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

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:

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

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is the greatest discovery in the world of Russian literature. It is eloquent proof that the original Russian epic is one of the most ancient branches of European culture. This work stands on a par with such great historical monuments as the Tale of Beowulf and the Song of Roland.

Today it is impossible to unambiguously interpret the origin of this monument of ancient Russian literature. The history of writing “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” itself spans several volumes, but we will try to talk about it briefly. There are two main versions of the creation of the poem:

In the 10th century, it was written by an enlightened monk who was aware of the events described. At that time, only holders of clergy were literate enough for this. According to medieval canons, the author did not have the right to sign his works, since he considered himself just a means of conveying the divine will, therefore the work is anonymous. The unnamed clergyman was concerned about the consequences of feudal fragmentation, when brother went against brother over the division of power and wealth. He did not dare to give instructions to the rulers, but he decided to leave a message to their descendants, where he directly pointed out the need for unity in the face of an external threat. Over time, the manuscript was lost, but in the 18th century (1788) it was found by the nobleman Musin-Pushkin in Yaroslavl. He was stunned by the scale of the find and rewrote the contents of the ancient document so that everyone could appreciate the work without damaging the original. He was about to present the masterpiece to the empress, when suddenly a fire broke out in the estate, and the flames destroyed the precious scrolls. All that remains of them are the rewritten versions made by Musin-Pushkin. Later they were translated from the ancient Slavic dialect into modern Russian. Another version says that the original was handed over to representatives of the royal dynasty for storage, but was destroyed during the fires of 1812.
The second version says that the above story of the creation of the work is an invention of Musin-Pushkin, who wrote “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” on his own. In his time, it was fashionable to complain about the lack of Russian national culture, and all noble people spoke foreign languages and tried to distort even their native speech so that it sounded with an accent. The nobleman and patriot were offended by this; he wanted to instill pride in his country in his compatriots. It was then that he decided to “accidentally find” an ancient book that would amaze everyone with its splendor. He was educated enough to write a story about Prince Igor’s campaign in Old Church Slavonic, and it was also not difficult to forge something that no one but him had seen. Then he blamed it all on the fire, in which the fate of the manuscript was tragically decided. We already know the story of his story: everyone happily agreed that there was an authentic epic in Rus', and before them was a wonderful example of it. This conspiracy theory is supported by the fact that the message about the discovery of such an important document is shrouded in the mystery of the flame that devoured the birch bark scrolls: no one except the discoverer himself saw the original source. Moreover, the book is written in a style superior to that of later literary studies. For example, the same “Zadonshchina”, which logically should have been written more interesting and better from an artistic point of view, is a fairy tale about a white bull against the backdrop of “The Word...”. Thus, Musin-Pushkin overdid it and wrote something that would be appropriate in his century, but not in the 10th.

The plot of the poem is based on real events of Russian history. The campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich is described in the chronicles of that time - the Ipatiev and Laurentian chronicles. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was written shortly after the events of this campaign (in 1187).

Genre

The debate about the genre continues. Most researchers are inclined to believe that “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is still similar to an instructive song addressed to all princes who have forgotten the need for the unity of the Russian land and are mired in destructive feudal disputes. No wonder it is supposed to be performed to the accompaniment of the gusli. Thus, the unknown author himself emphasized what to classify his creation as - the medieval genre of “word”. This was the name given to teachings and sometimes messages, both secular and religious. This was analogous to the current story, like a legend - a story, etc.

Translated into modern genre originality, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” can be classified as an epic poem, since it is written in rhyme, within a certain meter, and tells about historical events.

Sometimes “The Word...” is classified as a story, since the genre features of the work and the characteristics of this type of prose partially coincide: one storyline, a relatively small number of characters, a suitable volume.

Composition

A historical poem consists of an introduction, 3 chapters (parts) and a conclusion.

The introduction is dedicated to the story of the singer-storyteller Boyan, who glorified great warriors and Russian rulers.
In the first part, the author describes the campaign of Igor and his squad against the Polovtsian camp. There he sees a bad omen - a solar eclipse, but ignores it and moves on. The first battle with the Polovtsy ended in victory for the Russians, but the treacherous nomads attack the detachment at night, when all the warriors fell asleep after a stormy feast. Most of them were killed, and their leader was captured.
The next part tells about Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, who condemns the act of his cousin. He says that this attack was a mistake, because it brought countless enemy raids onto Russian soil and led to the capture of Igor. An important point is the “golden word” of Svyatoslav. The author puts his own thoughts into his speech. He calls on all the princes of Rus', who are at war with each other, to unite their forces against a powerful enemy. This is the only way to fight off the attacks of the Polovtsian army.
The third part of the poem is dedicated to Prince Igor’s wife, Yaroslavna, and his escape from captivity. The wife yearns and cries for him, and her voice reaches the banks of the Danube. Nature itself heard Yaroslavna’s call and helped her husband escape. The woman begs the elements to take pity on her and her grief. It is interesting that she does not address the alien Polovtsian land, but the wind, water and air. As a result, Igor hears the conventional whistle of the Polovtsian Ovlur and escapes under the auspices of the forces of nature.
At the end of “The Lay...” the people joyfully greet the prince, who has returned to his homeland.

