, the other by the Tatars. The author of the work is also unknown; the hypothesis about the authorship of Zephanius Ryazan, which was actively discussed in the scientific press, has not been thoroughly confirmed. Most researchers come to the conclusion that he was the author of some literary work about the Battle of Kulikovo, which has not reached us and precedes the “Zadonshchina”.
Composition
The greatest attention to the work from the moment of its discovery was attracted by the fact that the author took “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” as a model of the narrative. But “Zadonshchina” did not become an imitation, in everything following the text of the sample, it is independent work of art, which was undoubtedly influenced by two more traditions - folklore and the tradition of chronicle military stories. In the construction of the text, the author interweaves features of a military story and “The Word...”. The introduction is mainly aimed at poetic monument XII century, Boyan is mentioned here, known before only from the text of the “Words...”. But at the end of the fragment the time of the event is established (“And from the Kalat army to the Momayev massacre is 160 years”), which has no analogy in the “Word...”. The further text of "Zadonshchina" generally repeats the structural three-part scheme of the military story. However, within each of the parts the narrative is built on the basis of individual episodes-pictures, which alternate with the author’s digressions, both of which are often directly oriented towards the text of the earlier monument. At the same time, they are not in all respects similar to the “Word...”. First of all, “Zadonshchina” is characterized by documentary elements that are absent in the work of the 12th century. and expressed in the widespread use of digital data, for example in the speech of the Lithuanian princes: “And the brave Lithuanians are with us 70,000 chained armies”; the number of Novgorod soldiers is indicated: “And with them 7000 troops,” etc. There are lists of names of governors leading units of the army; boyars who died in the first half of the battle; losses of warriors from different lands at the end of the battle. These elements are associated with the tradition of military stories. The same range of documentaries includes three cases of mentioning dates according to church calendar, for example: “And they fought from morning until noon on Saturday on the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God.” This is how the dates of events were often indicated in chronicles.
Basically, in “Zadonshchina” the chronological principle of narration characteristic of a military story is preserved, while in “The Lay...” one of the most important features of the composition can be considered historical digressions, correlated with the destinies of the main characters and the author’s idea. Minor deviations from chronological order in "Zadonshchina" can be explained for various reasons. The passage predicting the victory of the Russian princes at the beginning of the battle (“Shibla glory to the Gallic Gates...”), although it uses the images of the “Word...”, but follows the military chronicle tradition, which allowed predictions of the outcome of the battle before it began, mainly in the form of a mention of the Divine protection of one of the parties.
Another case of fragments moving through time cannot be explained unambiguously. This is a transfer of Peresvet’s speech addressed to Dmitry, and Oslyabi’s prophecy addressed to Peresvet, after the story about the death of the boyars in battle, while both remarks could only be spoken before the battle, since Peresvet died at the very beginning. Most probable cause such a rearrangement is the relative compositional freedom of the text, built on the basis of a chain of episodes-pictures depicting the main moments of events. It is also possible that it arose during the process of rewriting the text, especially since all known copies of the monument contain defects. These minor chronological violations of the text do not change the very principle of the narrative, which is close to a military story.
A significant difference between the composition “Zadonshchina” and the composition “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” is the smaller number of lyrical fragments. They are represented by the author's digressions, most often inspired by the text of an earlier monument, and the laments of Russian wives, which were created in imitation of Yaroslavna's lament, but occupy a different compositional place. Yaroslavna's lament is placed towards the end of the work, when the story about Igor's campaign has already been completed and the princes' call for unity has been made, immediately before the story of Igor's escape from captivity, which is symbolically caused by the lament. The wives' cries in "Zadonshchina" break the story of the Battle of Kulikovo, completing the story of its first half, which was extremely difficult for the Russian army, in which many soldiers died. They add an additional emotional tint to the story of the battle, but do not carry any symbolic meaning. In addition, each of the four laments is many times shorter than Yaroslavna’s lament, uses one image of him, often adding to it stylistic turns from other passages of “The Lay...”.
