What is the political center of the word about the regiment. Analysis of the work “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”

Option 1

1) Vladimir Monomakh

2) chronicler Nestor

3) Daniil Sharpener

2. One of the first copies of “The Lay...” was intended:

1) Peter I

2) Alexander II

3) Catherine II

4) Elizaveta Petrovna

3. What was the result of the first battle with the Polovtsians?

1) the Cumans immediately surrendered

2) Prince Igor’s army was defeated

3) the Polovtsian army was defeated

4) the Polovtsians drove the Russian army far back

4. What is the role of the “Golden Word of Svyatoslav” in the “Word ...”?

1) is an inserted episode in the work

2) is the political center of “Slovo...”

3) with the help of “The Golden Word of Svyatoslav” the reader learns about Igor’s pedigree

5. How does “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” end?

1) death of Igor

2) Igor’s escape from captivity

3) Igor remains in captivity

4) execution of Igor

6. Who prowled to the roosters of Tmutarakan?

1) Yaroslav

2) Izyaslav

3) Igor

4) Vseslav

5) Nobody dared

7. Who did Yaroslavna want to fly along the Danube?

1) Fly

2) Swan

3) Falcon

4) Eagle

5) Cuckoo

8. "Igor and Svyatoslav in “The Tale of Igor’s Host” (comparative analysis)"

Option 2

1. When was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” created?

1) in the 11th century

2) in the 12th century

3) in the 13th century

4) in the 15th century

2. Original “Words...”:

1) was lost during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

2) burned down during a fire in Moscow in 1812

3) Catherine II gave it to the Prussian king

4) was stolen from archives in the 19th century

3. What happened to Igor during the second battle?

1) was killed

2) was wounded and captured

3) was wounded, but was able to escape with his brother Vsevolod

4) was seriously wounded

4. The main idea of ​​“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is:

1) glorification of Igor’s feat

2) condemnation of Igor’s campaign

3) passionate appeal of Russian princes for unification

4) glory to the Kyiv prince

5. Indicate which of the Russian poets did not translate “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”

1) V. A. Zhukovsky

2) V. I. Maikov

3) N. A. Zabolotsky

4) A. S. Pushkin

6. How did the night awaken the birds?

1) The sound of rain

2) Moans of a thunderstorm

3) The rustle of leaves

4) Movement of troops

5) Battle

7. Who did Igor turn to first when the Polovtsians “moved forward”?

1) Into the wolf

2) In ermine

3) In Gogol

4) In the falcon

5) In the goose

8. Essay - miniature on the topic: "Depiction of nature by the author of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign"

Option 3

1. From what language was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” translated?

1) from Old Church Slavonic

2) from Old Russian

3) from Church Slavonic

4) from Latin

2. What event is the work talking about?

1) on the creation of a unified Moscow state at the end of the 13th century

2) about Monomakh’s campaign against the Polovtsians in 1115

3) about the Tatar-Mongol yoke in the 13th century

4) about the campaign of Prince Igor against the Polovtsians in 1185

3. Who are we talking about? “...full of sadness, crying like a cuckoo in the Jura.”

1) Yaroslavna

2) Olga

3) daughter of Khan Konchak

4) Elena

4. Indicate which of the listed princes is not a participant in Igor’s campaign.

1) Svyatoslav Rylsky

2) Vladimir Monomakh

3) Vladimir Putivlsky

4) Vsevolod Kursky

5 . The main character of “The Lay...” Igor was a prince...

1) Pereyaslavl-Zalessky;

2) Novgorod-Seversky;

3) Vladimir.

6. Where did Vladimir “plug his ears”?

1) In Vladimir

2) In Novgorod

3) In Pskov

4) In Moscow

5) In Chernigov

7. To whom was Igor going in Borichev?

1) To the Mother of God

2) To Yaroslavna

3) To Saints Boris and Gleb

4) To Svyatoslav

5) To Vsevolod

8. Essay - miniature on the topic: " What is the attitude of the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” to the main character of the story?

Option 4

1. When was the manuscript with “The Word...” discovered?

1) at the end of the 13th century

2) at the end of the 12th century

3) at the beginning of the 19th century

4) at the end of the 18th century

2. How did Prince Igor’s campaign end?

1) The Russian army defeated the Polovtsians.

2) Igor was mortally wounded.

3) Prince Igor and his army were defeated and captured.

4) Neither side won.

3. Who are we talking about? “...I chose courage as my support, I sharpened my heart with a military spirit...” (translation by N. Zabolotsky).

1) Vsevolod

2) Oleg

3) Yaroslav

4) Igor

4. Indicate the nickname of Igor's brother Vsevolod.

1) Red

2) Wise

3) Bui-Tur

4) Goreslavich

5. Before the hike Igor...

1) asked for permission from the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav and received it;

2) asked for permission from the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav and did not receive it;

3) did not agree with Svyatoslav.

6. What was the wine that was served to Svyatoslav mixed with?

1) With anger

2) With grief

3) With resentment

4) With sadness

5) With courage

6. Determine from the statement of the hero of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: “Brotherhood and squad! It is better to be killed than captured; Let us sit down, brothers, on our greyhound horses, and look at the blue Don.”

1) Rostislav

2) Svyatoslav

3) Vladimir

4) Igor

7. What is the next episode of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” about: “The earth clattered, the grass rustled... And Prince Igor galloped like an ermine to the reeds and, like a white nog, to the water. He jumped onto a greyhound horse and jumped off it like a gray wolf... and flew like a falcon over the clouds, killing geese and swans”?

1) Igor's defeat in battle

2) Igor’s escape from captivity

3) Igor’s campaign against the Polovtsians

4) Overnight stay for Igor’s troops in the steppe

8. Essay - miniature on the topic : "The embodiment of the idea of ​​the unity of the Russian land in the Tale of Igor's Campaign"

Option 5

1. A.I. Musin-Pushkin first published “The Word...”:

1) in 1812

2) in 1800

3) in 1805

4) in 1806

2. How many battles were there?

1) 1

2) 2

3) 3

4) 4

3. What means of expression did the author use in the phrase below?

“The raw mother earth groans with a groan” (translation by N. Zabolotsky).

1) oxymoron

2) personification

3) gradation

4) anaphora

4. What was the name of the khan with whom Igor entered into battle?

1) Kobyak

2) Sharukan

3) Konchak

5. Boyan grandson...

1) Trojan

2) Simargla

3) Veles

4) Svarog

5) Nightingale

6. Whose “brave thought attracts the mind to heroic deeds”?

1) From Roman and Mstislav

2) In Rurik and Davyd

3) With Igor and Vsevolod

4) At Svyatoslav and Oleg's

5) At Ingvar and Yaroslav

7. Which episode of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” precedes the tragic lines: “Darkness covered the light: the Polovtsians spread across the Russian land”?

2) “The Golden Word” by Svyatoslav

3) The story of Igor’s defeat

4) Yaroslavna's lament

8 . Essay - miniature on the topic : " Why is the image of Yaroslavna from “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” included in the gallery of classical images of Russian literature?

D.S. Likhachev

The Golden Word of Russian Literature

About eight centuries ago, in 1187, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was created - a brilliant work of ancient Russian literature. The passing centuries have not muffled its poetic sound or erased its colors. Interest in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” not only has not diminished, but is becoming more and more widespread, more and more profound.
Why is this work so durable, so small in size? Why do the ideas of the “Word” continue to excite us?
Love for the Motherland inspired the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” She seemed to be guiding him with a pen. She made his work immortal - equally understandable and close to all people who truly love their Motherland and their people.
“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is imbued with great human feeling - a warm, gentle and strong feeling of love for the Motherland. The “Word” is literally drunk with it. This feeling is reflected in the emotional excitement with which the author of the Lay speaks about the defeat of Igor’s troops, and in the way he conveys the words of Russian wives crying for the killed soldiers, and in the broad picture of Russian nature, and in the joy of Igor’s return .
The significance of the “Word” is especially great for us also because it is a living and indisputable evidence of the height of ancient Russian culture, its originality and its nationality.

Rus' of time "Tales of Igor's Campaign"

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was created in the years when the process of fragmentation of Rus' reached its greatest strength. Many small principalities - "semi-states" - are at enmity with each other, challenging each other's possessions, seniority, being drawn into fratricidal wars in the name of selfish princely interests. The importance of Kyiv as the center of the Russian land is declining.
The collapse of the unified Kyiv state began already under Yaroslav the Wise, in the first half of the 11th century, when the Polotsk land became isolated. The death of Yaroslav the Wise led to the further division of the Russian land. According to Yaroslav's will, the main Russian cities of that time: Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Vladimir-Volynsky, Smolensk, with their surrounding regions, were distributed among his sons. At the end of the 11th century, the Chernigov principality was finally assigned to Yaroslav's grandson, Oleg Svyatoslavich, and his descendants. The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Host” nicknamed this Oleg Svyatoslavich Oleg Gorislavich, correctly identifying him as one of those princes from whom the Russian land was “sown with strife.”

The separation of individual lands as hereditary princely possessions was recognized under Vladimir Monomakh at the Lyubech Congress of Princes in 1097. One of the decisions of this congress read: “Let everyone keep his fatherland,” that is, “Let everyone own his father’s land.”

The Lyubech Congress, which recognized the division of the Russian land, did not even lead the princes to a temporary agreement; its decisions were immediately violated. One of the princes - Vasilek Terebovlsky - was treacherously captured by the other two and blinded. Princely discord began again. Calling for unity, the people of Kiev turned to Vladimir Monomakh with a request not to “destroy the Russian lands” with their strife, recalling that the enemies of the Motherland - the Polovtsy - “should rejoice and disturb our land.” The call ended with a direct reproach to the princes who, with their strife, want to “destroy the Russian land.” This call of the people to the princes was on the lips of every generation of Russian people, in every principality, in every city.

Galich, Ryazan, Smolensk, Vladimir-Volynsky, Vladimir-Zalessky, Rostov, Novgorod - all these regional centers are resolutely striving for political independence, leaving the influence of the weakening golden table of Kiev, withdrawing into their selfish local interests; the princes enter into struggle with each other, say about small things “this is great” and get bogged down in endless fratricidal wars.

The internecine struggle of the princes was tragically complicated by the Polovtsian danger hanging over Russia. The Polovtsians occupied the steppes between the Volga and Dnieper, the Crimea in the middle of the 11th century and penetrated the Balkan Peninsula. They represented such a powerful military force that they repeatedly threatened the existence of the Byzantine Empire, and the latter constantly turned to the Russian princes for help. At the beginning of the 12th century, the Russian princes managed to win major victories over the Cumans, but the Cumans continued to ravage the civilian population of Russian villages and cities: they robbed the rural population, burned cities, beat and drove residents into slavery. The fast steppe cavalry knew no natural barriers on the endless, open, vast southern and southeastern borders of Rus', which were difficult to protect. Nomads from the endless “wild field”, from the “unknown country”, with unexpected campaigns, sought to penetrate deeply into the Russian land. Waves of steppe raids crashed against the stubborn resistance of scattered principalities. Some of the Polovtsians settled on the border lands and, under the name of “Kovuev” and “their filthy ones,” that is, “their pagans,” gradually became imbued with the peaceful influence of Russian culture. But the discord of the Russian princes created the opportunity for new invasions. Enmitying among themselves, the princes called upon the Polovtsians to help them, thereby shaking the edifice of Russian statehood that had taken shape over centuries.

Russian culture of the time “Tales of Igor’s Campaign”

The decline in the political unity of Rus' was not, however, associated with its cultural decline. The very collapse of the Kyiv state was caused by the development of local economic life and was accompanied by the growth of its individual parts, the formation of new regional centers, and an increase in the activity of the urban masses of the population.
Near Kiev, Novgorod and Chernigov during this period, numerous new centers of Russian culture grew and strengthened: Vladimir-Zalessky and Vladimir-Volynsky, Polotsk and Smolensk, Turov and Galich. Local literary schools, the deeply unique architecture of each region, painting and applied art developed and strengthened during this period. Numerous stone buildings were erected in Kiev, Chernigov, Vladimir-Volynsky, Galich, Novgorod, Smolensk, Vladimir-Zalessky and other cities of the vast Russian land.
The chronicler wrote about one of the buildings of this time that it was “destroyed” with “all the cunning” available to man. The white stone buildings of this period that have been preserved in Vladimir-Zalessky are richly decorated on the outside with relief images of lions, leopards, griffins, centaurs, horsemen, etc. In painting, excellent frescoes are created, that is, wall paintings with water paints on specially prepared plaster. Remains of such paintings have been preserved in Pskov, Staraya Ladoga, and Novgorod.

The high level of Russian culture of the time of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is clearly evidenced by applied art. Artistic crafts in the 12th century are represented by luxurious manuscripts, the finest jewelry made of gold and silver with enamel and niello, iron products, carvings in bone, stone, wood, etc. Forty-two names of various craft specialties of this time have reached us.

The art of speech reached a special development in the 12th century. Most of the ancient Russian written works of the 12th century have not reached us as a result of destruction by enemies and fires; but even the little that has survived testifies to the general high literary culture of the 12th century, the presence of several literary schools, the multiplicity of genres, the very need for literature, and the habit of literary reading. The chronicle at this time was kept in almost every city, in many monasteries, often at the court of the local prince.

The exceptionally rapid development of Russian literature of the 11th–12th centuries is associated with the growth of the Old Russian literary language - concise, expressive, flexible, rich in words, abundantly saturated with synonyms capable of reflecting numerous shades of thoughts and feelings. The Russian language of this time responded to the needs of the extremely complicated Russian reality and created a rich political, military and technical terminology, was able to fully embody sophisticated oratory, convey the complex historical content of world and Russian history, and translate the best works of pan-European medieval literature. The development of the Old Russian literary language reflected the general high level of Old Russian culture, which had not yet been subjected to the destruction of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

The Old Russian written literary language grew on the basis of the oral Russian literary language - a highly developed language of oral folk poetry and the language of political life. The speeches with which the Russian princes “gave impudence” to their soldiers before battles were magnificent in their laconicism, imagery, energy and freedom of expression. The speeches delivered at veche meetings were distinguished by their special laconicism, elaborate verbal formulas, and imagery. The same can be said about speeches at feasts, at courts, at princely congresses, and about speeches made by ambassadors. Individual words and expressions of the ancient Bulgarian language, used in church writing and in worship and known as the Church Slavonic language, merged into the Russian literary language.
However, the grammatical structure of the Russian language remained Russian, and individual Church Slavonic words did not destroy the main vocabulary of the Russian language. The Russian language has reworked elements of the Church Slavonic language and become even richer and more expressive.

The vocabulary of the Old Russian language in the 12th century was already very rich.
The language of Russian chronicles, the language of Russian treaties and charters and many other works of Russian writing, and first of all the language of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is the Old Russian written literary language. Rich and expressive, it was one of the main achievements of the Russian people of that time.

Events of Russian history that preceded the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich Novgorod-Seversky

Most of the feudal strife of the 12th century was associated with the enmity of the descendants of Monomakh and the descendants of his opponent Oleg Svyatoslavich - Oleg Gorislavich. Both the Monomakhovichs and the Olgovichs constantly used Polovtsian help in their campaigns against neighboring Russian principalities. The Chernigov Olgovichi especially often resorted to the help of the Polovtsians, seeking peace and an alliance with the restless population of the adjacent steppes. And this Polovtsian “help,” like the independent campaigns of the Polovtsians, became a cruel national disaster from the end of the 11th century. The Polovtsian raids especially intensified in the 70s of the 12th century, when, in the words of the chronicler, “the army began without a break.”
By this time, the Russian princes had experienced and battle-hardened professional warriors who formed the main core of their army - the squad. In addition to these squads, the princes could, if necessary, assemble a large army from peasants and townspeople. There were outposts on the borders with the steppe; in the steppe itself there were Russian “watchmen” - scouts who monitored the movements of the nomads.