The plot and compositional features of the poem lie in the fact that the work consists of fragments written in folklore genres - “crying” and “glory”. The classic “cry” is Yaroslavna’s monologue on the fortress wall. “Glory” awaits the reader in the finale: the author offers praise to princes Igor, Vsevolod, and Svyatoslav. In addition, the relationship with folklore is reflected in the language: “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is rich in characteristic epithets and comparisons. Detailed descriptions of nature, which is the protagonist in the story, are also borrowed from oral folk art. The heroes were pagans, so they believed that the elements were deities, and it was they who rescued Igor from captivity.

What is the work about?

The book tells the story of the campaign of the brave ruler of the small Novgorod-Seversky principality Igor Svyatoslavich against the Polovtsians in 1185. The work, oddly enough, depicts defeat, not victory. This is necessary for the author as a basis for the teaching that underlies his creation. Using the example of his hero’s failure, he explains how not to behave. Svyatoslav’s speech about the unity of Rus' would not have been so convincing if his cousin had succeeded.

The book begins with the author introducing Boyan, the court poet of that time, to the reader. With the help of this image, he explains his position: he is not called upon to glorify princes, as Boyan does, but to present real facts. We are convinced of this by moving from the introduction to the first part. It talks about the squad's campaign against the Polovtsians. The narrator does not hide Igor’s vain and vain plans, his short-sightedness as a politician. The ruler does not see the obvious bad omen, showing disrespect for the elements. Thus, he not only contradicts the will of the gods, but also suppresses the morale of his army. The essence of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is that even a ruler cannot escape evil fate; his earthly power is not absolute. Igor was too self-confident, the gods punished him for this: after a successful battle with the Polovtsians, the squad feasted, and at night no one was able to give a worthy rebuff to the enemy. The nomads killed the detachment, and took the leader prisoner in the hope of receiving a ransom.

The second part tells about the reaction of the Kyiv prince to the incident. His wise speech about the need to unite the Russian lands is the very moral of the work for the sake of which it was written. In the era of feudal fragmentation, each ruler pulled the blanket on himself: he started civil strife, risked the lives of people for the sake of glory, etc. This harmed Rus', weakened it, and Svyatoslav dreamed of a single country with an organized army and a single center of control. This is what the famous “Golden Word” is about.

The third part is Yaroslavna’s cry, where the inconsolable wife calls on the forces of nature with a request to save her husband. The elements listen to her and help the prince escape from captivity. The conclusion describes how the people rejoice at the luck of their ruler, who escaped death.

The main characters and their characteristics

All the main characters of the poem are positive characters. There is only one negative image - the enemy force of the Polovtsian nomads. However, this does not mean that the description of the characters will be monotonous, as in a play of the classic era. In this case, it will pamper the reader with contrasts and ambiguous qualities.