From others lyrical genres, unknown to the text of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, prayers are used in “Zadonshchina”, one of which is only mentioned, and the other is given in the text. Both were spoken by Dmitry Ivanovich before the battle. In military stories already in the 12th century. Similar fragments began to appear, and in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo they became widespread. The appearance of this genre in “Zadonshchina” is due to the fact that the text contains the motif of God’s patronage of the Russian army, sounding in the author’s remarks and in the refrain taken from “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, but modified. This very motif was widespread in military stories, where it was embodied in formulas of God’s wrath or the protection of one of the parties. In “The Word...” it sounds only in one fragment.
Thus, the lyrical fragments in “Zadonshchina” are few in number and are connected both with the tradition of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” and with the tradition of military stories.
Heroes of "Zadonshchina"
The main character of "Zadonshchina", Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, is presented both in chronicle stories and in "The Tale of Mamaev's massacre", the ideal hero. First of all, he is the unifier of the forces of the Russian princes, and in this regard, undoubtedly, continues the tradition of the image of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kyiv in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” But at the same time, the traits of a brave warrior and commander characteristic of Igor are transferred to him; the author directly borrows the characterization of this hero, giving it to Dmitry and Vladimir. They paint the image of the prince-defender of Rus', his speeches and actions during the preparation of the campaign and in its process. In general, the image of the main character is similar to the chronicles of that era, and only a few stylistic means associate it with the “Word...”. At the same time, it must be admitted that the “Long Chronicle Tale” and “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” paint the image of the main character in a more versatile and detailed way, turning close attention on his personality and inner world.
Other princes are depicted in "Zadonshchina" as part of the chronicle military tradition one or two strokes: they emphasize the desire to unite all the forces of Rus', military valor. Only in the images of Dmitry and Andrei Olgerdovich is the influence of the image of Igor and Vsevolod in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” noticeable.
The enemies of Rus' are depicted more schematically than in other monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. Mamai and his warriors appear only at the moment of flight from the battlefield, and the author conveys the fear and disappointment of the enemies through their gestures and direct speech. The depiction of enemies in “Zadonshchina,” as in “The Lay...” and in the tradition of the military story, is schematic and one-sided; The use of Russian folklore in the speech of the Tatars can be noted as a new feature.
Artistic media in “Zadonshchina”
The visual and expressive means of “Zadonshchina” are also associated with the combination of the three indicated traditions, although the leading influence in this area undoubtedly belongs to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (up to direct borrowings). Folklore influence is most noticeable in the use negative comparisons(in contrast to “The Lay...”, where their function was usually metaphors-symbols, which, on the contrary, were almost never used by the author of “Zadonshchina”).
So, “Zadonshchina” is a monument created at the intersection of three artistic traditions(folklore, tradition of military stories, ideologically and partly stylistically- "Tales about Igor's Campaign"). Based on the structure of the text, the ways of depicting the heroes, the predominance of the epic narrative rather than the emotional and lyrical principle, the tradition of the military story should be recognized as the leading one, accordingly classifying the work as a genre of military story.
Ancient Moscow. XII-XV centuries Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich
"ZADONSHCHINA"
"ZADONSHCHINA"
The attention of literary historians has long been drawn to "Zadonshchina", and nevertheless it cannot be said that the results of its study were completely satisfactory. Most researchers were interested in the question of the imitability of this monument associated with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” S.K. Shambinago writes: “This work, which bore the usual names of the Word or the Tale, but later received the name of the Narrative, was written in imitation of the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” preserving not only its images and expressions, but also its plan.” . The origin of “Zadonshchina” is correlated with the authorship of Zephanius, a priest, a Ryazan resident, named in one list as a Bryansk boyar. The book by S.K. Shambinago depicts the arrival of a southern native in Ryazan, where he brings the manuscript of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” and perhaps an entire library. In N.K. Gudzia, the author of “Zadonshchina” is also a Bryansk boyar, “...apparently, an adherent of Dmitry Bryansky, a participant in the coalition against Mamai, and then a Ryazan priest.” "Zadonshchina" is dedicated and new work on French A. Mazon, who praises it in order to prove that it was the source of the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” considered by A. Mazon as a forged work compiled at the end of the 18th century.