The Russian army in the 12th century was mainly mounted; it was very fast in its movements and developed skillful tactics to combat the nomads. Russian campaigns in the steppe were undertaken mainly in the spring, when the horses of the Polovtsians, exhausted from the meager winter grazing, turned out to be much weaker than the horses of the Russian army. In battle, Russian troops knew how to operate in complex formations, were persistent and fearless. A sense of military honor and love for the Motherland distinguished both professional combatants and ordinary soldiers recruited from the people. The armament of the warriors consisted of swords, sabers, bows, and sometimes shestopers (special clubs with six-edged tips). In addition, the warriors had spears - a weapon that, although easily broken, was irreplaceable in the first skirmish with the enemy.

The warriors had strong steel (damask steel) helmets and armor, that is, chain mail, which appeared in Rus' earlier than in Western Europe. The armament of ordinary warriors was simpler - spears and axes were more common here. Heavy helmets and armor that glowed in the sun were usually put on just before the battle.

However, there was no all-Russian army with a unified command in Rus' at that time. The allied campaigns of the Russian princes were assembled with difficulty, and each of the troops of one or another Russian prince was much smaller in number than the Polovtsian army.

The particularly strong onslaught of the Polovtsians, which began in the 70s of the 12th century, was broken by the retaliatory campaigns of the Russians. After a series of defeats, the Cumans united under the rule of Khan Konchak. Polovtsian troops receive a unified organization and good weapons; they acquired complex throwing weapons, “Greek fire”, and huge crossbows that moved “on a high cart”, the string of which was pulled by more than fifty people. Rus', separated by discord, came face to face with a strong and, most importantly, united army of nomads.

Under the influence of the Polovtsian danger, as later under the influence of the Mongol-Tatar danger, even among the princes, the idea of ​​the need for unity was maturing. In the 80s of the 12th century, an attempt was made to reconcile the Olgovichi and Monomakhovichi. The Olgovichi themselves are breaking with their traditional policy of union with the steppe, and it is remarkable that in the history of this turning point in the policy of the Olgovichi, the hero of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - Olgovich Igor Svyatoslavich, Prince Novgorod-Seversky, plays a very important role.

At the beginning, Igor is a typical Olgovich. Back in 1180, the Polovtsians actively helped Igor Svyatoslavich. Completely defeated by Rurik Rostislavich of Kiev at Dolobsk, together with his allies - the Polovtsians, Igor Svyatoslavich jumped into a boat with his future worst enemy, and current ally Khan Konchak, and managed to hide from the Kiev prince.

Having won the victory, the Kiev prince Rurik took advantage of its fruits in a unique way. Not feeling strong enough to keep Kiev in his power, he left the Olgovich, Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, the future hero of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” in the great reign of Kiev, and took the rest of the cities of the Kiev region for himself. Kiev was ceded by Rurik to Svyatoslav of Kiev on conditions that we can only guess about: apparently, Svyatoslav undertook to renounce the alliance with the Polovtsians and agreed to act against them in agreement with all the Russian princes. In the coming years, Rurik and Svyatoslav managed to widely organize the allied campaigns of the Russian princes on the steppe.
The obligations of the head of all the Olgovich princes - Svyatoslav of Kyiv - extended to Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversky, his cousin, who was subordinate to him. Straightforward and honest, Igor decisively breaks with his previous politics; he becomes a fierce opponent of the Polovtsians. However, Igor Svyatoslavich did not immediately manage to prove his devotion to the new policy of unity and joint struggle with the Polovtsians.

In 1184, through the combined efforts of the Russian princes under the leadership of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kyiv, the Polovtsians were defeated. Military vehicles were captured, Russian prisoners were repulsed; a “basurman” who shot with “live fire” was captured. The Polovtsians were terrified, and the danger, it would seem, had been removed from the Russian land for a long time. However, Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversky was unable to participate in this victorious campaign: the campaign began in the spring, and icy conditions prevented his cavalry army from arriving on time. Apparently, Igor Svyatoslavich took this failure seriously: he failed to prove his loyalty to the alliance of Russian princes against the Polovtsians; he could have been suspected of deliberately avoiding participation in the campaign, as a former ally of Konchak. That is why, in the next 1185, Igor, “unable to contain his youth” - his young enthusiasm, without an agreement with Svyatoslav and Rurik, rushes into a campaign against the Polovtsians.

He sets himself a bold task - to use his own strength to “search” for the old Chernigov Tmutorokan, which was located on the Black Sea coast and once belonged to the Chernigov princes. A high sense of military honor, repentance for his previous policy, devotion to the new - all-Russian, hatred of his former allies - witnesses of his shame, the torment of suffering pride - all this motivated him on the campaign.

Courage, sincerity, a sense of honor collided in Igor’s character with his short-sightedness, love for the Motherland - with the lack of a clear idea of ​​the need for unity and joint struggle. Igor acted with exceptional courage during the campaign, but he did not subordinate all his activities to the interests of the Motherland, he could not give up the desire for personal glory, and this led him to a defeat that the Russians had not yet known. For the first time in the entire history of the fight against the Polovtsians, the Russian princes - Igor and his brother Vsevolod - “bui tur” - were captured. For the first time, the Russian army suffered such a terrible defeat. These are the features of the special tragedy of Igor Svyatoslavich’s campaign - a tragedy that riveted the attention of the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and the chroniclers who composed their stories about it in different parts of the Russian land, the most extensive and, perhaps, the most vivid of all. stories about the steppe campaigns of Russian princes.

Campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich Novgorod-Seversky

Two chronicle stories have been preserved about the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich in 1185: one more extensive - in the Ipatiev Chronicle, the other more condensed - in the Laurentian Chronicle. This is how, based on these two chronicle stories, one can imagine Igor’s campaign.

On April 23, 1185, on Tuesday, Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversky, his son - Vladimir Putivlsky, nephew - Prince Svyatoslav Olgovich of Rylsky, together with the Kovuev squads sent from Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, led by Olstin Oleksich, set out on a distant steppe campaign against the Polovtsians without collusion with Kiev prince Svyatoslav. The horses, fattened over the winter, walked quietly. Igor rode, gathering his squad. While hiking off the banks of the Donets on May 1, when the day was approaching evening, they were caught by a solar eclipse, which was considered in those days an omen of misfortune, but Igor did not turn his horses. At the Oskol River, Igor waited for two days for his brother Vsevolod, who was coming from Kursk by a different route. From Oskol we went further to the Salnitsa River.

It was not possible to take the Polovtsians by surprise, as Igor had hoped: unexpectedly the Russian guards, who were sent to catch the “tongue,” reported that the Polovtsians were armed and ready for battle. The guards advised us to either go faster or return. But the Russians did not stop for the night, but rode all night. The next day, at lunchtime, the Russians met the Polovtsian regiments. The Polovtsians sent back their vezhi (nomadic dwellings on carts), and they themselves, having gathered “from young to old,” lined up on the other side of the Syurlia River. Igor's troops formed into six regiments. According to the custom of that time, Igor Svyatoslavich said a brief encouraging word to the princes: “Brothers, this is what we were looking for, but let’s pull it together.” Igor’s regiment stood in the middle, on his right hand was the “buy tour” regiment of Vsevolod, on the left was the regiment of Igor’s nephew Svyatoslav of Rylsky, in front was the regiment of Igor’s son, Vladimir, and the regiment of the Chernigov forges. Selected riflemen drawn from all regiments stood at the front of the line. The Polovtsians lined up their archers. “Having fired an arrow,” that is, firing a volley from bows, the Polovtsians fled. Those Polovtsian regiments that were stationed far from the river also fled. The advanced regiments of the Chernigov kovuys and Vladimir Igorevich chased the Polovtsians. Igor and Vsevolod walked slowly, maintaining the battle formation of their regiments. The Russians took possession of the Polovtsians and captured full (prisoners). Part of the army chased the Polovtsians further and returned at night with the full force.

As the Ipatiev Chronicle tells, the very next day after the first victory over the Polovtsians, at dawn, the Polovtsian regiments, “ak borove,” that is, like a forest, suddenly began to attack the Russians. The small Russian army saw that it had gathered “the entire Polovtsian land” against itself. But even in this case, brave Igor did not turn the shelves. His speech before the battle is reminiscent of the speeches of Vladimir Monomakh in his concern for the “black people,” that is, for simple peasant warriors. He said: “If we die or run away and leave the black people, then we will be a sin... Let's go! But either we die or we live in the same place.” In order to make their way to the Donets, without getting ahead or behind each other, Igor ordered the horsemen to dismount and fight all together.

For three days, day and night, Igor slowly made his way to the Donets with his army. In the battle, Igor was wounded in his right hand. Pushed back from the water by the Polovtsians, the warriors were exhausted with thirst. The horses were the first to faint from thirst. There were many wounded and dead in the Russian regiments. They fought hard until the evening, they fought for the second night; At dawn on Sunday morning, the Chernigov settlements trembled. Igor galloped towards the Kovayas to stop them. He took off his helmet to be recognized by them, but could not detain them. On the way back, within an arrow's flight from his regiment, exhausted from a wound, he was captured by the Polovtsians. Captured by them, he saw how cruelly his brother Vsevolod fought at the head of his army, and, according to the chronicle, he asked for death so as not to see his death. The wounded Igor was taken into custody by his former ally, Konchak. Of the entire Russian army, only fifteen people were saved, and even fewer Kovaevs. The others drowned.

At that time, Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kiev, having decided to go against the Polovtsians to the Don for the whole summer, gathered soldiers in the north of his possessions - in the “upper” lands. On the way back from Novgorod-Seversky, Svyatoslav heard that his cousins ​​had gone against the Polovtsians, hiding from him, and “he didn’t like it.” When Svyatoslav was already approaching Chernigov in the boats, he learned about Igor’s defeat. Svyatoslav, hearing this, “took a deep breath,” “wiped his tears,” and said: “Oh, my beloved brothers and sons and men of the Russian land! God gave me to wear out the filthy, but without restraining my youth (youth) I opened the gates to the Russian land... Yes, what a pity for me to complain about Igor (as I was annoyed with him before), so now I pity more (so now I regret even more) for Igor, wash my brother."

These words of Svyatoslav precisely define the consequences of Igor’s defeat. Svyatoslav “tired the filthy” in his campaign of 1184, and Igor, “unable to restrain his youth,” negated his results - he “opened the gates” to the Polovtsians to the Russian land. Grief and fierce grief (sadness) spread throughout the Russian land. “And it’s not nice to berate your neighbor then,” says the chronicler.

The Polovtsians, having defeated Igor and his brothers, “took great pride” and, having gathered all their people, rushed to the Russian land. And there was a quarrel between them: Konchak wanted to go to Kiev - to avenge Bonyak and his grandfather Sharukan, who were defeated there in 1106, and Gzak proposed to go to the Seim River, “where the wives and children are left: we are ready for everything; Let us enter cities without fear.”
And so they split in two. Konchak went to Pereyaslavl-Yuzhny, besieged the city and fought here all day.

Vladimir Glebovich was then a prince in Pereyaslavl. He was “daring and strong towards the army,” he left the city and rushed at the Polovtsians, but few of the squads dared to follow him. The prince fought hard with the enemies, was surrounded and wounded by three spears. Then others arrived from the city and took the prince away. Vladimir sent from the city to say to Svyatoslav of Kyiv, Rurik and Davyd Rostislavich: “Behold, the Polovtsy are with me, and help me.” Disagreements arose between the troops of Rurik and Davyd; Davyd’s Smolensk squads “became a veche” and refused to go on a campaign. Svyatoslav and Rurik sailed along the Dnieper against the Polovtsians, and Davyd and his Smolnyans returned back. Hearing about the approach of the troops of Svyatoslav and Rurik, the Polovtsians retreated from Pereyaslavl and on the way back besieged the city of Rimov. All these events were reflected in the Lay.

In captivity, Igor enjoyed relative freedom and honor. Twenty guards were assigned to him, who did not interfere with him going wherever he wanted, and obeyed him when he sent them anywhere. Igor went hawk hunting with them.

A Polovtsian named Laurus suggested that Igor flee. Igor refused to take the “unglorious path,” but circumstances eventually forced him to flee: the thousand’s son and the groom, who were in captivity with Igor, informed him that the Polovtsians returning from Pereyaslavl intended to kill all Russian prisoners. The time for escape was chosen in the evening - at sunset. Igor sent his groom to the Laurus with an order to move to the other side of the river with a lead horse. The Polovtsy, who were guarding Igor, got drunk on kumiss, played and had fun, thinking that the prince was sleeping. Igor picked up the half of the Polovtsian vezha, went out, crossed the river, mounted a horse there and fled.
For eleven days Igor made his way to the border city of Donets, running away from pursuit. Arriving in Novgorod-Seversky, Igor soon set off on a detour - to Chernigov and Kiev - looking for help and support, and was greeted with joy everywhere.

Time of creation of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was created shortly after the events of Igor’s campaign. It was written under the fresh impression of these events. This is not a historical narrative about the distant past - it is a response to the events of its time, full of grief that has not yet dulled. The author of “The Lay” addresses in his work the contemporaries of the events, to whom these events were well known. Therefore, the “Word” is woven from hints, from reminders, from silent indications of what was still alive in the memory of every contemporary reader.

There are also more precise indications in the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” that it was written shortly after the events described. In 1196, the “buy tour” Vsevolod died, in 1198 Igor Svyatoslavich reigned in Chernigov, and before that he went against the Polovtsians more than once, but all this remained without mention in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Other events in Russian history that occurred after 1187 are not mentioned. In particular, the author of the “Lay” names among the living princes Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia, who died in 1187: the author of the “Lay” appeals to him to “shoot” Konchak “for the land of Russia, for the wounds of Igor, the great Svyatoslavich.” From this it is clear that the “Lay” was written no later than 1187; but it could not have been written earlier than 1187, since it consists of “glory” to the young princes, including Vladimir Igorevich, only in the same year, 1187, who returned from captivity. Therefore, one can think that “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was written in 1187.

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - a call for unity

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was a direct response to the events of Igor’s campaign. It was a call for an end to the princely strife, for unification in the face of a terrible external danger. In the exact words of Karl Marx, “the meaning of the poem is the call of the Russian princes to unity just before the invasion of the Mongols.” This appeal constitutes the main content of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Using the example of Igor's defeat, the author shows the sad consequences of the political disunity of Rus'.

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” not only tells about the events of Igor’s campaign - it evaluates them. It represents a passionate and excited speech of a patriot, now turning to the events of living modernity, now remembering the deeds of hoary antiquity. This speech is sometimes angry, sometimes sad and mournful, but always full of faith in the Motherland, full of love for it, confidence in its future.

In “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the broad and free breath of oral speech is clearly felt. It is also felt in the choice of expressions - ordinary ones used in oral speech, and military terms; it is also felt in the choice of artistic images, devoid of literary sophistication, accessible and popular; it is felt in the very rhythm of the language.

The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” constantly addresses his readers, calling them “brothers,” as if he sees them in front of him. He introduces both his contemporaries and people of the past into the circle of his imaginary listeners. He turns to Boyan: “Oh Boyan, the nightingale of old times! If only you tickled her cheeks.” He turns to “buy tur” Vsevolod: “Yar tur Vsevolod! Stand on the harrow, howling with arrows, rattling your swords on your helmets!” He addresses Igor, Vsevolod of Suzdal, Rurik and Davyd Rostislavich and many others. Speaking about the sad omens that preceded Igor’s campaign and accompanied Igor on his fatal path, he seems to want to stop him and thereby introduces the reader into the alarming situation of the campaign. He interrupts himself with exclamations of sorrow: “O Russian land! You are already behind the helmet! All this creates the impression of close proximity of the author of the Lay to those to whom he addresses.

This intimacy is more than the closeness of the writer to his reader, but rather the closeness of the speaker or singer directly addressing his listeners.
When you read “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” you vividly feel that the author most likely intended it to be spoken aloud.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was intended only for pronunciation or only for reading; the possibility cannot be ruled out that the author of the “Tale” also intended his work for singing. The author of the “Word” himself, although he calls his work very vaguely - sometimes a “word”, sometimes a “song”, sometimes a “story”, however, when choosing his poetic manner, he does not consider as his predecessor any of the writers and speakers known to us XI -XII centuries, and Boyan - a singer, poet, who performed his works to the accompaniment of some stringed instrument - apparently, the gusli. The author of “The Lay” considers Boyan his predecessor in the same kind of poetry in which he himself creates.