Igor- a brave, resourceful, but vain and short-sighted ruler, the main character of the work. He is complacent and young, so he does not yet know the true purpose of a leader. The author managed to show the moment when the prince grew up: he went on a campaign with youthful enthusiasm, and returned with a heavy burden of experience. In the finale we see a different character - his mind has become clearer, and his character has gotten rid of pride. You can find more detailed information in the essay: .
Svyatoslav- wise and fair ruler of Kyiv. He wholeheartedly supports the unity of the Russian lands and wants to achieve the prosperity of his people. The prince reproaches Igor’s recklessness and ardor, without defending him for his relationship. He recognizes his brother’s shortcomings and, nevertheless, wants to help him, because civil strife in Rus' is weakening it, and the external enemy will only be glad to take advantage of this. This position, where the good of the state is above all, characterizes him as an active, talented and dedicated person who also feels personal responsibility for everything that happens even outside his territory. He is a reflection of the author’s ideal idea of a crowned prince.
Yaroslavna- a bright and original female image, the main character of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” This woman doesn’t even have her own name, because back then ladies were called by their patronymics in order to emphasize their origin, the measure of nobility of which was the head of the clan - the father. The girl herself was in a subordinate position, no one attached much importance to her, because in those centuries everything was decided by physical strength, and the weaker sex was deprived of it from birth. However, the author breaks stereotypes and portrays a full-fledged female character, and even devotes an entire chapter to it. Igor’s wife is a strong, devoted and emotional wife, the standard of a faithful and loving life partner. Her husband’s defeat did not bother her; she decided to act in the only way possible for her: to soften the gods with prayer. Thanks to her temperament and sincerity of crying, she manages to enlist the support of the elements and help the prince get out of captivity. Her image is described in more detail in the essay: .
Boyan- court singer and poet, praising those in power and their military exploits. For the beauty of his lines and his patriotism, he is loved not only by princes, but also by the people. The hero enlightens him with his song - a story to the accompaniment of the gusli.
Description of heroes cannot be considered complete without an image author of the work, which can be seen quite clearly. He is a great patriot and passionately loves his homeland. This is shown by the example of the description of nature, the author’s sympathy for the heroes and his undoubted faith in the bright future of Rus'. The author’s broad historical outlook, his education and writing talent are striking, because Yaroslavna’s crying, for example, is not a historical event, but plays an important role in the book in creating the artistry of the text and developing the mystical theme. It was Igor’s wife who was able to command the elements and help her husband, and not the troops of his brothers. Therefore, in this case, the chronicler is not a historian, but a writer.

Subject

The folk epic is distinguished by the fact that its themes do not depend on the country in which it was created. Most accounts of deep antiquity raise the same issues with minimal differences.

In “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” the main theme is patriotism. All the author’s efforts are aimed at instilling in the reader an active love for the fatherland. Svyatoslav’s “Golden Word” especially stands out, where the hero calls on the princes to unite the lands and live in one spirit in order to protect themselves from enemies.
Nature theme is also one of the main themes raised in the work. She echoes the actions and feelings of the heroes, and also plays an important role herself, helping the Russian army or turning away from it. You may also find the following essay interesting: .
Motherland in the poem there is not only an image, but also a main theme. Rus' is depicted in the book as a set of related forces and phenomena, interconnected by love for its people. It is not for nothing that Yaroslavna turns to the elements: she knows that her native land will help out its ruler, as she once warned him against going on a campaign. The female image is a continuation of the theme of the homeland, because Igor’s wife is the personification of his principality, which without him will become a widow and die. The princess’s crying is accompanied by the lamentations of her fatherland, the Motherland, which aches in her soul for her defender.
Love and loyalty- the embodiment of the lyrical side of the work. The wife faithfully waits for her beloved, begs nature to intercede for him, sparing no effort. She sincerely worries about the fate of the prince and does not hold grudges for his departure, meekly and patiently enduring the difficult lot of women.
Heroism and courage embodied in the image of the main character. He bravely goes on the attack, like his entire squad. They were defeated by cunning and deceit, but not in a fair battle, where everyone fought bravely, defending the honor of their homeland. In the duel with the Polovtsians, the theme of honor and dishonor is also revealed: some go ahead, according to all the rules of the duel, others treacherously attack under the cover of darkness, dooming themselves to a shameful victory.
Experience and mistakes. Svyatoslav acts as an experienced commander and leader, teaching his proud and vain cousin, who made a mistake, because he was very young and ardent.

Issues

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is not a praise of victory, but a true story of defeat with the purpose of teaching. The main problems in the book concern precisely the reasons for the defeat of Rus', and the conclusions are generalized and explain not only the position of the main character, but also all the troubles that are a consequence of feudal fragmentation.

The problem of disunity. The princes not only do not help each other, but also fight with each other in attempts to redistribute lands or spheres of influence. This vulnerability is skillfully exploited by external enemies who raid weakened fortresses. As a result, all Russian rulers and their subjects only suffer from the fragmentation of a state with a single culture, the same language and the same customs. The centralization of power, which Svyatoslav calls for, is the only way out of this situation.
The problem of vanity. Igor sacrificed people's lives for the sake of personal glory, without thinking about the consequences of his actions. He feasted frivolously, forgetting about the hidden threat on foreign soil, so the death of many glorious warriors was on his conscience. In an attempt to gain respect, he forgot about his primary duty - to take care of the prosperity of the people entrusted to him.
The problem of pride. The main character was overcome by this vice, which instilled in him a furious conceit. It is this that prevents Igor from asking for help from Kyiv and going against the Polovtsians with a guarantee of victory. However, the ruler wanted to appropriate the laurels of the winner, especially since he was confident that he could handle the matter, forgetting about elementary caution.
Collisionmentalities. The Russians were not prepared for meanness on the part of the Polovtsians; they thought that the rules of battle were the same for all nations and peoples. However, deceit and cold calculation prevailed over courage and strength; the squad did not predict this.