Currently, the question of the origin of “Zadonshchina” is increasingly attracting researchers, especially since a new copy of this work has been found. Personally, he was known to me for a long time from his work on the chroniclers of the State Historical Museum. New list“Zadonshchiny” is included in the Novgorod 4th Chronicle of the Dubrovsky list type (manuscript of the museum collection No. 2060). The meaning of the new list is self-evident if we consider that famous lists Two of these works date back to the 17th century, one (incomplete) to the 15th century. Our list mid-16th century V. the most complete and correct, basically similar to Undolsky’s list.
The text of “Zadonshchina” is inserted into chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo. That's why he remained little known. At the beginning it says: “In the summer of 6887. Praise to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimer Ondreevich, who, by God’s help, defeated the filthy Mamai with all his strength.” This is followed by the text of the chronicle story “about the finding of Mamai,” interrupted by the story of Dmitry Donskoy sending for Prince Vladimir Andreevich and the governors. Here “Zadonshchina” begins: “And then I wrote off pity and praise for Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimer Ondreevich. Let us dream, brothers and friends, sons of Rusti, let us put word by word and magnify the Russian land...”
A. D. Sedelnikov wrote interesting article, in which he connects “Zadonshchina” with Pskov writing, but the evidence is shaky and stands far from the text of “Zadonshchina” itself. Meanwhile, a number of strokes scattered in “Zadonshchina” indicate that the author wrote it in the years close to the Battle of Kulikovo. He was well aware of the life of the highest Moscow circles. So, in the word there appear Moscow “Bolyaryny”, the wives of the deceased governors: the wife of Mikula Vasilyevich - Marya, the wife of Dmitry Vsevolozhsky - also Marya, Fedosya - the wife of Timofey Valuevich, Marya - Andrei Serkizovich, Oksenya (or, according to Undolsky's list, Anisya) - the wife Mikhail Andreevich Brenk. One must assume the author's good knowledge of Moscow affairs in order to explain the appearance of a list of boyars' wives, interesting and understandable only to contemporaries. Of course not to the later author The following words also belong to describe the formidable Russian army: “We have a Komoni greyhound under us, and on ourselves gilded armor, and Cherkassy helmets, and Moscow shields, and Orda sulitsa, and Fransky charms, and damask swords.” The “strong”, “glorious”, “stone” city of Moscow, the fast river Moscow are in the center of the author’s attention.
Our conclusions seem to be contradicted by the reference to Zephanius of Ryazan as the author of the legend. But already S.K. Shambinago noted that in the text of “Zadonshchina” the Ryazan priest Sophony (in our list Efonya) is mentioned in the third person, as if the author of some other work, but in the new list it is said about him like this: “And I I will remember Efonya, the priest of Ryazan, in praise with songs and harps and riotous words.” Considerations of literary historians about the origin of Zephaniah do not change anything in the Moscow character of the work. Indeed, in all Russian cities the nicknames “Ryazanian”, “Volodimerets”, etc. were given to those people who settled in a foreign city. Muscovite did not call himself a Muscovite in Moscow, but called himself that in another place. Therefore, the nickname Ryazanets does not at all contradict the fact that Sophony was a Muscovite, unless his name was inscribed on the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” which the author of “Zadonshchina” used, attributing to him the compilation of this work (and also taking gusl and violent words from there) .
The most important question for us is: when was “Zadonshchina” written? Literary historians answer this in general terms about the composition of the work at the beginning of the 15th century, while in the text of the monument we have a fairly accurate dating indication. In the summary text of S.K. Shambinago, the passage that interests us, rearranged by him to another place, reads like this: “Shibla glory to the sea, Chu, and to the Cafe, and to the Tsar’s city, that Rus' has overcome the filthy.” The given phrase is not in the Kirillo-Belozersky list, and in the Undolsky list it is read in a faulty, but significantly different form than S.K. Shambinago gives it. In it we find the words: “And glory went to the Iron Gates, to Karanachi, to Rome, and to Safa, by sea, and to Kotornov, and from there to Constantinople.”
Having correctly restored the reading “to Cafe” instead of “to Safa,” S. K. Shambinago removed from the text the obscure words “to Kotornov,” and they contain important dating indications. Indeed, in the Museum list we read: “Shibla glory to the Iron Gates, to Rome and to Cafe by sea and to Tornav and then to Constantinople for praise: Great Rus' defeated Mamai on the Kulikovo field” (L. 219v). These words are read in a completely corrupted form in the Synodal list: “Shibla glory to the sea and (to) Vornavich, and to the Iron Gates, to the Cafe and to the Turks and to Tsar-grad.”