Thus, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is a call for unity. It was undoubtedly written by the author, but the author felt his connection with the spoken word, with oral poetry; the author felt his work was spoken, but whether it was intended to be spoken aloud as a speech or to be sung is difficult to say. If it is speech, then it still has similarities to song; if it is a song, then it is close to speech. Unfortunately, it is not possible to more closely define the genre of “Words”. Written, it retains all the charm of a living spoken word - a word of ardent, convincing, full of the most sincere, most sincere and heartfelt love for the Motherland.

The real meaning of the call of the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was, of course, not only an attempt to organize this or that campaign, but also to unite public opinion against the discord of the princes, to turn public opinion against the princes’ search for personal “glory,” personal “ honor" and their revenge on personal "grievances". The task of the “Slovo” was not only military, but also the ideological unity of all the best Russian people around the idea of ​​​​the unity of the Russian land.

Political worldview of the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”

How did the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” imagine the unity of Rus' to which he called his readers? The unity of Rus' was presented to the author of the Lay not in the form of beautiful-hearted “good neighborly” relations between all Russian princes based on their good will. It goes without saying that it was impossible to simply persuade the Russian princes to stop fighting among themselves. What was needed was such a strong central government that could consolidate the unity of Rus' and make Rus' a powerful state. The author of the Lay is a supporter of strong princely power, which would be able to curb the tyranny of petty princes.

He sees the center of a united Rus' in Kyiv. The Kiev prince is depicted to him as a strong and “formidable” ruler. Therefore, the author of the “Tale” endows the “weak” Kyiv prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich with the ideal properties of the head of the Russian princes: he is “formidable” and “great”.

Appealing to the Russian princes to stand up for the defense of the Russian land, the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” reminds these princes of their military might and, as it were, draws in his appeal a collective image of a strong, powerful prince. This prince is strong in army: he is “many-armed.” He is strong in court: “the courts line up to the Danube.” He instills fear in the countries bordering Russia; he can “sprinkle the Volga with oars and pour out the Don with helmets.” He “supported the Ugric mountains with his iron planks, interceding the queen’s path, closing the gates to the Danube.” He is famous in other countries; the glory of the “Germans and Venedits”, “Greeks and Moravians” is sung to him.

Before us is the image of a prince who embodies the idea of ​​strong princely power, with the help of which the unity of the Russian land was to be realized. This idea of ​​strong princely power was just emerging in the 12th century. Subsequently, this same image of the “formidable” Grand Duke was reflected in the Life of Alexander Nevsky and in a number of other works of the 13th century. The only thing that will not stand behind this image of the “formidable” Grand Duke is Kyiv as the center of Rus'. The shift of the center of Rus' to the northeast and the decline in the importance of the Kyiv table will become too obvious. The importance of the center of the Russian land in the 15th–16th centuries will pass to Moscow, which will unite Rus' with the help of the strong power of the Moscow prince.
In the 12th century, strong princely power was just beginning to emerge; it had yet to develop in the future, but the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” already saw that with the help of strong princely power it would be possible to unite Rus' and give a strong rebuff to external enemies.

The image of the Russian land in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”

The author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” embodied his call for unity, his sense of the unity of the Motherland in a living, concrete image of the Russian land. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is dedicated to the entire Russian land as a whole. The hero of the Lay is not any of the princes, but the Russian people, the Russian land. All the best feelings of the author are directed towards it, towards the Russian land. The image of the Russian land is central in the Lay; it is outlined by the author broadly and freely.

There is hardly a work in world literature in which such vast geographical spaces are simultaneously drawn into action. Polovtsian steppe (“country unknown”), “blue sea”, Don, Volga, Dnieper, Donets, Danube, Western Dvina, Ros, Sula, Stugna, Nemiga, and from the cities - Korsun, Tmutorokan, Kiev, Polotsk, Chernigov, Kursk , Pereyaslavl, Belgorod, Novgorod, Galich, Putivl, Rimov and many others - the entire Russian land is in the author’s field of vision, included in the circle of his narration. The vastness of the Russian land is emphasized by him by the simultaneity of action in its different parts: “the girls sing on the Danube, the voices curl across the sea to Kyiv.” Simultaneously with Igor’s campaign, the Polovtsians are moving towards the Don on “unprepared roads”, their unoiled carts creaking.

The vast spaces of the Motherland, in which the action of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” unfolds, are united by the hyperbolic speed of movement of the characters in it. Vseslav touched the golden throne of Kiev with a spear, bounced off it like a fierce beast, at midnight disappeared from Belgorod in the blue darkness of the night, and the next morning, rising, he opened the gates of Novgorod with his weapon, smashing the glory of Yaroslav... Vseslav the prince judged the people, and he himself prowled the night like a wolf : from Kiev he searched for the roosters of Tmutorokani; the great Khors (sun) scoured the path like a wolf. Svyatoslav, like a whirlwind, tore the filthy Kobyak out of the Lukomorye, from the great iron regiments of the Polovtsians, and Kobyak fell in the city of Kyiv, in the grid of Svyatoslav.

In the vast expanses of Rus', the power of the heroes of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” acquires hyperbolic proportions: Vladimir I Svyatoslavich could not be nailed to the Kiev mountains, Galician Yaroslav propped up the Ugric (Hungarian) mountains with his iron regiments, blocking the king’s path, closing the gates to the Danube.

The landscape of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is also distinguished by the same grandeur, always concrete and taken as if in motion: before the battle with the Polovtsians, bloody dawns will tell the light, black clouds are coming from the sea... there will be great thunder, it will rain like arrows from the great Don... The earth is humming , the rivers flow muddy, the ashes rush over the fields. After the defeat of Igor's army, widespread sadness flows across Rus'.
The wind, the sun, thunderclouds in which blue lightning flutters, morning fog, rain clouds, the tickling of a nightingale at night and the cry of a jackdaw in the morning, evening dawns and morning sunrises, the sea, ravines, rivers make up a huge, unusually wide background against which the action unfolds “Words” convey the feeling of the endless expanses of the Motherland.

The wide expanse of native nature is vividly felt in Yaroslavna’s cry. Yaroslavna turns to the wind blowing under the clouds, nurturing ships on the blue sea, to the Dnieper, which pierced stone mountains through the Polovtsian land and nurtured Svyatoslav’s boats to Kobyakov’s camp, to the sun, which is warm and beautiful for everyone, but stretches out in the waterless steppe its burning rays on the Russian soldiers, thirst twisted their bows, languor stopped their quivers.

All Russian nature takes part in the joys and sorrows of the Russian people: the concept of the Motherland - the Russian land - unites for the author its history, “countries”, that is, rural areas, cities, rivers and all nature - living, sympathizing with Russians. The sun obscures the prince's path with darkness - warns him of danger. The Donets makes a green bed for Igor, who is escaping from captivity, on its silver banks, clothes him with warm fog, and guards him with goldeneyes and wild ducks.

The wider the author covers the Russian land, the more concrete and vital its image becomes, in which the rivers come to life, entering into conversation with Igor, and animals and birds are endowed with human intelligence.
The feeling of the vastness of the space and vastness of the Motherland, constantly present in “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” is enhanced by numerous images of falconry, the participation in the action of birds (geese, goldeneyes, crows, jackdaws, nightingales, cuckoos, swans, gyrfalcons) making long flights to the Don and to the blue sea, across wide fields. Constant references to the sea emphasize this feeling.
Covering with his mind's eye the entire Russian land, the author sees and hears everything that happens in it. The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” talks about the details of camp life, about methods of defense and attack, about various details of weapons, and notes the behavior of birds and animals.
The image of the Motherland, full of cities, rivers and numerous inhabitants, is, as it were, contrasted with the image of the deserted Polovtsian steppe - the “unknown country”, its ravines (ravines), hills, swamps and “muddy” places.

For the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the Russian land is, of course, not only “land” in the proper sense of the word, not only Russian nature, Russian cities, but, first of all, the people inhabiting it. The author of the Lay speaks of the peaceful work of the Russian “Ratai” - plowmen, disrupted by the strife of the princes; he talks about the wives of Russian soldiers mourning their husbands who died in the battle for Rus'; he talks about the grief of the entire Russian people after the defeat of Igor, about the destruction of the property of the Russian people, about the joy of the inhabitants of cities and rural areas at the return of Igor.
The army of Igor Novgorod-Seversky is, first of all, “Rusichi” (Russian sons). They go against the Polovtsians for their Motherland; crossing the border of Rus', they say goodbye to their homeland - to the Russian land as a whole, and not to the Novgorod-Seversky principality, not to Kursk or Putivl. “Oh Russian land! You are already behind the helmet!”

At the same time, the concept of the Motherland includes for the author “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and its history. In the opening to the Lay, the author says that he is going to conduct his narrative “from old Vladimer (Vladimir I Svyatoslavich) to present-day Igor.” Outlining the history of Prince Igor’s unsuccessful campaign against the Polovtsians, the author covers the events of Russian life over a century and a half and conducts his narrative, “shaping the glory of both sexes of this time” - constantly turning from modernity to history, comparing past times with the present. The author recalls the centuries of Troya, the years of Yaroslav, the campaigns of Oleg, the times of “old Vladimer” Svyatoslavich.

The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” paints a surprisingly vivid image of the Russian land. Creating the “Word”, he was able to look at the whole of Rus', uniting in his description both Russian nature, Russian people, and Russian history. The image of the suffering Motherland is very important in the artistic and ideological concept of “The Lay”: it evokes the reader’s sympathy for it, it arouses hatred of its enemies, it calls the Russian people to its defense. The image of the Russian land is an essential part of the “Word” as a call for its protection from external enemies.

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is a work of amazing integrity. The artistic form of “The Lay” very accurately corresponds to its ideological concept. All images of the “Lay” help to identify its main idea - the idea of ​​​​the unity of Rus'.

Images of Russian princes in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”

The attitude of the author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” towards the Russian princes is ambivalent: he sees them as representatives of Rus', he sympathizes with them, proud of their successes, mourning their failures, but condemns their selfish, narrowly local politics and their discord, their reluctance to jointly defend the Russian land.
Using the example of the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich Novgorod-Seversky, the author shows what the lack of unity can lead to. Igor is defeated only because he went on a campaign alone. He acts according to the formula: “We are for ourselves, and you are for yourself.” The words of Svyatoslav of Kyiv addressed to Igor Svyatoslavich characterize to a certain extent the attitude of the author of the Lay towards him. Svyatoslav reproaches Igor and Vsevolod for going on a campaign without an agreement with him, seeking glory for themselves. He reproaches them for wanting to steal the glory of his victories over the Polovtsy and share only among themselves the glory of their campaign.

The entire story about Igor’s campaign follows these same lines: the brave but short-sighted Igor goes on a campaign, despite the fact that this campaign is doomed to failure from the very beginning; he goes on despite all the unfavorable “signs.” Igor loves his homeland, Rus', but his main motivation is the desire for personal glory. Igor says: “Brothers and squad! Lutsa would have wanted to be, rather than being full of being; and let us all, brethren, look upon our eyes, and let us see the blue Don”; and again: “I want,” he said, “to break a spear at the end of the Polovtsian field; I want to lay my head with you, Russians, and would like to drink the Don with a helmet.” The desire for personal glory “is a sign for him.”

However, the author emphasizes that Igor Svyatoslavich’s actions are determined to a greater extent by the concepts of his environment than by his personal properties. In himself, Igor Svyatoslavich is more likely to be good than bad, but his actions are bad because they are dominated by the prejudices of society. Therefore, in the image of Igor, the general rather than the individual comes to the fore. Igor Svyatoslavich is the “average” prince of his time: brave, courageous, to a certain extent loving the Motherland, but reckless and short-sighted, caring more about his honor than the honor of the Motherland.

The author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” speaks with much greater condemnation about the ancestor of the Olgovich princes and the grandfather of Igor Svyatoslavich - Oleg Gorislavich, the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise and the constant opponent of Vladimir Monomakh. Remembering this Oleg (Oleg lived in the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries; died in 1115), the author of the Lay says that he forged sedition with a sword and sowed arrows on the ground, under him the Russian land was sown and sprouted with strife. The author of “The Lay” notes the disastrous nature of Oleg’s sedition, first of all, for the working people, for the peasantry: “Then in the Russian land, the Rataevs would quickly rant, and often lie and lie, making a corpse for themselves, and the Galicians would blaspheme their speech, even if they wanted to fly to hell.” The author gives Oleg the ironic patronymic “Gorislavich,” meaning, of course, not his personal grief, but the people’s grief caused by Oleg’s strife.

The founder of the Polotsk princes, Vseslav of Polotsk, is also depicted as the initiator of the strife. The entire text about Vseslav is a reflection on his ill-fated fate. Vseslav is depicted in the Lay with condemnation, but also with some, albeit very insignificant, amount of sympathy. This is a restless prince, rushing about like a hunted animal, a cunning “prophetic” loser. Before us is an exceptionally vivid image of a prince from the period of fragmentation of Rus'.

In the rest of the Russian princes, the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” notes their positive traits to a greater extent than their negative ones. The author emphasizes the exploits of the Russian princes, depicts their power, their glory. The images of Russian princes reflect his dreams of strong power in Rus', of the military power of Russian princes. Vladimir I Svyatoslavich went on campaigns against enemies so often that he “could not be nailed to the Kyiv mountains.” Vsevolod of Suzdal can splash the Volga with oars and pour out the Don with helmets, and the author of the Lay mourns that this prince is no longer in the south. Yaroslav Osmomysl supported the Hungarian mountains with his iron regiments, blocked the road for the Hungarian king, opened the gates of Kyiv, and shot at the Saltans beyond the lands.

The concept of hyperbole can be applied to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” only with great limitations. The impression of hyperbole is achieved in the Lay by the fact that the exploits of his squad are transferred to one or another prince. So, for example, Vsevolod the “buy tur” shoots arrows at his enemies, rattles his kharaluzhny swords on their helmets; the Ovar helmets were “scratched” by his red-hot sabers. Of course, arrows, swords and sabers are not Vsevolod’s personal ones. The author of the Lay says here that Vsevolod shoots at his enemies with the arrows of his squad, fights with their swords and sabers. We see the same transfer of the exploits of the squad to the prince in other cases. Svyatoslav of Kiev “pulled away” the treachery of the Polovtsians “with his strong plakas and haraluzhny swords”; Vsevolod of Suzdal can “pour the Don with helmets” - of course, not with his one helmet, but with many helmets of his army.

A very special group is made up of the female images of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: all of them are covered with the thought of peace, of family, of home, imbued with tenderness and affection, a brightly folk principle; they embody the sadness and care of the Motherland for its soldiers. In the author's ideological plan, these female images occupy a very important place.

The wives of Russian soldiers, after the defeat of Igor's troops, cry for their fallen husbands. Their cry, full of tenderness and boundless sadness, has a deeply folk character: “We can no longer comprehend our dear ones in our thoughts, nor in our minds, nor in our eyes.” The cry of Yaroslavna, Igor’s young wife, has the same folk-song character. It is remarkable that Yaroslavna mourns not only the captivity of her husband - she mourns for all the fallen Russian soldiers: “Oh wind, sail! What, sir, are you forcing? Why are the Khinov arrows mowing on their easy wings in my own way?.. A bright and bright sun! You are warm and red to everyone: why, sir, do you spread your hot ray on your way?”

The contrast between war and peace, embodied in the image of Russian women, is especially vivid in the lyrical appeal of the author of the Lay to Vsevolod, “bui tur.” In the midst of the battle, Vsevolod does not feel his wounds; he has forgotten honor and life and his sweet, beloved “Red Glebovna’s habits and customs.” It is characteristic that not a single translator of the Lay could satisfactorily translate the excellent and, in essence, well-understood expression: “custom and custom.”

So, the images of Russian princes, the female images of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” are not given on their own - they serve the author’s ideas, serve the goals of the same call for unity. Before us and here, “The Lay” appears as an exceptionally purposeful work. The hand of the artist - the author of the Lay - was guided by political thought, a passionate thought, full of ardent love for the Motherland.<...>

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and Russian folk poetry

If we take a closer look at the artistic means used by the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” we will be convinced that he mainly draws them from oral folk poetry and from oral Russian speech. And this is far from accidental. He is connected with folk poetry not only by his artistic tastes, but also by his worldview and political views. The author of “The Lay” creates in the forms of folk poetry because he himself is close to the people.