Main idea and idea

A passionate call for unity permeates the entire ideological and thematic complex of the poem. The main idea in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is the need to unite the Russian lands in the face of danger. Even then, the ancient Russian monarchs realized their national identity and sought to centralize power for the benefit of the fatherland. Small principalities are easier to defeat than one large and powerful fatherland. At that time, Rus' was indeed very vulnerable, because the external enemy at all times tried to discord the rulers and take advantage of the civil strife to raid. Therefore, the main idea of the work was political and had a teaching character. The result was a kind of educational manual for princes.

The ideological meaning of the work is still relevant, even though the country became united under its influence. In quarrels and conflicts, like-minded people forget about the true threat coming from outside. It is necessary to forget about unimportant reasons for squabbles and work together to achieve a common goal. Then no enemy will be able to break through the strong defense of mutual understanding and cooperation. In addition, the main idea of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is a call for love and devotion that is not afraid of separation and obstacles. It was the support of his beloved and faithful wife that helped Igor escape from captivity.

How did it end?

At night, the elements condone Igor’s escape, listening to Yaroslavna. The faithful man Ovlur finds a horse to escape and rescues the prince, while the wind and twilight help not to give the fugitive away. The hero quickly rushes to the Donets to sail to his land. Finding himself on the waves of the river, he persuades her to carry him gently and cloud the surface of the waters so that the nomads cannot catch up with him. Two daring Polovtsians, Kzak and Konchak, had already set off in pursuit of the prisoner. On the way, they decide how not to miss the prey: the first proposes to shoot golden arrows in pursuit, the second wants to lure the Russian guest with a beautiful woman. Both agree that it is not easy to return an escaped person in either way.

The ending of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is happy, although many will find it strange. The prince returns safely to his homeland, where a warm welcome awaits him. The whole people rejoices at the arrival of their ruler, glorifying his valor and courage. People perceived the defeat “against the invasions of the filthy” as a victory when Igor managed to escape from captivity on his own. This is how the work ends, but it is not clear why there is no funeral bell ringing for the numerous killed warriors, why did the townspeople forget about the widow's grief of ordinary women who suffered because of the tyranny of those in power? Probably, the fate of the little man was of little interest to the author, or the scale of his ideas did not allow him to cover the small tragedies of his subjects.

What does the work teach?

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” instills in us pride in the history of our fatherland. It teaches true patriotism and also glorifies moral values. The conclusion from the text read is simple: you need to follow the moral canons and suppress pride, selfishness, and vanity. After all, it is not difficult to love your native land, support loved ones, and be true to your word and feelings. But these simple installations help us become part of something larger than us: to participate in the construction of a house for our descendants, to protect it if necessary, to change the world for the better with our small bright contribution to its kindness, justice, love. Great things always start from small things. And the ancient book inspires us to invest our modest efforts in creation rather than destruction. At the state level, this morality is expressed in the unification of lands and people, at the personal level - in harmony in family relationships.

Criticism

The Lay of Igor's Campaign" is a beautiful, fragrant flower of Slavic folk poetry, worthy of attention, memory and respect.

Belinsky's criticism is not based on empty enthusiasm. The author of the statement conducted a thorough analysis of the text and summarized his impressions in this succinct phrase. In particular, he relied on real historical sources, where, one way or another, at least the topic of “Words...” was mentioned. For example, the opinion of the legendary ruler of the Russian lands, Vladimir Monomakh, is noteworthy:

If,” Vladimir Monomakh said to the princes, “we do not stop civil strife... then the Russian land will perish and our enemies, the Polovtsians, will take the Russian land.

Accordingly, the idea of the unification of Russian lands expressed by an unknown author was relevant and in demand by his contemporaries. He reflected the picture of the world of the leading thinkers of his time, and did so at a high literary level. The poets' statements speak about the skill of the writer. For example, here is how Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin assessed the work:

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” stands as a solitary monument in the desert of our ancient literature.

This opinion was confirmed by the famous philologist M.A. Maksimovich:

In addition to its general literary importance..., it is important as the only written monument of native ancient Russian poetry that has reached us, shining with bright poetic beauty, and at the same time full of historical truth. This is the prototype of original Russian epic poetry both in spirit and in form.