It is easy to notice that the phrase about glory changed during correspondence, and some names became incomprehensible. What is unclear in Undolsky’s list is “Karanachi” (in the Synodal – “to Vornavich”) means “to Ornach”, by which we must understand Urgench in Central Asia. The Iron Gate is most likely Derbent, but what does Kotorny mean? The Museum list makes it clear the text of Undolsky's list: one must read “to Tornov” (in the Museum list – “to Tornav”). Under such a name one cannot see any other city except Tarnovo, the capital of Bulgaria. It is known that the latter Bulgarian kingdom was conquered by the Turks in 1393, when Tarnov also fell. This means that the original text of “Zadonshchina” was compiled no later than this year.
Our conclusion can be confirmed by another consideration. IN full lists“Zadonshchina” is shown from the Kalat army to the Mamaev massacre for 160 years. There is no doubt that “Zadonshchina” refers to the battle on Kalka, with which the battle on Kayal, glorified in “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” was confused. The Battle of Kalka took place, according to our chronicles, in 6731 (Lavrentievskaya) or 6732 (Ipatievskaya). In Moscow chronicles, the second date was usually accepted (see Troitskaya, Lvovskaya, etc.). Let's add 160 years to 6732, we get 6892, which is equal to 1384 in our chronology. Meanwhile, in the chronicles, 6888 is constantly indicated as the date of the Battle of Kulikovo. Of course, we can assume an error in the calculation of time, but nothing prevents us from seeing in this a certain dating sign that dates the composition of the monument to 1384.
“Zadonshchina” absorbed many features of Moscow life of the 14th century. Therefore in it North-Eastern Rus' bears the name of Zalesskaya land, as in other monuments of that time. Moscow is called the “glorious city”, the Moscow River is called “fast”, “the honey is our sweet Moscow”, the shields are “Moscow”. The special imitative nature of “Zadonshchina” and its small size did not give its author the opportunity to widely develop Moscow motifs, but even without that “Zadonshchina” can be considered a monument of Moscow literature par excellence, whatever the origin of the author.
From the book Ice battle and other “myths” of Russian history author From the book Battle of the Ice and other “myths” of Russian history author Bychkov Alexey AlexandrovichZadonshchina. Reconstruction based on the Undolsky List A word about Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, how they defeated their adversary Tsar Mamai. Prince great Dmitry Ivanovich with his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, and with his
From the book Dismantling author Kubyakin Oleg Yu.Zadonshchina No less significant “monument of the Kulikovo cycle” is considered “Zadonshchina”. Although it is suggested that the work received its name “Zadonshchina” at a later time. The most likely title is generally considered to be “The Word of the Great
From the book Ancient Moscow. XII-XV centuries author Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich“ZADONSHCHINA” The attention of literary historians has long been drawn to “ZADONSHCHINA”, and yet it cannot be said that the results of its study were completely satisfactory. Most researchers were interested in the question of the imitation of this monument, associated with
From the book Pre-Petrine Rus'. Historical portraits. author Fedorova Olga PetrovnaZADONSHCHINA(148) (extract)<...>While the eagles flocked from all over northern country. It wasn’t the eagles that flocked - all the Russian princes came to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich (149) and his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich (150), telling them this: “Mr. Grand Duke, these are filthy
From the book Book Rus' author Glukhov Alexey GavrilovichThe largest work of the early 15th century about the Battle of Kulikovo is “Zadonshchina,” named after the site of the battle on the Kulikovo field, “beyond the Don.” Already the first stories about this victory, which appeared shortly after the events of 1380, are characterized by the search for a heroic style capable of reflecting the greatness of the event. In “Zadonshchina” this heroic style was found: it appeared in a combination of the manner of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and folk poetry. The author of “Zadon-shchina” correctly felt the poetry of “The Word...”, not limiting himself only to superficial borrowings, but managing to present the heroic events of the Battle of Kulikovo in the same artistic system, creating a work of great aesthetic power.
“Zadonshchina” is essentially an extensive glorification of victory, which is combined with sadness for the fallen. As the author puts it, this is “pity and praise”: pity for the dead, praise for the living. Moments of glory and praise are combined in it with motives of lamentation, joy - with “tightness”, menacing premonitions - with happy omens.