The folk images of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” are closely related to his folk ideals. The artistic side and the ideological side are inseparable from each other in The Lay. Here, for example, is the usual comparison of battle with harvest in the Lay: under Oleg Gorislavich, the Russian land is “sown and stretched by strife”; in Igor’s battle with the Polovtsians, “the black earth was sown with bones under the hooves, and the clearing was cleared with blood”; about the battle of Vseslav on the Nemiga River it is said: “On the Nemiza they lay sheaves with their heads, thresh their chains with haraluzhny, they lay their souls on the belly and winnow the soul from the tavla. Nemiza bloody breze, don’t sow with a bolog - sow with the bones of Russian sons.” These comparisons were very frequent in oral folk poetry. They are also found later - in recordings of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian songs made in the 18th and 19th centuries. In old soldier and Cossack songs we find the following lines:

New arable land has been sown
Soldiers' heads.
New arable land watered
Hot soldier's blood.

Or:
The field was not plowed with plows,
And the field is plowed with horse hooves,
The field is sown with non-germinating seeds,
Sown with Cossack heads,
The field is covered with Cossack black curls.

Or:
Chorna rola [arable land] zaorana,
The bushes are covered with
Bilim is dragged by tilom,
I'm drained of blood.

It is remarkable, however, that this comparison of the battlefield with arable land in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and in folk poetry has a deep ideological meaning. This is not even a comparison, but a contrast: in the Lay and in folk poetry, war is contrasted with peaceful labor, destruction with creation, death with life (in Old Russian “life” is not only “existence”, but also wealth, the fruits of agriculture labor, “living”).

The images of peaceful labor that permeate the entire “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” as a whole make this work the apotheosis of peace. “Slovo” calls for a fight against the Polovtsians, first of all, in the name of protecting peaceful labor.

The opposition of peace to war permeates other parts of The Tale of Igor's Campaign. The author of the Lay refers to the image of a feast as the apotheosis of peaceful labor: “there is not enough bloody wine; The brave Russians finished that feast: they hunted matchmakers, and they themselves fought for the Russian land.” With striking specificity, contrasting the Russians with their enemies, he calls the latter matchmakers: Igor Svyatoslavich was indeed Konchak’s matchmaker (Konchak’s daughter was engaged to Igor’s son, Vladimir). It follows that the image of the feast-battle was not simply borrowed from folk poetry, where it is common, but skillfully interpreted. The same purpose of contrasting peace with war is served by the female images of “The Lay”: Yaroslavna and the red Glebovna.

There are also other signs of its close connection with oral folk poetry in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: negative metaphors (“Nemize of the bloody Breze do not sow with the bolog - sow with the bones of Russian sons”), some typically folk epithets (open field, gray wolves, sharp swords, blue sea, red-hot arrows, greyhound horses, black raven, red maidens and many others). Lamentations (the lament of Yaroslavna, the lament of Russian wives) and glorifications are given in the “Word” (“The Word” consists of “glory” to the Russian princes).

We have already said above that this connection between the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and folk poetry was not accidental. The author of the Lay took his independent patriotic position, which was close in spirit to broad sections of the working population of Rus'. His work is an ardent call for the unity of Rus' in the face of external danger, a call to protect the peaceful, creative labor of the Russian people. That is why the artistic and poetic system of the Lay is closely connected with Russian folk art.

Rhythm of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”

More than once attempts have been made to decompose the text of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” into verses, to find one or another poetic meter in the “Tale”. However, all these attempts led to nothing, since the “Lay”, of course, was not written according to the laws of modern versification. It is rhythmic, but its rhythmic system is deeply original, belongs to its time - the 12th century - and cannot be decomposed into contemporary poetic meters.
The rhythm of the “Word” is mainly associated with the syntactic construction of phrases and is inseparable from the meaning and content of the text.
The alarming rhythm of short syntactic-semantic units perfectly conveys Igor’s excitement before fleeing:

Igor is sleeping,
Igor is vigilant,
Igor measures the fields with his thoughts.

A different rhythm - the rhythm of the large, free breathing of the people's crying - is felt in Yaroslavna's appeals to the sun, to the wind, to the Dnieper:

About the Dnieper Slovutytsia!
You have broken through stone mountains through the Polovtsian land.
You cherished Svyatoslav's plantings on yourself
to Kobyakov's cry.
Cherish, sir, my kindness towards me,
But I wouldn’t have sent the sea of ​​tears to him early.

The cheerful and energetic rhythm of the rushing army is felt in the description of Vsevolod’s mark - “buoy of the tour”:

...hang under the pipes,

Cherished under the helmets,

the end is a copy of the story,

lead them the way,

we know the yarugi,

They're tense,

open the Tuli,

sharpened sabers;

gallop like gray people into the field,

seek honor for yourself, and glory for the prince.

These contrasts are inseparable from the main content of the Lay and correspond to its ideological concept.
So, the flexible rhythm of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is subordinate to the content. The rhythm of the “Word” changes, closely following the meaning and content of the work. In this exact correspondence of rhythmic form and ideological content, the “Words” are one of the most important foundations for the unique musicality of his language.

Who was the author of The Tale of Igor's Campaign?

The author of the Lay could have been close to Igor Svyatoslavich: he sympathizes with him. He could also be close to Svyatoslav of Kyiv: he sympathizes with him too. He could be a Chernigov resident or a Kyivian resident. He could have been a vigilante: he constantly uses vigilante concepts. He was undoubtedly a book-educated man and, in terms of his social status, hardly belonged to the exploited class of the population. However, in his political views he was neither a “courtier”, nor a warrior, nor a defender of local interests, nor an ideologist of princes, boyars or clergy. Wherever the “Word” was created - in Kyiv, Chernigov, Galich, Polotsk or Novgorod-Seversky - it did not embody any local features. The author of the Lay was alien to local interests and close to the interests of broad sections of the Russian working population, who everywhere strived for the unity of Rus', although he himself was probably neither a peasant nor an artisan, but most likely belonged to the vigilantes.<...>

Discovery of "The Tale of Igor's Host", its publication and study

One of the copies of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” apparently dating back to the 16th century, was found in the early 90s of the 18th century by the famous lover and collector of Russian antiquities A.I. Musin-Pushkin. The text of “The Lay” was in a collection of ancient Russian works of secular content. This collection was acquired by A.I. Musin-Pushkin through his commission agent, among other manuscripts from the Spaso-Yaroslavl Monastery. The first, very brief, message about the “Word” was made by the famous poet of that time, Kheraskov, in 1797 in the second edition of his poem “Vladimir”. Then Karamzin reported on the “Word” in somewhat more detail in the October 1797 book of the journal “Spectateur du Nord” (“Northern Review”, French), published by French emigrants in Hamburg. Copies were made of the manuscript of the Lay; one of them, intended for Catherine II, has reached us. In 1800, “The Lay” was published by Musin-Pushkin in collaboration with his learned friends: A.F. Malinovsky, N.N. Bantysh-Kamensky and historian N.M. Karamzin - three of the best experts on ancient Russian manuscripts at that time. In 1812, the collection, which included “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” burned down during the Moscow fire. Most of the copies of the first edition of the Lay also burned.

A comparison of Catherine’s copy and the 1800 edition clearly shows how much was initially misunderstood in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” due to ignorance in the history of the Russian language, natural for the end of the 18th century, or the inability to read ancient manuscripts. What now seems simple and clear to us in the Lay was not “recognized” by its first publishers. They introduced their own errors into the text of the Lay, already spoiled by scribes of the 12th–16th centuries, and in some places failed to read it correctly. But these same mistakes of the publishers also testify to their conscientiousness: they preferred to leave the text “dark” rather than arbitrarily “clarify” it.

An obvious misunderstanding of the text of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is noticeable in many places in the first edition, where the words of the text are incorrectly divided or merged (in the original, according to A.I. Musin-Pushkin, the words were written in a continuous line, as was customary in the 16th century century). So, for example, in the first edition of the Lay it was printed separately “by jumping” instead of “by jumping”, “locking in the Danube” instead of “having closed the Danube”, “having a husband” instead of “having a husband”, etc. The first publishers of the Lay sometimes wrote words they did not understand in capital letters, implying proper names in them. This is how it turned out: the village in the Pereyaslav region “Shelomyanem”, while we know that “shelomya” is a hill, “Koshchey” is supposedly the proper name of the Polovtsian, while “koschey” is an old Russian word meaning “slave” , etc. Finally, the first publishers of the Lay left without translation at all such a clear passage for us as: “the path of the great Christ was crossed” - “he crossed the path of the god Khors like a wolf,” that is, “kept up before the sunrise.”

The ideas of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” were not understood; Nor did they find understanding of all the typically Russian features of the form of the “Lay” - the correspondence with folk poetry, chronicles, and works of ancient Russian literature.

Subsequently, many historical details in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” were explained; many phenomena of the language of the “Word” that seemed incomprehensible at the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th centuries became clear; parallels to the images and phraseology of the “Word” were discovered in folk poetry and in many book works of the 11th–13th centuries that remained previously unknown.

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” has been studied by literary scholars, poets, linguists and historians. “The Word” was handled by Pushkin, who left us drafts of his preparatory work for its translation. “The Lay” was translated by V. Zhukovsky, A. Maikov, L. Mei and many other Russian poets of the 19th century.

There was not a single major Russian philologist who did not write about “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” In total, there are more than seven hundred works on the “Word” in the research literature. It has been translated into all Slavic and most Western European languages. Expensive, superbly executed and carefully annotated editions of “The Tale” published in Slavic countries testify to the intense interest in “The Tale of Igor’s Host” among our brotherly peoples.

Numerous translations of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” into the languages ​​of many peoples, publications and studies of “The Tale” made in recent years speak of popular love for this wonderful patriotic work of Russian literature.

The text of the article is based on the book: The Lay of Igor’s Campaign. – M.: Children’s Literature, 1970, p. 5–38.

Work

The Tale of Igor's Campaign is a literary monument of the 12th century, one of the most artistically significant works of ancient Russian literature. Since its discovery, S. has been in the center of attention of Russian philological science; extensive research literature has been devoted to it.
S. reached modern times in a single list, as part of a collection. In the 18th century The collection is believed to have been kept in the library of the Spaso-Yaroslavl Monastery, and no later than 1792 it ended up in the collection of the famous connoisseur and collector of Old Russian manuscripts, Count A. I. Musin-Pushkin. In 1800 S. was published. Comparison of the edition with a copy of the text made at the end of the 18th century. for Catherine II, shows that the publishers (A. I. Musin-Pushkin, N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky and A. F. Malinovsky) fairly accurately reproduced the text of the monument, however, allowing themselves some spelling unification. The destruction of the collection with S.'s text during the Moscow fire of 1812 made it impossible to re-examine the manuscript for a more accurate paleographic analysis, but, according to most researchers, the list can be dated to the S. 16th century, although the presence of a 17th-century Chronograph in the collection. makes us assume that the collection was a convolute. The death of the collection with S. and the high artistic merits of the monument, which seemed to some researchers incompatible with their ideas about the level of literature of Kievan Rus, served as the basis for doubts about the authenticity and antiquity of S.: such doubts were expressed by representatives of the so-called skeptical school in Russian historical science, the first half of the 19th century, and subsequently - the French scientists L. Leger and A. Mazon, the Czech Slavist J. Frcek, the Soviet historian A. A. Zimin. Therefore, it was extremely important to discover and study traces of acquaintance with the text of S. in other ancient Russian literary monuments. S.’s influence was especially pronounced in “Zadonshchina” and “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev.” It was also important to show the linguistic and stylistic correspondence of S. to his time. A number of special investigations were undertaken, as a result of which the similarity of S. with many literary monuments of the 11th-12th centuries was shown, as well as a huge number of linguistic parallels of S. in the texts of this time. There is also no doubt that the events of Igor’s campaign are presented and interpreted from the perspective of a contemporary.

Possible questions in C1 or C5 (in tasks 9 and 17):

Author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” We have indisputable evidence that the Tale of Igor’s Campaign (hereinafter referred to as S.) was known in Ancient Rus'. In a slightly modified form, the quotation from S. was included in the afterword to the Pskov Apostle, rewritten in 1307 by Domid. S. served as the basis for “Zadonshchina”. But neither in these texts, nor in S. himself, nor in any other documents there is information about the author S. The main source of our ideas about him is only the text of the work itself.

S.'s poetic system, its poetic images, vocabulary and phraseology of the work indicate that S., although it is distinguished by its uniqueness and originality, is most closely connected with the book culture of Rus' in the 11th-13th centuries. (see: Adrianova-Peretz V.P. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and monuments of Russian literature of the 11th-13th centuries. L., 1968). The author S. was a man of wide reading, well versed in the historical literature of his time, in the monuments of book culture of his era (V.F. Miller, V.M. Istrin, V.N. Peretz, M.D. Priselkov, V.P. Adrianova-Peretz, D. S. Likhachev). D. S. Likhachev convincingly substantiates the assumption, first expressed by M. D. Priselkov, about the author’s excellent knowledge of the main historical monument of Ancient Rus' - the Tale of Bygone Years. He notes that the very choice by the author S. from the Tale of Bygone Years of the most poetic descriptions of historical events of the past reveals in him an attentive and sensitive reader to the vital beauty of the Tale. Many of S.'s poetic images are close to oral folk poetics, but this only testifies to the broad artistic horizons of S.'s author, and not to the folkloric nature of the work itself. Historical songs served the author S. not only as poetic models, but also as sources of historical data. The author S. equally uses both historical data from chronicles and oral epic legends. The author S. is united with the chroniclers by the desire to find the root cause of all the events that took place in his time, primarily the princely strife. But, as D.S. Likhachev notes, “the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is not a historian or a chronicler, he does not seek to give at least to some extent an idea of ​​Russian history as a whole. It presupposes knowledge of Russian history in the reader himself. And at the same time, his attitude to modern events is highly historical” (Likhachev. “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” and culture, p. 113). Very indicative in this regard is Svyatoslav’s “Golden Word,” which turns into an appeal by the author S. himself to the Russian princes to stand up “for the Russian land.” This is a call to specific princes to create a specific alliance against the Steppe. But this appeal also had a broader function. It called for the ideological unity of all Russian princes and lands from a historical perspective. This is precisely what K. Marx emphasizes in his famous statement about S.: “The essence of the poem is the call of the Russian princes to unity just before the invasion of the Mongol hordes proper” (Marx K., Engels F. Collected op. 2nd ed. T. 29, p. 16). “The real meaning of the call of the author of the Lay,” writes D.S. Likhachev, “perhaps lay not in an attempt to organize this or that campaign, but in a broader and bolder task - to unite public opinion against the feudal strife of the princes, to stigmatize in public opinion of harmful feudal ideas, to mobilize public opinion against the princes' search for personal glory, personal honor and revenge or personal grievances. The task of “The Lay” was not only military, but also the ideological unity of the Russian people around the idea of ​​​​the unity of the Russian land” (Likhachev. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and culture, pp. 148-149).

The author's excellent awareness of the political situation of the time he describes, the accuracy in depicting a number of minor realities, the very nature of the author's attitude to the events described - everything suggests that the story was written shortly after the event depicted in it - the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich, Prince of Novgorod -Seversky against the Polovtsians in 1185. So, for example, addressing Vsevolod III the Big Nest, the author S. says: “You can crumble the oars of the Volga.” This brief allegory contains an allusion to Vsevolod’s campaign in 1183 against the Volga Bulgars. In the address to the same Vsevolod it is said: “You can shoot the shereshirs alive on dry land - the daring sons of Gleb.” And behind this poetic image there is a very real historical situation: the sons of Gleb Rostislavich of Ryazan in 1180 “kissed the cross” of Vsevolod “with all his will” and in 1183 took part in the campaign against the Volga Bulgarians. Such generalized poetic allegories could only be used by a contemporary and, without commentary, were clear only to contemporaries. And there are a lot of similar examples in S. According to Istrin, allusions to political and state events, scattered throughout S. and understandable only to people close to these events, were one of the reasons that S. did not become widespread among subsequent Old Russian readers - the meaning of such poetically and figuratively described the facts were no longer clear to them.

The question of the time of S.'s writing is resolved by researchers ambiguously. The author S. traces his story “to the present Igor,” therefore, it can certainly be argued that S. was written during the life of Igor (died in 1202). V. M. Istrin dated the creation of S. to the period “soon after Igor’s return from captivity, until 1193, the year of the death of Grand Duke Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich” (Istrin. Essay on History, p. 184). Most researchers, however, date the monument to a much narrower period of time: from 1185 to 1187. The most widely accepted dating is from 1187, and a very narrow period of time. At the end of the S., a toast is proclaimed: “Glory to Igor Svyatslavlich, buoy to Vsevolod, Vladimir Igorevich.” From this it is concluded that the S. was written after the return of Vladimir Igorevich from Polovtsian captivity - in September 1187. Among the princes to whom the author of the S. appeals to stand “for the Russian land, for the wounds of Igor”, Yaroslav Osmomysl is named - Yaroslav Vladimirovich Galitsky, who died on October 1, 1187. Therefore, S. dates back to the fall of 1187: after the return of Vladimir from captivity and before the death of Yaroslav Osmomysl became known. However, many S. researchers believe that these calculations cannot be considered serious arguments in dating S. The period of time between the date of Vladimir’s return from captivity and the day of Yaroslav Galitsky’s death is too short, they say. And besides, the S. talks about the wounding of Vladimir Glebovich (“... and Volodymyr is under wounds. Tough and melancholy for Glebov’s son!”), but does not report his death (d. April 18, 1187). It should be noted that there is a hypothesis according to which the time of Vladimir’s return to Rus' should be dated back to 1188 instead of 1187, and the time of death of Yaroslav Osmomysl should actually be 1187 (see: Berezhkov N. G. Chronology of Russian chronicles. M., 1963, pp. 75-76, 83-84, 196, 198, 203-204). If N. G. Berezhkov’s conclusions are correct, then the relationship between the dates of the return of Vladimir Igorevich and the death of Yaroslav Osmomysl is not important for dating S. Thus, S. could have been written either before the events of 1187, or after them - both Yaroslav Osmomysl and Vladimir Glebovich is retrospectively named as people who actually lived in 1185, regardless of the time the story was written. A number of researchers date the story back to 1185. M. A. Maksimovich also suggested that the part before the story about Igor’s return from captivity was created in 1185 ., and the rest of the monument - in 1186. This idea was developed by V.V. Kallash, who believed that S. consists of two parts: the first ends with Yaroslavna’s crying, the second - the rest of S.’s text to the end; “both parts arose one after another with a short interval, at the end of 1185 and the beginning of 1186,” while, Kallash believes, the monument was created before the return of Vladimir Igorevich from captivity and before the death of Vladimir Glebovich (Kallash. Several guesses, p. 347 ). If we admit that the “toast” in honor of Vladimir Igorevich could have been proclaimed at a time when he had not yet returned from Polovtsian captivity (where he, in essence, did not live as a captive, for he married the daughter of Khan Konchak), then the only dating the sign will remain the time of Igor’s escape from captivity, most likely the summer of 1185. A. I. Lyashchenko dated the writing of S. in the fall of 1185, when Vladimir Glebovich had not yet recovered from his wounds (“tightness and melancholy for Glebov’s son”). A.I. Sobolevsky agreed with Lyashchenko’s dating, but he believed that in the fall of 1185 only the part of S. was written, ending with Yaroslavna’s cry (Sobolevsky A.I. To the Tale of Igor’s Campaign. - IpoRYAS, 1929, vol. 2, book 1, pp. 174-186). The year 1185 is dated by S. A. V. Solovyov and B. A. Rybakov. According to B. A. Rybakov, an important chronological sign is the above phrase by S. about the sons of Gleb Rostislavich Ryazansky in his address to Vsevolod the Big Nest. At the end of 1185, the Glebovichs quarreled with Vsevolod. Consequently, concludes B.A. Rybakov, S. was created before southern Rus' learned about the strife between Vsevolod and his vassals - the Glebovichs. The poem was written immediately after Igor’s return from captivity (according to B. A. Rybakov, July - August 1185) (see: Rybakov. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” pp. 274-278). True, in a later work, without stipulating this in any way, B. A. Rybakov writes: “In the spring of 1186, Igor had already escaped from captivity...” (Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries, M., 1982, p. 508). N. S. Demkova dates S. to the middle. 90s XII century She believes that the upper limit of the writing of S. is May 1196 - the time of the death of Vsevolod Svyatoslavich: the “toast” in his honor at the end of S. indisputably indicates the creation of S. before his death. The lower limit is July 1194, the time of death of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. According to N.S. Demkova, the absence of a “toast” to him at the end of the S. and the nature of the “dream of Svyatoslav” in the S. indicate that the work was written after his death. The political situation of the period 1194-1196, according to N. S. Demkova, corresponds to many of the characteristics and images of S. (see: Demkova N. S. On the question of the time of writing “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” - Vestn. Leningrad State University, 1973, No. 14. History, language, lit., issue. 3, p. 72-77). B.I. Yatsenko believes that the political characterization of Igor that is given to him in S. could not have arisen in 1194-1196. In his opinion, the nature of the author’s attitude towards Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov and the name of Chernigov as Igor’s “taken away table” indicate that S. was written after the death of Yaroslav of Chernigov (1198). The time of writing of S. is clarified by the laudatory description of the Volyn prince Roman. This, according to B.I. Yatsenko, could have taken place before 1199, when Roman captured Galich and became the enemy of Igor and his sons, the grandsons of Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia, who claimed the Galician inheritance. According to Yatsenko, S. “was written in 1198-1199, after the reign of Igor Svyatoslavich in Chernigov and before the capture of Galich by Roman Mstislavich” (Yatsenko B.I. Solar eclipse in “The Tale of Igor’s Host.” - TODRL, 1976, vol. 31, p. 122). A. A. Gorsky, critically examining the dates of S. 1185, 1187, 1194-1196, 1198-1199, comes to the conclusion that none of them can be considered indisputable, since There are no solid concrete arguments in favor of any of them. In his opinion, the dialogue between Gzak and Konchak, in which there is undoubtedly a hint of the return of Vladimir Igorevich and Konchakovna from captivity to Rus', indicates the creation of S. no earlier than 1188 (the year of Vladimir Igorevich’s return). At the same time, the nature of the attitude of the author S. towards the princes Svyatoslav and Rurik of Kiev, towards Igor and Vsevolod Yuryevich most of all corresponds to the political situation in the autumn of 1188. At this time S. was written. A. A. Gorsky does not exclude the possibility that the main part of the S. was written in 1185, and in 1188, after the return of Vladimir Igorevich and Vsevolod Svyatoslavich from captivity, a dialogue between Gzak and Konchak and the final monument to the glory of the princes were added to it (Gorsky A.A. On the question of the time of creation “Tales about Igor’s Campaign.” - RL, 1985, No. 4, pp. 21-28). G. N. Moiseeva considers the beginning of 1187 to be the upper limit of the time of creation of S., since the appeal to Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia and the characterization in S. of Vladimir Pereyaslavsky indicate, in her opinion, that S. was written during their lifetime (Vladimir Pereyaslavsky died on April 18 1187). In the list of princes to whom glory is given at the end of the S., the Rylsk prince Svyatoslav Olgovich, Igor’s nephew, who took part in the campaign, is not named. This gives grounds for G.N. Moiseeva to assert that the book was written after his death, i.e. not earlier than 1186: judging by the chronicle mentions of Svyatoslav Olgovich and according to the genealogical books, he died in 1186. , probably not returning from captivity. G.N. Moiseeva joins the opinion of those researchers who date Igor’s escape from Polovtsian captivity in the spring of 1186, shortly after this - in the spring or early summer of 1186 and it was written by S. In her opinion, the time of Vladimir Igorevich’s return to Russia and Vsevolod Svyatoslavich in 1188 does not matter for the dating of S.: that they should be freed, there was an agreement with the Polovtsians, which, according to G.N. Moiseeva, the author of S. knew already in 1186 (Moiseeva G. N. About the time of creation of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - RL, 1985, No. 4, pp. 15-20). D. N. Alshits suggested that S. should have been written after the defeat on Kalka, that is, after 1223, but before 1237 - Batu’s invasion (see: Alshits D. N. Answer to question No. 7 to the IV Congress of Slavists. - In the book: Collection of answers to questions on literary criticism. M., 1958, pp. 37-41). A peculiar development and continuation of the assumption of D. N. Alshits was the hypothesis of L. N. Gumilyov, who attributed the time of creation of S. to the middle of the 13th century, seeing in it an allegorical depiction of the events of 1249-1252. (see: Gumilev L.N. Mongols of the 13th century and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” - In the book: Geographical Society of the USSR. Reports of the Ethnography Department. L., 1966, issue 2. Reports 1962-1965, pp. 55-80).

Some believe that the author S. was a participant in Igor’s campaign and was captured with him; Others see the source of the author S.’s information about the vicissitudes of the battle, the circumstances of Igor’s capture and escape from captivity in the fact that the author S. could have heard all this from eyewitnesses of the events or from Igor himself. It is unlikely that it will be possible to answer this question with certainty. According to D.S. Likhachev, the story about the events of Igor’s campaign both in S. and in the annalistic story of the Ipatiev Chronicle is based on a common source. This explains the closeness of S. and the chronicle story, between which there is no direct relationship, not only in individual details of a historical and factual nature, but also in the interpretation of events, and in an obviously poetic interpretation. Only in S. and the chronicle story is the Kayala River called. In S. Svyatoslav, having learned about Igor’s defeat, “uttered the golden word mixed with tears,” in the chronicle story “Svyatoslav, having heard and sighed greatly, wiped away his tears and spoke...”. D. S. Likhachev makes the following assumption about this common source: “Both the chronicle and the “Word” - both depend on rumors about events, on the fame of them. Events were “arranged” in rumors about them and through this rumor they were reflected both here and there. This rumor may have reflected some scraps of folklore - Polovtsian or Russian" (Likhachev D.S. "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and culture, p. 125).

Even N.M. Karamzin in his “History of the Russian State” expressed the conviction that S. was written, “without a doubt, by a layman, for a monk would not allow himself to talk about pagan gods and attribute natural actions to them” (St. Petersburg, 1816, volume 3, p. 215). Since the time of Karamzin, there have been no other points of view on this issue.

The fact that the author S. repeatedly and freely mentions pagan gods in his work has given rise to some researchers to claim that the author S. believes in pagan gods. We cannot agree with this. The pagan deities mentioned in S. are symbols of nature and artistic images. The same should be said about the author S.’s animation of nature - this is not a reflection of the religious ideas of the author S., but images of the artistic system of the work. Many researchers have written about the Christian worldview of the author S. As D.S. Likhachev notes, “the author of the Lay is a Christian, but the old pre-Christian beliefs acquired a new poetic meaning for him. He animates nature poetically, not religiously. In a number of cases... he rejects the Christian interpretation of events, but rejects it not because he is alien to Christianity, but because poetry for him is still associated with pagan, pre-feudal roots. Pagan ideas for him have aesthetic value, while Christianity for him is not yet connected with poetry, although he himself is an undoubted Christian (God helps Igor escape from captivity, Igor, upon his return, goes to the Mother of God Pirogoshchaya, etc.)” (Likhachev. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and culture, p. 80).

Based on his social status, the author S. is most likely a representative of the feudal elite of the society of that time. This is confirmed by his high education and awareness of political affairs and family ties of princes and principalities, and his excellent knowledge of military affairs. (For the exceptionally broad, professional knowledge of the author S. in the military issues of his time, see the book by Lieutenant General of the Engineering and Technical Service V.G. Fedorov). The social status of the author S. did not prevent him from reflecting the interests of the broad masses in his work. The nationality of the author S., as noted by academician. B.D. Grekov, manifested itself primarily in the fact that the author S. “quite objectively paints before us a picture of the Rus' of that time and, as far as the nature of his work allows, in his own way completely correctly conveys to us the reasons that led Rus' to a state of feudal fragmentation” ( Grekov. Author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, p. 12). With subtle knowledge of the matter, the author S. describes the pictures of battles, vividly draws the images of princes and warriors, but with no less strength and sympathy he talks about how, during the times of princely civil strife, “ratko rataev kikahut, nb often lie grayahut,” how the Polovtsians tormented the Russian the ground, rushing at it, “like a parduje nest” (like a brood of cheetahs), after Igor’s defeat. The author S. is close and understandable to the bitterness of Russian women mourning their husbands and sons, whose bones are sown in the fields. With no less skill and art than military terminology, the author S. uses the terminology of agricultural and handicraft use.

If most researchers more or less agree on the question of the social persona of the author S., then on the question of which of the princes, which of the principalities his sympathies gravitate towards, there are several points of view. The author S. condemns the recklessness of Igor’s campaign, since this campaign, although it was based on noble goals, was not thought out, ended in defeat, and caused a wave of Polovtsian raids on the Russian principalities. But we cannot help but see what deep sympathy the author S. has for his hero, for his brother “bui-tur” Vsevolod, for the entire “nest” of the Olgovichs - the descendants of Oleg Svyatoslavich (named in S. either reproachfully or sympathetic to “Gorislavich”), the ancestor of the Chernigov princes. These features of S. are the basis of the hypothesis that considers the author S. a Chernigov citizen, a warrior of the Chernigov princes, most likely a member of the squad of Igor Svyatoslavich. Proponents of this hypothesis among the most famous S. researchers are O. Ogonovsky, D. I. Ilovaisky, M. D. Priselkov, M. N. Tikhomirov. Other researchers (V. Kallash, P.V. Vladimirov, A.I. Lyashchenko) suggest that the author of S. was a Kievite, close to the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. The basis for this assumption is the following arguments: the author S. condemns Igor’s campaign and at the same time praises the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav, inconsistent with its actual historical significance; the reflection of all-Russian interests in the S. most likely could have taken place if the S. was created in Kyiv. S. B. A. Rybakov considers the author to be a resident of Kyivian. The author S. looked at events as a representative of Kiev, but he was “a politician and historian who sought the causes of phenomena and looked at events from an all-Russian position” (Rybakov. Russian chroniclers, p. 484). There is, as it were, a middle point of view between these two hypotheses. Its supporters (S. A. Adrianov, A. V. Solovyov) believe that the author S. is a Chernigov by origin, but wrote his work in Kyiv. A.V. Soloviev, who examined this issue especially carefully and in detail, suggests that the author of S. was the court singer of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, who came with the prince to Kiev from Chernigov (Svyatoslav sat on the Kiev table in 1180, and before that he reigned in Chernigov) . The special closeness of the author S. to Svyatoslav and his family is confirmed, according to A.V. Solovyov, by the author S.’s knowledge of the affairs of the Principality of Polotsk: Svyatoslav’s wife was the great-granddaughter of Vseslav of Polotsk, therefore the court singer was attentive to the family Polotsk traditions of Princess Maria - his wife his overlord. I. I. Malyshevsky believed that the author S. came from southern Rus', knew Tmutorokan very well and had been to many other places in Ancient Rus'. According to Malyshevsky, the author S. is a wandering book singer, similar to the singer Oryu and the scribe Timothy mentioned in the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle.

A number of researchers believe that the author S. came from Galician-Volyn Rus. According to this assumption, the author S. was a warrior of Yaroslav Osmomysl and came to Novgorod-Seversky to Igor in the retinue of his wife - the daughter of Yaroslav Osmomysl. The Galician-Volyn origin of the author S., according to researchers who adhere to this point of view (O. Partytsky, A. S. Petrushevich, A. S. Orlov, L. V. Cherepnin), is evidenced by the language of the work, the closeness of S. in style to Galicia-Volyn Chronicle, panegyric attitude towards Yaroslav Osmomysl (Partytsky tried to prove that the author S. came from the Carpathian Lemkos).