The beginning and end of the “pity of the Russian land” (as the author calls the Mongol-Tatar yoke) are in many ways similar, but in many ways they are opposite. Events are compared and contrasted throughout “Zadonshchina.” In this convergence of events of the past and present is the pathos of the historical plan of “Zadonshchina”, which reflected the common in historical thought of the late XIV - early XV centuries, the rapprochement of the struggle with the Polovtsians and the struggle with the Tatars as two stages of an essentially unified struggle with the steppe, with the “wild field” for national independence.
The central moment in “Zadonshchina” is the battle “with the filthy”, which unfolds dramatically in two episodes. The outcome of the first half of the battle threatens the defeat of the Russian army, and the second half brings victory. Ominous signs accompany the campaign of the Tatar army here: birds fly under the clouds, crows often play, and the Galits speak their speech, eagles squeal, wolves howl menacingly, and foxes rattle on bones. The Russian sons fenced off the wide fields with a clique, the black soil under the hooves of the Tatar bones was sown. The “Tatar” land groaned, becoming covered in troubles and “tightness,” and joy and rioting spread across the Russian land.
The beginning of that historical period, from which the Russian land “sits gloomily”, the author of “Zadonshchina” refers to the battle on Kayal, when the troops of Igor Novgorod-Seversky were defeated; “Zadonshchina”, therefore, tells the story of the end of the era of “toughness and sadness,” the era of foreign yoke, the beginning of which is spoken of in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
The central idea of “Zadonshchina” is the idea of retribution; the Battle of Kulikovo is seen as retribution for the defeat suffered by the troops of Prince Igor on Kayal, which the author deliberately identifies with the Kalka River, the defeat on which in 1223 was the first stage of the conquest of Russia by the Tatars.
That is why, at the beginning of his work, the author invites brothers, friends and sons of Russians to gather, put together word by word, rejoice the Russian land and cast down
sadness on eastern country, to the country of primordial enemies - the Tatar-Polovtsian steppe, to proclaim victory over Mamai, to praise Grand Duke Dmitry.
By comparing the events of the past with the events of his time, the author of “Zadonshchina” thereby oriented the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” itself towards the present, gave a new, topical sound to its content, gave new meaning calls of the “Word...” for unity, having in many ways done the same work as the Moscow chroniclers, who introduced similar ideas from the “Tale of Bygone Years” into circulation.
At the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV century. a poetic story about the Battle of Kulikovo was written - “Zadonshchina”, preserved in six copies, two editions. The oldest list that has come down to us dates back to the 70s of the 15th century; the list has no end, there are many omissions.
Lists of the 16th and 17th centuries. are also defective, but on their basis S.K. Shambinago reconstructed the consolidated text of “Zadonshchina”. A textual analysis of the surviving lists of “Zadonshchina” was carried out by R. P. Dmitrieva.
The name “Zadonshchina” appears only in the title of the K-B list and belongs to the author of this list, Efrosin; in other lists the monument is called the “Word” about Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimir Andreevich or “Praise” to these princes.
“Zadonshchina” is dedicated to the glorification of the victory of Russian troops over the Mongol-Tatar hordes; its author drew factual material from the chronicle story, and the literary model was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
Revealing the connection later work art with its prototype, the researcher does not limit himself to simply establishing a fact: he strives precisely in this plan to find the reason for the artist’s appeal to this model.
It is usually easy to determine which of two overlapping works is the original. Two monuments, ideologically and artistically connected with each other, found themselves in a special situation - “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and “Zadonshchina”. Each of these monuments is dedicated to a precisely dated event - Igor Svyatoslavich’s campaign against the Polovtsians in 1185 and the Battle of Kulikovo in 1330. But while “Zadonshchina,” although unknown in the author’s list or one close to it, still reached the manuscript in 1470 s and later, and therefore its dating did not cause much controversy, the fate of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” gave skeptics additional reason to doubt its proximity to the event described in it. This work, even in the burned Musin-Pushkin copy, was only read in a copy no older than the end of the 15th century. In the three centuries separating this copy from the author’s text, not a single copy has survived, and to top it all off, the Musin-Pushkin manuscript burned, and the only evidence of its existence remained the 1800 edition, Catherine’s copy and translations late XVIII V.