M. S. Grushevsky put forward a hypothesis about two authors of the S.: before the story about Igor’s escape from captivity (before the words “I will spill the sea of ​​midnight...”), the author was one person - a representative of the Kiev squad and a supporter of Svyatoslav, and from these words until at the end - another, close to Igor, since in this part of the work, according to M. S. Grushevsky, there is a clearly exaggerated praise of Igor, contradicting the initial condemnation. The question of the “composite” nature of S.’s text has been raised by a number of researchers. Hypotheses about the creation of various parts of the work at different times are given above when considering the problem of the time of writing the work. But there are, in addition to Grushevsky, supporters of the point of view that C is composed of texts created at different times by different authors. I. Franko in 1907 tried to substantiate his view of S. as a squad song composed of several songs composed by several singers at different times (Song about Igor’s campaign, Song about Vseslav of Polotsk, Song about the death of Izyaslav, etc.). The creator S. is the editor who compiled all these materials into a single whole. S. E. A. Lyatsky considered the text that has come down to us to be a set of songs that once existed separately, of which two are the main ones. “Both main songs - about Igor and Svyatoslav - were subjected in some of their parts to reworking, abbreviations and numerous additions from elements of old songs and proverbs, and some stanzas, perhaps due to the fault of the copyists, were often distorted and misplaced. Thus, the text known to us retains in general the stanzas of two original songs - poems from the end of the 12th century. - at the same time, he retained traces of a certain unifier, composer-editor. This editor - we will call him the compiler of the “Tale” - set out to compare the mentioned songs in one work, illustrate them with songs of distant antiquity about the princes Oleg Svyatoslavich, Vseslav of Polotsk and Izyaslav Vasilkovich, simultaneously capture excerpts from songs about modern princes, and subordinate this whole a mixture of one majestic and lofty idea of ​​freedom and unity of Rus'” (p. 55-56). Lyatsky believes that S. was folded in two steps. First, the poet, a supporter of Igor and a participant in the campaign, composed the first song to show the valor of the prince and thereby justify his campaign in the eyes of his contemporaries. In response to this song, an enlightened boyar close to Svyatoslav composed a special poem about Svyatoslav from songs sung by court singers. The second part of the work (Yaroslavna’s cry, captivity and return of Igor) was created later, after Igor’s return from captivity - “the first part of the song was composed before Igor’s return, the second under the direct impression of his story about the return, both together - no later than 1187. "(Lyatsky. "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", p. 128). S. was intended for singing and written in verse.

The abundance of hypotheses about the place of origin of S. indicates the difficulty of localizing S. and confining it to a specific political center. And we are unlikely to be able to give a satisfactory answer to this question. Of course, the author S. lived in a certain place, occupying a certain level of the social-hierarchical ladder of his era. But, apart from assumptions based only on the text of the work itself, we cannot say anything definitively formulated and definite, because every work of genius by a brilliant author is much larger and broader than the socio-biographical place of the writer in society. Therefore, D.S. Likhachev is right when, when asked who the author of S. was, he answers: “The author of the Lay could have been close to Igor Svyatoslavich: he sympathizes with him. He could also be close to Svyatoslav of Kyiv: he sympathizes with him too. He could have been from Chernigov or Kyivian. He could have been a vigilante: he constantly uses vigilante concepts. He was undoubtedly a book-educated man, and in terms of his social status he hardly belonged to the exploited classes of the population. However, in his political views he was neither a “courtier”, nor a warrior, nor a defender of local interests, nor an ideologist of princes, boyars or clergy. Wherever the “Word” was created - in Kyiv, Chernigov, Galich, Polotsk or Novgorod-Seversky - it did not embody any regional features. And this happened primarily because the author of the Lay took a patriotic position independent of the ruling elite of feudal society. The local interests of the feudal elite were alien to him and the interests of broad sections of the working population of Rus' were close to him - united everywhere and everywhere striving for the unity of Rus'" (Likhachev. "The Tale of Igor's Campaign." 2nd ed., p. 144).

The impossibility of a final and comprehensive answer to the question about the author of S. based on data from the text of the work itself explains the variety of attempts to identify the author of S. with any specific person known from other sources of the late XII - early. XIII century

In 1846, N. Golovin tried to prove that the author of S. was the “wise scribe Timothy,” mentioned in 1205 in the Ipatiev Chronicle. The entry states that Timothy was from Kiev and cites the text of the “parable” he told, from which it is clear that he was a scribe with a pronounced church-religious orientation and there is no reason to consider him the author of S. (see Timothy).

In 1938, the writer I. Novikov came up with his hypothesis about the author S. In the chronicle story of the Ipatiev Chronicle about Igor’s campaign, it is reported that along with him in captivity was the son of the thousand and the groom, who persuaded Igor to escape from captivity together with the Polovtsian Lavor (Ovlur ). In the “Russian History” by V.N. Tatishchev it is reported that upon returning from captivity, Igor “made Lavor a nobleman” and married him to “the daughter of the thousand Raguel.” I. A. Novikov, based on the conviction that S. was written by a participant in Igor’s campaign in captivity, considers the son of a thousand to be the most possible author of the work. In his opinion, this son of the thousand, not named anywhere, was the son of Raguel. (Tysyatsky Raguil Dobrynich is mentioned in connection with other events in several chronicles). I. A. Novikov believes that the “wise scribe Timothy” is none other than the son of the thousand Raguel. Thus, the author of S. according to I. A. Novikov is Timofey Raguilov. All these guesses are very unconvincing and very far-fetched. The information from the chronicle and Tatishchev about Timofey, the son of the thousand, the thousand Raguil, is so scarce that they do not provide any data to deepen our understanding of the author S.

A unique interpretation of the hypothesis about the author S. in connection with Tysyatsky’s son was found in Iv. M. Kudryavtsev, who established the presence in S. of information confirmed only by the Novgorod chronicle (Iv. M. Kudryavtsev. Note to the text: “From the same Kayaly Svyatopluk...” in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” - TODRL, 1949, vol. 7, pp. 407-409). Iv. M. Kudryavtsev put forward a hypothesis about the Novgorod origin of the author S. and suggested that the son of the thousand, mentioned in connection with Igor’s campaign, was the son of the Novgorod thousand Mironega (Milonega), and it was this Novgorod thousand who wrote S. Mironega (Milonega) Iv. M. Kudryavtsev identifies with the Novgorod mayor Miroshka Nezdinich and with the Kiev architect Pyotr Miloneg (see: Golovenchenko F.M. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: Historical, literary and bibliographical essay. M., 1955, pp. 458-459). In fact, these are three different persons and it is not clear on what basis they are united into one person, and this person is declared to be the author S.

To a certain extent, the hypothesis about the author S.V.G. Fedorov, who saw the author S. in the thousand Raguil Dobrynich, is also connected with these hypotheses. V. G. Fedorov quite rightly writes that “the whole question about the personality of the author of “The Lay” comes down to resolving the question of whether in this case we can only talk about his high talent. It should be recognized that the author of “The Tale,” in addition to being talented, must also have had great life experience, deep knowledge not only of military affairs, but also of the history of Rus'” (Fedorov. Who was the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” p. 157) . However, information about the thousandth Raguil is so scarce and vague that we have no reason to connect his name with the circumstances of Igor’s campaign and see in him a person gifted with literary talent who knows the history of Rus' well.

The writer A.K. Yugov, who supported the point of view of the Galician-Volyn origin of S., suggested in 1944 that the author of S. was the “notorious singer Mitus,” whose name was named in 1240 in the Ipatiev Chronicle. However, there is no data that would confirm the likelihood of Mitusa’s authorship. B. A. Rybakov, regarding the work of A. K. Yugov, notes: “The article is replete with historical errors and is written unconvincingly” (Rybakov. Russian chroniclers, p. 394).

M.V. Shchepkina published an article in 1960 in which, based on S.’s text, she came to the conclusion that the author S. calls himself Boyan’s grandson. For the first time, the assumption about the author S. as the grandson of Boyan “either by blood... or by spirit” was made in 1878 by A. A. Potebnya (Potebnya A. A Tale of Igor’s Campaign. 2nd ed. Kharkov, 1914, p. 21).

The question of the possible author of S. was examined in the most detail and detail by B. A. Rybakov in the 1972 monograph “Russian Chronicles and the Author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”.” He comes to the conclusion that the author of the S. could be a Kiev boyar, a chronicler of three Kiev princes - Izyaslav Mstislavich (1146-1154), his son Mstislav (1150-1160), his nephew Rurik Rostislavich (1173, 1181-1196 gg.) - Pyotr Borislavich.

In 1976, an article by M. T. Sokol was published, in which the researcher tries to prove that the author of S. was the Chernigov governor Olstin Oleksich. This governor of the Chernigov prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich carried out the prince’s ambassadorial assignments; he headed the squad of Chernigov kovuys, sent by Yaroslav Vsevolodovich to Igor during his campaign against the Polovtsians in 1185. Here is all the reliable information about this person that we can glean from the chronicle. M. T. Sokol recreates the biography of Olstin Oleksich, from which it follows that he could be the author of S. First of all, even from this biography recreated by M. T. Sokol we do not see any data that could indicate that this person could and had to engage in literary work. But, most importantly, this biography raises many doubts, since its compiler has to accept a number of very controversial assumptions and resort to clearly artificial identifications (for example, Olstin Oleksich, the Chernigov governor, and Olstin, the Ryazan boyar, are declared to be the same person).

In a review of American literature on S. R. O. Jacobson reports that S. Tarasov in the article “Possible author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”” (New Journal, New York, 1954, vol. 39, pp. 155-175) identifies the author S. with Kochkar - the “merciful man” (favorite) of the great Kiev prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich (Yakobson R. O. Study of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” in the United States of America. - TODRL, 1958, vol. 14, p. 115). The only thing we know about this Kochkar from the chronicle is that he was the favorite of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and that the prince confided his secret plans to him. Tatishchev writes that the princess and Kochkar “owned Kiev more than he (Svyatoslav - L.D.), and no one else knew about it” (Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. M.; L., 1964, vol. 3, p. 123). Why Kochkar could be the author of S. is unclear.

Hypotheses about the princely origin of the author S. should be included in a special group. In 1934, V. F. Rzhiga, rejecting the possibility of S. being created by a warrior of any of the princes of the 12th century, wrote: “the idea is inevitable that “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” took shape not in a druzhina environment, but in a princely environment” (Rzhiga V.F. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” as a poetic monument, p. 158). But the final conclusion was formulated by the researcher very vaguely: “... either the author himself was a prince, or he was a professional and at the same time a princely court poet, closely associated with the princely family” (p. 159). The idea that the author of S. was a princely singer-poet, currently supported by many S. researchers, was expressed long before V.F. Rzhiga. In 1859, D. I. Ilovaisky wrote about the existence of courtly-princely poetry in Ancient Rus'. In the author S. he saw a representative of this kind of poets (Ilovaisky D.I. A few words on the issue of ancient Russian poetry. - Russian Word, 1859, No. 12, pp. 515-520). Hypotheses about specific princes of the 12th century, possible authors of S., have become especially widespread recently.

In 1967, in the Kiev house of scientists, N.V. Charlemagne made a report in which he sought to prove that the author of S. was Igor himself. This report was published only in 1985. N.V. Charlemagne proceeded from the position that the author was a witness to all the events associated with Igor, and such a single witness could only be Igor himself. In 1978, the assumption that the author of S. was Prince Igor was made by the poet I. I. Kobzev. The hypothesis about Igor as the author of S. was examined in most detail by V. A. Chivilikhin in the last chapters of his novel-essay “Memory”. V. A. Chivilikhin first of all seeks to prove that the author of S. could only be a prince. The arguments he gives to prove this thesis cannot be considered indisputable. In the system of evidence, V. A. Chivilikhin attaches great importance to the words “brother”, “brethren”, “prince”, “prince”: he believes that these words in the context in which they are used in S. could only belong to a person princely origin. However, similar examples from Old Russian texts do not provide grounds for such a conclusion; moreover, the nature of the use of the word “prince” and the address “prince,” as shown by V. Yu. Franchuk, indicates that this text could not have been written by a prince (Franchuk To the question about the author, p. 162). The evidence that S.’s text belongs specifically to Igor cannot be considered convincing. It is impossible to attribute the creation of S. to Igor himself, neither from the point of view of the moral and ethical assessments that are given to Igor in the work, nor from the point of view of the political concepts of the monument, nor from the point of view of the author’s psychology of that time.

Translator S.V.V. Medvedev tried to prove that the author of the poem was the Grand Duke of Kiev Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. This hypothesis is even more incredible than the hypothesis about the authorship of Igor: it is quite obvious that the Grand Duke of Kiev could not have created a work dedicated to the prince who was vassal to him. V.V. Medvedev builds his hypothesis on the assumption that in the phrase S. “the river Boyan and the passages to Svyatoslavl, the pest-maker of old time...” the name of the author is named - Svyatoslav. Based on a similar interpretation of this phrase by S., the Ukrainian translator S.V. Grabovsky also considered that the name of the author S. is named here - Svyatoslav, but this is not the Prince of Kiev, but Igor’s nephew, Prince of Rylsk Svyatoslav Olegovich. It was already noted above that there are quite good reasons to believe that Svyatoslav Rylsky died in Polovtsian captivity, and besides, we, in essence, do not have any historical data about this prince, especially those that would give reason to see in the 19-year-old Rylsky prince of the brilliant writer, author S. The assumption about Svyatoslav Rylsky as the author of S. was previously set out in artistic form by the Perm writer A. M. Domnin (“Mother Russia. Legend.” - In the book: Domnin A. Paths of the Ancestors. Legends , poems, legends (Perm, 1978, pp. 145-260). Based on the conjectural reading of this phrase by S.: “The rivers Boyan and Khodyna, Svyatoslavl, the songwriter of old times...” (the conjecture was proposed back in 1894 by I. E. Zabelin and is currently accepted by the majority of researchers and translators of S.) poet A Yu. Chernov suggested that the author S. is hiding under the name of Khodyna.

Two Ukrainian researchers S. G. Pushik and L. E. Makhnovets independently put forward a hypothesis according to which the author of the book was the Galician prince Vladimir Yaroslavich Galitsky. Vladimir Yaroslavich was in close family relations with many people mentioned in S. (he is the son of Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia, the brother of Yaroslavna, Igor’s wife, he was connected with the latter not only by family relations, but also by great friendship; he was married to the daughter of the Grand Duke of Kiev Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, was the maternal nephew of the Vladimir-Suzdal prince Vsevolod Yurievich, Glebovna, the wife of Bui-Tur Vsevolod, was the cousin of Vladimir Yaroslavich), during Igor’s campaign in 1185 he was in Putivl, where Yaroslavna was staying at the same time (“ Yaroslavna cries early in Putivl on the visor..."), he visited most of the principalities mentioned in S. However, the respectful attitude towards Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia, which we see in S., testifies against the authorship of Vladimir Yaroslavich: father and son were friends with a friend in irreconcilable enmity, in addition, we know nothing about the relationship between Vladimir and his father-in-law, the Prince of Kiev, who is ranked so highly in S. We do not have data that would indicate that Vladimir Yaroslavich could engage in literary work. Finally, as noted above, the linguistic data of S. testify against the princely theory of the origin of S.

The essence of all hypotheses about the authors of S. to a certain extent is the conjecture by the creators of these hypotheses to certain real names of the 12th century. such biographical data that makes it possible to attribute the authorship of S. to them. It is noteworthy that all the time new names are put forward as candidates for the authors of S.: the creators of new hypotheses are aware of the weakness of the arguments of their predecessors, but consider their own arguments indisputable.

The hypothesis of B. A. Rybakov should be recognized as the most reasonable, since we have quite objective evidence of the extraordinary literary skill of the boyar and governor Pyotr Borislavich. But even in this case, a large number of assumptions must be added to very insignificant absolute evidence. And if we can be more or less sure of the involvement of this statesman and political figure of the 12th century. to the chronicle, then the question of whether S. belongs to him is still hypothetical (see Pyotr Borislavich for more details).

The best and only reliable source of our information about the author S. remains only the text of the monument itself, from which it follows with indisputable clarity that he was not only a brilliant writer of his time, but also a man of high civic feeling, thinking and suffering from the thoughts and suffering of his people.

Plan:

2. Prince Igor goes on a campaign with his brother Vsevolod;

3. The Russian army wins the first battle, after the second Igor is captured;

5. Prophetic dream of Prince Svyatoslav;

6. The cry of Yaroslavna, the wife of Prince Igor;

7. Igor escapes from captivity. The entire Russian land rejoices at his return.

Summary:

Main characters:

Problems of “Words...”

· Condemnation of the strife between Russian princes, which led to the fragmentation of Rus';

· Call for the unity of Rus';

· Glorification of the Heroism of the Russian people;

· A story about the history and modernity of Rus';

· A story about the grief of the Russian people after the defeat of Igor and about the joy that gripped everyone after the return of the prince;

· The problem of military valor and honor, love and loyalty, fate and free will.

Main idea:

ü The harm of civil strife and the call for the unity of Russian lands;

ü Reflections on ambition and human pride.

Symbols:

1. Mention of Boyana:

Unlike the ancient Russian singer-storyteller Boyan, the author is not going to praise the exploits of the princes, but wants “according to the epics of this time,” that is, following the historical truth, to talk about the true events of the recent past.

2. Solar eclipse:

At first, before the campaign, Prince Igor sees a solar eclipse, which is an unfavorable sign, but goes against fate.

3. Svyatoslav's dream:

Svyatoslav is given knowledge about Igor’s campaign, his defeat and the invasion of Rus' by enemies. Hood. The function of Svyatoslav’s dream is to justify the latter’s right to the “golden word,” in which he acts as a unifier of princes in the fight against the enemy.

The dream images are symbolic:

ü He is dressed in a black papoloma (funeral blanket);

ü Seeing a bed in a dream means illness or death;

ü Yew is considered the most valuable type of wood for a coffin;

ü Drinking wine, especially cloudy wine, in a dream is a “bad omen”, “a sign of sadness and annoying news”;

ü Scattering pearls are a symbol of tears.

4. “Golden Word” by Svyatoslav:

And then the great Svyatoslav

He dropped his golden word.

Mixed with tears, saying:

"O sons, I did not expect such evil!

You have wasted your youth,

The enemy was attacked at the wrong time,

Not with great honor in battle

The enemy's blood was shed on the ground.

Your heart is in forged armor

Tempered in self-inflicted violence.

What have you children done to me?

And my silver gray hairs?

Where is my brother, my terrible Yaroslav,

Where are his Chernigov servants,

Where are the Tatras, the inhabitants of oak forests,

Topchak, Olber and Revug?

But there was a time - without shields.

Snatching the knives from the boot,

They walked towards hordes of enemies,

To celebrate our ashes.

This is where the glory of our great-grandfather thunders!

You decided to strike at random:

"We will take our glory by force,

And then we’ll share the old one.”

Is it a wonder for an old man that I should grow younger?

The old falcon, although he is weak in appearance,

Makes the birds fly high,

He won't let anyone offend.

Yes, the princes don’t want to help me,

There is little use in the strength of a valiant man.

Time, or something. moved back?

After all, right under Rimov they are shouting

Russians under the Polovtsian saber!

And Vladimir is wounded, barely alive, -

Woe to the prince in the battle!"

Direct condemnation of Igor and Vsevolod. He accuses them of an ambitious desire for glory, but he does not doubt their personal courage and does not humiliate their dignity. It reminds us that in the past, strife weakened the Russian land and led to the death of the princes. Calls on the princes to unite their forces.

5. Yaroslavna's lament:

Yaroslavna's Lament (in interlinear translation by Dmitry Likhachev)

The unknown cuckoo crows early:

“I’ll fly,” he says, “like a cuckoo along the Danube,

I will wet my silk sleeve in the Kayala River,

Morning to the prince his bloody wounds

On his mighty body."

Yaroslavna cries early

“Oh wind, sail!

Why, sir, are you blowing towards me?

Why are you rushing Khin's arrows?

On your light wings

On the warriors of my dear?

Wasn't it enough for you to fly under the clouds?

Cherishing ships on the blue sea?

Why, sir, is my joy

Did you scatter the feather grass?”

Yaroslavna cries early

In Putivl-city on the visor, saying:

“Oh Dnepr Slovutich!

You broke through stone mountains

Through the Polovtsian land.

You cherished Svyatoslav’s plantings on yourself

To Kobyakov's camp.

Come, sir, to my dear one,

So that I don’t send him tears to the sea early.”

Yaroslavna cries early

In Putivl, on a visor, saying:

“Bright and thrice bright sun!

You are warm and wonderful to everyone:

Why, lord, did you spread your hot rays

Are my warriors happy?

In a waterless field thirst twisted their bows,

Have they filled their quivers with grief?”

The sea splashed at midnight,

Tornadoes are coming in clouds.

God shows Prince Igor the way

From the land of Polovtsian

To the Russian land,

To the father's golden table.

She does not reflect, does not judge, but simply saddens and grieves. Turning to the forces of nature, she asks her husband for help. Yaroslavna mourns for all Russian soldiers, not only for her husband.

6. Fairytale motifs:

· Igor's conversation with the Donets River;

· Transformation of Igor into various animals and birds.

Means of artistic expression:

Meaning of the work

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is rightfully recognized as a monument of world significance and stands among the masterpieces of world medieval literature. Many figures of Russian and world culture left their admiring responses to this work. Many researchers note what a great influence “The Word...” had on the development of not only Russian literature, but also art in general.

At the very end of his life, Pushkin had plans to translate this work, but already in the poem “Ruslan and Lyudmila” the influence of the ancient monument is felt: at Vladimir’s feast, guests listen to the “pleasant voice” of the singer Boyan. And in a note about “The Lay...” of 1836, the poet noted: “Many writers of the 18th century did not have as much poetry as is found in Yaroslavna’s lament, in the description of battles and flight.” Critic V.G. Belinsky called this work “a beautiful fragrant flower, worthy of attention, memory, and respect.” His passion for the “Word...” was reflected in Gogol’s work, in particular in his “Terrible Vengeance” and “Taras Bulba”.

Another outstanding achievement of Russian art is associated with The Tale of Igor's Campaign - Borodin's opera Prince Igor. Wonderful paintings by Russian artists such as Vasnetsov were created based on the plot of “The Words...”. It has been translated into all Slavic languages ​​and most Western European languages. But still new editions, translations, and studies are appearing dedicated to the brilliant monument of ancient Russian literature, which finds a response in the hearts of modern readers.

Basic concepts:

Old Russian literature

Chronicle

Heroic poem

Historical song

Psychological parallelism

Personification

Essays on the work

Related information.

Slide 1

Goals and objectives of the lesson:

• analyze “Yaroslavna’s Lament” and “The Golden Word of Svyatoslav” - the ideological center of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign”, compare images of Yaroslavna by different artists, discuss the problem of the authorship of “The Lay...” and the image of the author;
• develop skills in working with literary texts, students’ thinking, the ability to use various sources to obtain information, and develop their own point of view;
• cultivate interest in the history of the country, a sense of patriotism, compassion, and empathy.

During the classes

1. Teacher's introduction

The culminating center of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the greatest work of ancient Russian literature, is “Yaroslavna’s Lament” and “The Golden Word of Svyatoslav.” At the same time, these fragments are the ideological center of “The Lay...”, political and lyrical. Today we will try to compare these fragments, and also discuss a question to which there is still no clear answer - the question of the authorship and author of the “Word...”.

During the lesson we will work in two groups.

2. Working with a table

Slide 2

Answer the questions and fill out the table using the lines of comparison.

Teacher questions.

"The Golden Word of Svyatoslav"

- “Decipher” Svyatoslav’s vague dream.

The prince dreamed in the “golden-domed mansion” that the beam above him cracked, crows croaked and rushed to the sea. And they began to prepare the prince himself for burial: they dressed him “in black papoloma on a plank (or yew) bed”, they began to mourn with “blue wine mixed with grief”, they began to sprinkle large pearls - tears. And the boyars said to the prince: “Woe is yours because two falcons have flown from your father’s golden table; the falcons were captured in iron straps and their wings were clipped.”

Four princes were captured: Igor, Vsevolod, Oleg and Svyatoslav. The speech of the boyars turns into a figurative, picturesque lament: “darkness covered the light, blasphemy defeated praise, Gothic maidens sang on the shore of the Blue Sea, tinkling with Russian gold.” Then Grand Duke Svyatoslav utters his “golden word”, reproaching Igor and Vsevolod for excessive arrogance. And the Grand Duke would stand up for insulting his nest; but he already knows how Vladimir Glebovich groans under the Polovtsian sabers.

Which great princes does Svyatoslav address?

What does Svyatoslav reproach the great princes for?

What does it call for?

And is it Prince Svyatoslav himself, or is it the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Host” who calls on the forces of modern Rus': Grand Duke Vsevolod, son of Yuri Dolgoruky, and his close Glebovichs, then the Rostislavichs, Rurik and David, the powerful Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia and the famous Roman with Mstislav (Roman Volynsky). The author once again remembers Igor with grief and again calls on the Mstislavichs and Vseslav’s tribe, focusing most of all on this hero of Boyan’s songs. All these are daring warriors: Yaroslav of Chernigov with the steppe inhabitants wins with the clique of his regiment; Vsevolod can crumble the Volga with oars, and scoop up the Don with helmets; Rurik and David with their squads are not afraid of either wounds or blood, swimming in it with golden helmets; Yaroslav Osmomysl rushes with his iron regiments along the Danube, approaches Kyiv, fights the steppe inhabitants; Roman and Mstislav are terrible for Lithuania and the Polovtsians.

Features of the word genre.

What feeling is imbued with the “Word”? Has it been passed on to you?

Will Svyatoslav's call achieve its goal?

"Yaroslavna's Lament"

What forces of nature does Yaroslavna turn to?

Why does Yaroslavna turn to the wind, the Dnieper, and the sun?

What does she reproach them for?

Features of the crying genre.

Why does he compare himself to a cuckoo?

What is the meaning of the words “I will wet my silk sleeve in the Kayala River,

In the morning the prince will see his bloody wounds"? (it was believed that there was dead water in the Kayala River, and in fairy tales wounds were healed with the help of dead water)

Compared to the “Golden Word,” what intonation does “Yaroslavna’s Lament” sound like?

How do the forces of nature respond to her call?

What feeling is imbued with “Crying”? Has it been passed on to you?

Based on the call of Svyatoslav and Yaroslavna, guess who could be the author of the “Word...”. Prove your point.

Why is this the political and lyrical center of the Lay?

Whose call sounds more convincing: Svyatoslav’s or Yaroslavna’s? Why?

What kind of Yaroslavna do you imagine?

On stage, the image of Yaroslavna was presented by different actresses. On the slide are some images.

Slide 3

Artists also imagined Yaroslavna in different ways. Among them are I. Glazunov, K. Vasiliev, V. Favorsky. ( Slides 4, 5, 6).

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Which image is closest to you? Explain your choice.

Consider a reproduction of I. Glazunov’s painting “Russian Song”. ( Slide 7). What does it have in common with “Yaroslavna’s Lament”?

Slide 7

3. Results of working with the table

Slide 9

5. The main idea of ​​“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”

What word reflects the central idea of ​​“The Lay”? (unity).

Which characters in The Lay convey and express this idea? ( Slide 10)(Svyatoslav, Yaroslavna, Igor, author).

Slide 10

6. Homework

Write an essay on one of the topics:

1. Native nature in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”;
2. The image of the Russian land in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”;
3. How do you imagine the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”?

The most outstanding literary monument of Kievan Rus is undoubtedly “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” It reached modern times in a single copy, however, that one was lost during the fire of Moscow in 1812, so we only have the edition of the Lay, carried out in 1800 by the owner of the manuscript - philanthropist and lover of antiquities, Count A. I. Musin -Pushkin, and a copy made for Catherine II at the end of the 18th century.

The artistic perfection of the Lay, which allegedly did not correspond to the level of literary monuments of Ancient Rus', and the destruction of the manuscript gave rise to doubts about the antiquity of the monument and even to hypotheses about the creation of the Lay at the end of the 18th century. In the 60s our century, a lively discussion unfolded about the time of creation of the “Word”, which turned out to be very fruitful for the study of the monument: it forced both supporters of the antiquity of the “Word” and their opponents to once again check their argumentation, carry out new thorough research on a number of issues (vocabulary and phraseology “Words”, the relationship between “Words” and “Zadonshchina”, “Words” and the literary life of the late 18th century, etc.). Ultimately, the position of defenders of the authenticity and antiquity of the Lay was further strengthened, and it became obvious that the skeptics had no decisive counterarguments. Currently, the main issues of studying the “Word” are presented in the following form.

The collection with “The Lay” was acquired by A. I. Musin-Pushkin, apparently in the early 90s. XVIII century The first news about it appeared in print in 1797 (when the opening of the monument was reported by N. M. Karamzin and M. M. Kheraskov), but it is possible that mention of the “Word” was already contained in an article by P. A. Plavilshchikov, published in the magazine “Spectator” in the February issue of 1792. No later than 1796, a copy of the text of the “Words” (the so-called Catherine’s copy) was made for Catherine II and a translation of the monument was prepared. A. I. Musin-Pushkin, together with archaeographers A. F. Malinovsky and N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky, prepared the text of the “Word” for printing, and in 1800 the monument was published with translation and commentary. In 1812, the library of A. I. Musin-Pushkin was destroyed in a Moscow fire; Along with the manuscript of the Lay, a significant part of the first edition was burned.

The collection containing “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was described by the publishers. In addition to the “Lay”, it included a chronograph, a chronicle (apparently a fragment of the First Novgorod Chronicle), as well as three stories: “The Tale of the Indian Kingdom”, “The Tale of Akira the Wise” and “Devgenie’s Deed”. Fragments from these stories were given by N. M. Karamzin in his “History”, and this made it possible to establish that “The Tale of Akira” is presented in the Musin-Pushkin collection in its oldest edition, and “The Tale of the Indian Kingdom” contains plot details , not yet discovered in any other of the numerous lists of this monument. Thus, “The Lay” was surrounded by rare editions of stories that were rare in ancient Russian book literature.

The attention of researchers has long been drawn to the numerous differences (mostly of an orthographic nature) in the text of the Lay in the first edition from Catherine’s copy. Analysis of these discrepancies allows us to get a clear idea of ​​the principles of reproduction of the text of the Lay by the publishers: they - in full accordance with the archaeographic traditions of their time - sought not so much for a literally accurate reproduction of the text of the Lay, with the orthographical character inherent in it, like any ancient Russian text. inconsistency, typos, incorrectness, etc., as much as “correcting” and unifying it. This significantly complicates the reconstruction of the original text of the Lay, but at the same time once again convinces us that in the hands of the publishers there was an ancient manuscript, the transfer of the text of which presented considerable difficulties for them, because a number of questions arose that could not yet be answered by the then philology, much less publishing practice.

One of the most important arguments in favor of the antiquity and authenticity of the Lay is the analysis of its vocabulary and phraseology. Even A. S. Orlov rightly noted: “... it is necessary to immediately clarify and consider the complete availability of data from the monument itself - primarily from the side of language, in the broadest sense. Language is the most dangerous thing; it is played without understanding and discredits the monument.” Many linguistic observations have been made in recent years in the works of V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, V. L. Vinogradova, A. N. Kotlyarenko, D. S. Likhachev, N. A. Meshchersky, B. A. Larin and other researchers . An indisputable fact was established: even those rare words that skeptics took as evidence of the late origin of the “Word” are, as research progresses, found either in ancient Russian monuments of an older period (as evidenced by the “Dictionary-Reference Book of the “Word””), or in dialects. All this fully corresponds to our ideas about the richness of the linguistic culture of Kievan Rus, but the writer of the 18th century. (as skeptics imagine the author of the Lay) would have been forced to specifically look for these rare lexemes in various texts and at the same time have a completely unique collection of ancient Russian literary monuments.

But perhaps the most important argument in favor of the antiquity of the Lay is its relationship with Zadonshchina. “Zadonshchina” is a story from the end of the 14th or 15th centuries, telling about the victory of Rus' over the forces of Mamai on the Kulikovo field in 1380. Immediately after the discovery of the first of the now known lists of “Zadonshchina” (in 1852), researchers drew attention to the extraordinary its similarity with the “Word”: both monuments have not only a similar system of images, but also have many textual parallels. The discovery of "Zadonshchina", the eldest copy of which dates back to the end of the 15th century, would seem to have forever resolved the question of the antiquity of the "Word", which, by universal recognition, "Zadonshchina" imitated. However, in the 90s. XIX century a version was put forward that it was not “Zadonshchina” that imitated “The Lay”, but, on the contrary, “The Lay” could have been written using the figurative system of “Zadonshchina”.