In the preface to “Zadonshchina”, only one name of the river on which in the past the Russians were defeated by the “filthy”, “Kayala”, is reminiscent of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”. However, due to the fact that the “Kayala River” as the site of the battle is also in the description of Igor Svyatoslavich’s campaign in the Ipatiev Chronicle, we will not bring our monuments together on the basis of the presence in both of this still not entirely clear geographical (or stylistic?) name. 5 The undoubted roll call of “Zadonshchina” and “The Lay” begins with the same introductory phrase, with which each author prefaces his narrative:
The next episode of “Zadonshchina”, which brings it closer to “The Lay”, is a characterization of princes Dmitry Ivanovich and Vladimir Andreevich, repeated almost verbatim in the description psychological state Igor Svyatoslavich, setting out on a campaign:
This episode of The Word contains one of the hapaxes not found in the others. ancient Russian monuments, - verb “I will torture.” Researchers, comparing it with the same root “contract”,
The description of the beginning of Prince Igor’s campaign does not immediately result in its final form in the Lay: the author reflects on how Boyan would begin this story, and therefore turns his thoughts to this old singer: “Oh Boyan, the nightingale of the old time, if only you had tickled his cheeks " Boyan’s metaphorical epithet in “Zadonshchina” corresponds to the real image of a lark, to which the author turns with a request to sing the glory of the Grand Duke and his brother: “O lark bird, red days of joy, fly under the blue skies, look to the strong city of Moscow, sing glory.” However, in “Zadonshchina” there is a closer parallel to the image of Boyan the Nightingale, although also devoid of metaphorical meaning.
Comparing the text of this characteristic of the warriors in the two monuments, restored on the basis of the surviving lists of “Zadonshchina,” we discover an almost complete coincidence between them. “Kameti” “Words” could not find a place in “Zadonshchina”, where it was not about the prince’s warriors, but about the leaders of the army themselves, hence their name “commanders”.
Andrei Olgerdovich’s speech in “Zadonshchina” echoes both the beginning of Vsevolod’s appeal and Igor Svyatoslavich’s previous call to the squad:
From the moment of the Mamaev massacre, a turning point came in the fate of the Russian land: “Let us descend, brothers and friends and sons of Russia, let us compose word for word, rejoice the Russian land and cast sorrow on the eastern country.”
And we can trace such comparison and contrast throughout the text. Let's give just one example. When Dmitry sets out on a campaign, “the sun shines clearly for him and will tell him the way.” Let us recall that in the Lay Igor’s army leaves at the moment solar eclipse(“Then Igor looked at the bright sun and saw that all his howls were covered with darkness”).
In the story “Zadonshchina” about the movement of Mamai’s forces to the Kulikovo field, a picture of ominous natural phenomena is given: “And already their misfortunes are shepherded by birds winging, flying under the clouds, crows often playing, and Galicians speaking their speeches, eagles slurping, and wolves howling menacingly, and foxes break bones." In the Lay this passage is correlated with the march of Russian forces.
In “Zadonshchina”, in comparison with “The Lay”, images of church poetics are more often used (“for the land, for the Russian and for the peasant faith”, “stepping into our golden stirrup, and taking up our sword in right hand, and pray to God and his most pure mother,” etc.). The author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” turned to the means of oral folk poetics and reworked them creatively, creating his own original poetic images on folklore material.
The author of “Zadonshchina” simplifies many of these images; his poetic means, which go back to poetics oral creativity, closer to their prototypes, a number of original epithets of “Zadonshchina” in comparison with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” are clearly of a folk-oral nature (the phrase “such is the word”, “fast Don”, “damp land” and some others typical for the epic style) .
In all lists the text is heavily distorted and full of errors, K-B list is a reduction-processing of the original text made by Efrosyn. The poor preservation of the text of “Zadonshchina” in surviving copies forces us to use the reconstructed text of the work.
In “Zadonshchina” we do not have a description of the vicissitudes of the Battle of Kulikovo (we will find all this in “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”), but a poetic expression of emotional and lyrical feelings about the event. The author recalls both the past and the present, his story is transferred from one place to another: from Moscow to the Kulikovo Field, again to Moscow, to Novgorod, again to the Kulikovo Field. He himself defined the nature of his work as “pity and praise for Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimer Ondreevich.”