Research undertaken in recent years decisively refute this hypothesis. Firstly, it turned out that the “Slovo” does not reveal individual textual proximity to any of the currently known lists of “Zadonshchina”; The entire sum of “parallels” to the “Word” was apparently possessed by the archetypal (author’s) text of this monument, and, therefore, the “Word” was “created” in the 18th century. It would be possible only if we had such a unique text. Secondly, attention was drawn to the fact that “Zadonshchina” contains a number of corrupted or unclear readings, which can only be explained as the result of an unsuccessful rethinking of certain readings of the “Word”. Finally, A. N. Kotlyarenko made an important observation: the archaic elements in the language of “Zadonshchina” occur precisely in readings parallel to the readings of “The Lay”, and are thus explained by the influence of this monument. Assuming an inverse relationship between the monuments (i.e., assuming that the “Word” depends on the “Zadonshchina”), we come to the paradoxical statement that the creator of the “Word” in the 18th century. used only those fragments of “Zadonshchina” in which archaic elements not characteristic of the rest of its text are found. So, the reflection of the text of the Lay in “Zadonshchina” is a weighty argument in favor of its antiquity.

Other observations also speak about the antiquity of the “Lay”: this is the reflection in it of details of the historical situation of the 12th century that were understandable mainly to contemporaries, and the use of archaic Turkisms, and the features of the style and poetics of the “Lay”, and the nature of the worldview of its author, and the fact of the reflection of the text “Words” in the postscript to the “Pskov Apostle” of 1307, etc.

* * *

The plot of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” is based on a real event in Russian history: in 1185, two years after the successful united campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsy, the prince of Novgorod-Seversky Igor Svyatoslavich set out on a new campaign against the nomads with his brother Vsevolod, his nephew Svyatoslav Olgovich Rylsky and son. The campaign ended with the defeat of Igor’s army - the princes were captured, the squad and “warriors” were partly killed, partly captured; The sad news of the defeat was brought to Rus' by miraculously saved soldiers. Inspired by the victory, the Polovtsians struck back: their troops invaded the now defenseless Russian principalities. “Svyatoslav managed to defend the right bank of the Dnieper and not let the Polovtsians come here, and the entire Left Bank (to Sula, to the Seim and to Pereyaslavl), despite the heroic actions of the sons of Svyatoslav and Vladimir Glebovich, was devastated, plundered, burned,” - this is how Igoreva sums up the consequences of the defeat army B. A. Rybakov.

However, within a month, Igor managed to escape from captivity with the help of the Polovtsian Lavr (Ovlur), who sympathized with him (or was bribed by him). These are the events of 1185.

But the author of “The Lay” turned this private, although very significant episode of the century and a half Russian-Polovtsian wars into an event of all-Russian scale: he calls for revenge for Igor’s wounds and to intercede “for the Russian land” not only those princes who really needed to do this, because After the defeat of Igor, their principalities were hit by a Polovtsian counterattack, but also by other contemporary princes, including the prince of the distant Vladimir-Suzdal land Vsevolod the Big Nest or Yaroslav Galitsky. The Grand Duke of Kiev Svyatoslav, who in fact did not enjoy special authority in Southern Rus', turns in the Lay into the revered patron of all Russian princes, as if we were talking about Yaroslav the Wise or Vladimir Monomakh. Finally, Igor himself, whose very unseemly deeds are evidenced by the chronicle, turns into a true hero, a tragic figure, but not without a chivalrous aura.

The author of the Lay seems to rise above reality, forgets about the hostility of the princes, about their feudal egocentrism, cleansing them of this filth with the sign of the “Russian land”. Not historical authenticity in detail, but something larger and significant: the awareness of the need for unity, joint action against the Polovtsians, a call for the resurrection of the old ideals of “brotherly love” - this is what is in the focus of the author’s attention. This patriotic idea of ​​the “Lay” was appreciated by K. Marx: “The essence of the poem is the call of the Russian princes to unity just before the invasion of the Mongol hordes proper.” At the end of the 11th century. Vladimir Monomakh called for an end to civil strife, warning that because of them “the Russian land will perish, and our Polovtsians will attack, who have come to disturb the Russian land.” These words of Monomakh strikingly coincide with the reproaches of the author of the Lay: the princes began “to inflict sedition on themselves, and the abominations from all countries came with victories to the Russian land,” or: “And the princes began to inflict sedition on themselves, and the abominations themselves, with victories coming to the Russian land, I will receive tribute as soon as possible from the courtyard.” The idea of ​​the harmfulness of feudal strife, especially if it was accompanied by the invitation of Polovtsian allies, remained at the end of the 12th century. just as relevant as a century earlier.

We do not know who was the author of the Lay. Many guesses were made: they argued about whether he was a participant in Igor’s campaign or knew about it from others, whether he was a Kiev resident, a resident of Novgorod-Seversky or a Galician, etc. There is no reliable data to substantiate this or that hypothesis yet, but absolutely it is clear that before us is a man who combined the skill and erudition of a bookish person, the talent of a poet and the outlook of a political figure.

The idea of ​​the “Lay”, the meaning of its appeals and hints, which are undoubtedly closely related to the political situation of our time, makes the question of when exactly it was written extremely important. This is not about a frivolous transfer of the date of creation of the monument to the 16th or 18th centuries, but about an attempt to clarify the year of writing “The Lay” within the next decades after Igor’s campaign. The opinion of researchers who believed that the date of creation of the “Word” lies between 1185 and 1187, because Yaroslav Osmomysl, to whom the author of the “Word” refers to as living, died in 1187, is hardly indisputable. If the appeals to the princes were rhetorical in nature, then the appeal to Yaroslav could well have been made after his death: during the campaign he was alive, and the appeal to him was not an anachronism. Recently N. S. Demkova drew attention to the following fact: “The Lay” ends with the toast “Buy Turu Vsevolod.” To pronounce glory on an already deceased prince is an anachronism, and, therefore, the “Word” could not have been created after the death of Vsevolod (he died in 1196).

* * *

The question of the “Words” genre is complicated. Attempts to declare it an epic or oratorical word, the desire to find in it traces of the Bulgarian, Byzantine or Scandinavian tradition, etc., are met with a lack of analogies, reliable facts, and, above all, the striking originality of the “Word”, which does not allow its unconditional identification with one or another another genre category.

The most well-reasoned are the hypothesis of I. P. Eremin, who considered “The Lay” as a monument of solemn eloquence, and the point of view of A. N. Robinson and D. S. Likhachev, who compare “The Lay” with the genre of the so-called chansons de geste (literally “songs”) about exploits"). Researchers have already drawn attention to the similarity of the Lay, for example, with the Song of Roland.

Characterizing the works of this genre, D. S. Likhachev writes that such an “epic is full of calls for the defense of the country... Its “direction” is characteristic: the call comes as if from the people (hence the folklore origin), but it is addressed to the feudal lords - the golden word of Svyatoslav, and hence the bookish beginning. The epic combines collectivity and the book principle (elements of oratorical prose), elements of the personal and journalistic principle.” At first glance, the rapprochement of the Lay with chansons de geste is too general, but all attempts to define the genre of the Lay in a different way inevitably led to even greater stretches and distortions of the stylistic, figurative and compositional structure of the monument.

So, the plot of “The Lay” is inspired by the events of 1185, and the plot is determined by the author’s desire to teach an instructive lesson to contemporary princes using the example of the tragic fate of Igor. What is the artistic structure of the work?

Compositionally, the Lay is divided into three parts: introduction, main (narrative) part and conclusion. It is usually believed that in the introduction the author contrasts his artistic system with the traditional one, embodied, for example, in Boyan’s songs. But it is unlikely that in Rus' of the 12th century, in an era of reverent attitude towards literary etiquette and genre canons, an author who decided to break tradition would openly declare his innovation. Another thing is more likely: the introduction, as I. P. Eremin rightly noted, is purely rhetorical in nature and, “in prefacing it to his work, the author of The Lay acted as an experienced master, a writer of a great literary culture. His introduction pursues a very specific goal: to emphasize the “solemn” orientation of his work, to set the reader up for a “high,” unusual structure of thought, corresponding to the seriousness of the content of “The Lay.” I. P. Eremin further emphasizes that in some genres of Old Russian literature - oratorical “words”, lives - the introduction was a necessary, etiquette element of the composition of the work. As for the “polemic” between the author of “The Lay” and Boyan, then, perhaps, the discussion here is not at all about the form of the narrative and not about the genre, but about the theme. The author of the Lay does not want, like Boyan, to glorify the glorious deeds of the past, but intends to narrate “according to the epics of this time.” In this, and only in this, perhaps, the author of the Lay sees his difference from Boyan and justifies his departure from tradition to the reader; but he, like Boyan, intends to broadcast “old words of difficult stories.” The main “narrative” part of the “Tale” is not just a story about events - a kind of analogy to the chronicle narration: “... the speaker is not so much interested in facts,” wrote I. P. Eremin, “but in showing his attitude towards them, not so much in the external sequence of events, but their inner meaning." Episodes correlated with actual events are interspersed with literary and fictional scenes (such as, for example, the prophetic dream of Svyatoslav and his “golden word” to the princes; the image of the grief of the European peoples who learned about the defeat of Igor, the cry of Yaroslavna, the conversation between Gza and Konchak, etc.) , and even more often with digressions: historical excursions or author’s maxims. But each such digression testifies not only to the author’s broad historical outlook, but also to his ability to find analogies in sometimes distant events, to easily change the flow of the narrative, while revealing extensive erudition and stylistic skill.

Conclusion The Lay is an example of “glory,” perhaps typical of the epic genre, the existence of which in Rus' we learn from indirect evidence from other sources.

The poetics of “The Lay” are so unique, its language and style are so original, that at first glance it may seem as if “The Lay” is completely outside the sphere of literary traditions of the Russian Middle Ages.

In reality this is not the case. In the depiction of the Russian princes, and especially the main characters of the Lay - Igor and Vsevolod, we will find features of the epic style familiar to us from the chronicles and the style of monumental historicism. No matter how condemnable Igor’s reckless campaign may be, the hero himself remains for the author the embodiment of princely virtues. Igor is courageous, filled with a “military spirit”, a thirst to “drink with the helmet of the Great Don”, a sense of military honor is overshadowed by an ominous omen - an eclipse of the sun. Igor’s brother Vsevolod and his Kuryan warriors are just as chivalrous: they “were born under trumpets, nurtured under helmets, fed from the end of a spear” and in battles they seek “honor for themselves, and glory for the prince.”

But unlike the chronicle, in the Lay, as a poetic monument, two planes, as it were, coexist. The “realistic” (and essentially etiquette) depiction of characters and events is constantly correlated with the description of the semi-mystical world of forces hostile to the “Russians”: this is an ominous omen - an eclipse of the sun, and the forces of nature hostile to Igor’s army (birds, animals, the night itself, which “ wake up the bird with a thunderstorm"), and, finally, the fantastic Div, the Virgo-Resentment, personified troubles - Karna and Zhlya. D. S. Likhachev once noted that “the artistic system of The Lay is entirely built on contrasts.” One of these contrasts is the opposition of metaphoric images: the sun, light and darkness (night, dark color). This opposition is traditional for ancient Russian literature and folklore. In “The Lay” it is repeatedly realized in a variety of images: Igor is the “bright light”, and Konchak is the “black raven”, on the eve of the battle “black clouds are coming from the sea, they want to cover the 4 suns”. In a prophetic dream, Svyatoslav sees that that night in the evening he was covered with “black papoloma”, blue wine was poured for him, and “beads of lies” were played all night. The boyars’ response to Svyatoslav is constructed in the same metaphorical system: “It was dark on the 3rd day, two suns were dim, both crimson pillars were extinguished... the young month Oleg and Svyatoslav were covered in darkness. On the river on Kayal, darkness covered the light.” But when Igor returns to Rus', “the sun is shining in the sky” again.

It has already been noted above that many scenes of “The Lay” have a symbolic meaning, including such seemingly “naturalistic” sketches as the story of wolves howling through ravines, or birds flying from oak grove to oak grove in anticipation of prey battlefield. The actual landscape sketches in the Lay are extremely laconic: “the night has been darkening for a long time, the dawn has sunk, the darkness has covered the fields,” “the earth is not here, the rivers flow muddily, the fields are covered with weeds,” etc. At the same time, it is characteristic that in the Lay , as in other ancient Russian monuments, there is no “static” landscape, a simple description of nature: the surrounding world appears before the reader not so much in its motionless forms, but in its actions, phenomena and processes. The author of “The Lay” does not tell us what the objects surrounding his heroes are, but draws attention to what is happening around him, talks about action, and does not describe pictures. The Word does not say that the night is light or dark, it fades; the color of the river water is not described, but it is said that “the rivers flow muddy”, and Sula no longer “flows with silver streams”; the banks of the Donets are not depicted, but it is said that the Donets spreads green grass for Igor on its silver banks, clothes him with warm mists under the shade of a green tree, etc.

Another characteristic feature of the poetics of “The Lay” is the author’s digressions. The author interrupts the story of Igor’s battle with the Polovtsians at the climax in order to remember “the square of Olgova, Olga Svyatslavlich.” Similarly, between the story of “the fall of Igor’s banners” and the description of the mournful moment of Igor’s captivity (“The prince Igor came out of a golden saddle, and into a koscheyvo saddle”) there is an extensive reflection by the author on the consequences of Igor’s defeat: “It’s already a sad time, brethren.” got up." The misfortunes of the Russian lands, which were subjected to new Polovtsian raids, and even the sadness that gripped distant countries - the “Germans” and the Venetians, the Byzantines and the “Moravians”, are spoken of earlier than the dream of Svyatoslav, which, judging by its symbolism, the prince dreamed precisely in the fateful night after Igor's defeat (or even on the eve of it). So, everything is displaced, everything is symbolic, everything serves the “concept of the plot”, and not the desire for documentary storytelling. Having understood these features of the plot structure of the “Tale”, we will see how useless it is to speculate about whether the Polovtsians actually collected tribute “by white and wildflower”, whether it was advisable to invite Vsevolod the Big Nest to the aid of Igor, who was already striving to intervene in southern Russian affairs , we will understand that we should not judge the power of Yaroslav Osmomysl on the basis of the “Word”, etc. The “Word” is epic, not documentary, it is full of symbolism, and therefore cannot resemble a chronicle narrative, where there is a deviation from documentary (in depiction of contemporary events within the limits of weather records!) can be justified either by the chronicler’s ignorance or by his political bias.

What has been said here testifies to the unconditionally bookish nature of the Lay. But another, folklore element also coexists harmoniously with it. This element is reflected in the elements of popular lament (the lament of Yaroslavna, the lament of the wives of Russian soldiers who fell in Igor’s campaign, the lament of Rostislav’s mother. The author of the “Tale” means lamentation when he speaks of the groans of Kiev and Chernigov and the entire Russian land after Igor's defeat).

Why did The Lay, whose literary merits were so highly valued in modern times, go unnoticed in ancient Russian literature? True, at the beginning of the 14th century. an extract from the “Lay” was made by the Pskov scribe Domid (Diomid), who rewrote the “Apostle”, and a hundred years later the author of “Zadonshchina” made the “Lay” the basis of the poetic structure of his work, but these responses are too insignificant, compared with the literary merits of the monument, how we were able to appreciate them in modern times.

The point, apparently, is that the high political and moral potential of the “Lay” very soon lost its relevance: after the Mongol-Tatar invasion, it was too late to remember the Polovtsians and call on the princes for a united rebuff to the nomads; secondly, we should not forget about the genre the originality of the “Lay”, which also could not contribute to its popularity in the “etiquette” literature of that time. And finally, the last, perhaps the most important: “The Word” appeared on the eve of the defeat of Southern Rus' by Batu; in the flames of fires the book treasures of precisely those cities where copies of the “Word” most likely could have been found were lost: Kyiv, Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky. Perhaps only an accident saved the “Slovo” for us: one of the copies of the monument was taken to the north (to Pskov, where the scribe Domid saw it), and, perhaps, the text that was read in Musin-Pushkin ultimately goes back to this list collection.