This is pity—crying for the dead, and praise—glory to the courage and military valor of the Russians.
The style of “Zadonshchina” is distinguished by its diversity: the poetic parts of the monument are closely intertwined with parts of a prosaic, sometimes even businesslike nature. It is possible that this diversity and “disorganization” of the text is explained by the state of the copies of the monument that have reached us. Prosaisms could have arisen as a result of later stratifications, and do not reflect the author's text.
Features of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” as a monument of the Kulikovo cycle
Most detailed description events of the Battle of Kulikovo were preserved for us by “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” - the main monument of the Kulikovo cycle. This work was extremely popular among ancient Russian readers.
The legend was rewritten and revised many times and came to us in eight editions and large quantities options. The popularity of the monument among the medieval reader as “someone’s” work is evidenced by the large number of front copies (illustrated with miniatures) of it.
The exact time of creation of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” is unknown. There are anachronisms and errors in the text of the Legend (we will dwell on some of them in more detail below). They are usually explained by the late origin of the monument. This is a deep misconception.
Some of these “mistakes” are so obvious that in the extended narrative historical event they could not have taken place if the author had not pursued some specific goal. And, as we will see later, the deliberate replacement of one name with another made sense only if the story was compiled at a time not too distant from the events described in it. Anachronisms and “mistakes” of the Legend are explained by the journalistic orientation of the work.
IN lately the question of dating the Legend has attracted a lot of attention. Yu. K. Begunov dates the creation of the Legend to the period between the middle and end of the 15th century, I. B. Grekov - to the 90s. XIV century, V. S. Mingalev - by the 30-40s. XVI century, M.A. Salmina - to the period from the 40s. XV century to early XVI V.
This question is very hypothetical and cannot be considered resolved. It is considered most likely to date the origin of the Legend to the first quarter of the 15th century. Special Interest to the Battle of Kulikovo at this time can be explained by the newly aggravated relations with the Horde, and in particular by the invasion of Edigei to Rus' in 1408.
The invasion of Edigei, the success of which was explained by the lack of cohesion and unanimity of the Russian princes, awakens the idea of the need to restore unity under the leadership of the Grand Duke of Moscow to fight the external enemy. This idea is the main one in the Legend.
The main character of the Legend is Dmitry Donskoy. The legend is not only a story about the Battle of Kulikovo, but also a work dedicated to the praise of the Grand Duke of Moscow. The author portrays Dmitry as a wise and courageous commander, emphasizing his military valor and courage. All other characters are grouped around Dmitry Donskoy. Dmitry is the eldest among the Russian princes, all of them are his faithful vassals, his younger brothers.
The relationship between senior and junior princes, which seems ideal to the author and which all Russian princes should follow, is shown in the monument using the example of the relationship between Dmitry Ivanovich and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky.
Vladimir Andreevich is portrayed everywhere as a faithful vassal of the Grand Duke of Moscow, unquestioningly carrying out all his commands. Such an emphasis on the devotion and love of the Prince of Serpukhov to the Prince of Moscow clearly illustrated vassal loyalty younger prince to the elder prince.
In the Legend, Dmitry Ivanovich’s campaign is blessed by Metropolitan Cyprian, who in fact in 1380 was not even within Rus', and because of the “mess up” at the metropolis, there was no metropolitan in Moscow at that time. This, of course, is not a mistake by the author of the Tale, but a literary and journalistic device.
The author of the Legend, who set his goal in the person of Dmitry Donskoy to show perfect image Grand Duke of Moscow, it was necessary to present him as supporting a strong alliance with the Metropolitan. In number characters for journalistic reasons, the author could introduce Metropolitan Cyprian, although this contradicted historical reality (formally Cyprian was at that time the Metropolitan of All Rus').
The principle of “abstract psychologism” in in this case appears very clearly. The Tatars are also directly opposed to Russian warriors. Russian army characterized as bright, moral high strength, Tatar - like a dark, cruel, sharply negative force. Even death is completely different for both.
For the Russians this is glory and salvation for eternal life, for the Tatars it is endless destruction: “Many people become sad because of both, seeing death before their eyes. Having begun to defile the Polovtsians, they were darkened with much grief over the destruction of their lives, before the wicked died, and their memory perished with a noise. And people who are orthodox are more than prosperous, rejoicing, longing for this fulfilled promise, for beautiful crowns, about which the Venerable Abbot Sergius told the Grand Duke.”
The Lithuanian ally of Mamai in the Legend is named Prince Olgerd. In fact, during the events of the Battle of Kulikovo, the son of Olgerd Jagiello concluded an alliance with Mamai, and Olgerd had already died by this time. As in the case of Cyprian, this is not a mistake, but a conscious literary and journalistic device.
For Russian people of the late XIV - early XV centuries, and especially for Muscovites, the name of Olgerd was associated with memories of his campaigns against Principality of Moscow; he was an insidious and dangerous enemy of Rus', whose military cunning was reported in the chronicle obituary article about his death.
Therefore, they could call Olgerd an ally of Mamai instead of Jogaila only at a time when this name was still well remembered as the name of a dangerous enemy of Moscow. At a later time, such a change of names did not make any sense. It is no coincidence that already in early period literary history monument in some editions of the Legend, the name of Olgerd was replaced in accordance with historical truth named after Jogaila. By calling Mamai Olgerd an ally, the author of the Legend thereby strengthened both the journalistic and artistic sound of his work: the most insidious and dangerous enemies, but they too were defeated.
Name replacement Lithuanian prince had another connotation: the princes Andrei and Dmitry Olgerdovich, the children of Olgerd, acted in alliance with Dmitry. Due to the fact that Olgerd appeared in the Tale, it turned out that even his own children opposed him, which also enhanced the journalistic and plot sharpness of the work.
The heroic nature of the event depicted in the Legend led the author to turn to oral traditions about the Massacre of Mamaev, to epic stories about this event. An episode of single combat before the start of the war most likely dates back to oral traditions. general battle monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of Peresvet with a Tatar hero.
The epic basis is felt in the story about the “test of omens” by Dmitry Volynets - the experienced governor Dmitry Volynets with the Grand Duke on the night before the battle go into the field between the Russians and Tatar troops, and Volynets hears how the earth is crying “in two” - about the Tatar and Russian warriors: there will be many killed, but the Russians will still prevail. Oral tradition probably underlies the message of the Legend that before the battle Dmitry put princely armor on his beloved governor Mikhail Brenka, and he himself, in the clothes of a simple warrior with an iron club, was the first to rush into battle.
The influence of oral folk poetry on the Legend is revealed in the author’s use of individual visual arts, going back to the techniques of oral folk art. Russian warriors are compared to falcons and gyrfalcons, Russians beat their enemies “like a forest, like a scythe of grass.” Crying can be regarded as a reflection of folklore influence Grand Duchess Evdokia, after saying goodbye to the prince, leaving Moscow to fight the Tatars.
Although the author gives this lamentation in the form of a prayer, one can still note in it a reflection of the elements of folk lamentation. The descriptions of the Russian army are imbued with poetry (“The armor of the Russian sons, like water swaying in all the winds. The golden Sholoms on their heads, like the dawn of the morning during buckets of light, the yalovtsi of their Sholoms, like a fiery flame plows”), the pictures of nature are bright, deeply Some of the author's comments are emotional and not devoid of life-like truthfulness.
Talking, for example, about the farewell of soldiers leaving Moscow for battle with their wives, the author writes that the wives “were unable to utter a word in tears and heartfelt exclamations,” and adds that “the great prince himself could hardly help himself from tears, without giving I want to make the people cry."
“The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” was of interest to readers simply because it described in detail all the circumstances of the Battle of Kulikovo. Some of them were of a legendary-epic nature, some are a reflection of actual facts not recorded in any other sources.
However, this is not the only attractiveness of the work. Despite a significant touch of rhetoric, “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” has a pronounced plot character. Not only the event itself, but also the fates of individuals, the development of the twists and turns of the plot made readers worry and empathize with what was being described.
And in a number of editions of the monument, the plot episodes become more complex and their number increases. All this made “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” not only a historical and journalistic narrative, but also a work that could captivate the reader with its plot and the nature of the development of this plot.