The same idea, but more artistically expressed by the criticism of Likhachev (translator and linguist): “The Word” is a centuries-old oak, a mighty and spreading oak.” It was Likhachev, being the head of the department of ancient Russian literature at the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, who put an end to the question of the authorship of the work. Thanks to his research, there was an opinion in the Soviet Union that the poem was a genuine monument of ancient Russian literature. But there were also critics who questioned the text's historical origins. These included the Slavists M.I. Uspensky and Andre Mazon (in the first half of the 20th century). In the 18th-19th centuries, the authenticity of the book was refuted by Metropolitan Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov) of Kiev, O.M. Bodyansky, M.T. Kachenovsky, S.P. Rumyantsev, K.S. Aksakov, O.I. Senkovsky. One of the most interesting arguments of doubting reviewers was the opinion of Mazon: he considered the goal of the Lay to substantiate the legality of the territorial claims of Catherine II in the south and west of Russia. Likhachev refuted these arguments in his article, saying that his opponent did not understand the essence of the book.

However, the poem is important not only as a monument to ancient Russian literature. The opinions of critics confirm this. For example, its relevance in our time is emphasized by researcher E.V. Barsov:

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” in addition to its historical and literary significance, is at the same time an instructive monument for all future centuries of Russia. Here, before us, is a poetic expression of the state system of Kievan Rus both in its ideal and in its reality.

At the same time, he notes that historians should not rely on a literary work and criticize it for its lack of facts. In his opinion, such exactingness only means that a person does not understand where the line between history and art lies.

Philologist B.I. wrote a lot about the peculiarities of Russian medieval art. Bursov. He highlighted a striking and very flattering feature of the Russian epic for us:

The epic theme in ancient Russian literature is imbued not with a calm and contemplative attitude towards the world, as was the case in the classical epic of ancient Greece, but with ever-increasing anxiety... It contains voices full of melancholy and pain. But they are interrupted by others who call for exploits and sacrifices and who are filled with faith in victory

Probably, this characteristic feature of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is explained by the fact that the role of the author in the work is extremely important. Literary critic I.P. speaks about this. Eremin:

The author of “The Lay” “really fills the entire work from beginning to end. His voice is clearly heard everywhere: in every episode, in almost every phrase. It is he, the “author,” who brings into “The Lay” both that lyrical element and that ardent socio-political pathos that are so characteristic of this work.”

In the second half of the 12th century, when the greatest Russian poet of world scale lived and worked, Rus' was no longer the same as under Yaroslav the Wise or Vladimir Monomakh.

The Russian people, however, still very well remembered the brilliant time when their Motherland was a single state that occupied a prominent and honorable place among European states. Disunited politically, they lived in faith in the possibility of a new unification and did not at all feel the approach of the black cloud approaching them from Asia.

They, of course, could not help but notice the significant and sad changes that had already happened in Rus', making it different from the old Kievan Rus.

The author of “The Lay” (I consider A.K. Yugov’s statement that the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is the singer Mitus is one of the possible scientific hypotheses. - B.G.) is a son of his time and a son of his people. He and his people live with one thought, one joy and sorrow.

“Oh, the moaning of the Russian land, remembering the first year and the first princes!” - after all, this is a cry about the recent and well-remembered, caused precisely by the fact that now are not the same times, not the same songs. How good it would be if we could “nailed that old Vladimir... to the Kyiv mountains.” But, alas, the life’s work of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh collapsed. The plans of his principled political opponents triumphed, “not a happy time.” “Melancholy spread across the Russian land, sadness flowed thickly through the Russian land.”

What exactly happened? Why do the strings of the author of “The Lay” sound so alarming? Why can’t we listen to his song even now without heartache? Undoubtedly, a lot happened, big and difficult for Rus'.

The author of the Lay understands events absolutely accurately. He paints a completely objective picture for us. If there is so much brightness and irresistibility in his transmission, then this is the secret of his talent. He can say more in a few words than entire pages of a learned treatise on the same events.

When Yaroslav the Wise felt the approach of death, then, according to legend recorded in the “Tale of Bygone Years,” he gathered his sons and told them words that could be signed by everyone who cared about their Motherland: “... if... you will If you live hatefully in strife and fight, then you yourself will perish and destroy the land of your father and grandfather, who also benefited from your great labor.” Forty-three years later, Vladimir Monomakh convened the princes in Lyubech, where those gathered noted the trouble. Here again the same motive was heard, but not in the form of a warning, but in relation to the most obvious fact. “Why are we destroying the Russian land, which we ourselves are active in? And the Polovtsians are carrying our land separately and for the sake of the essence of the army between us; so from now on we have one heart and guard the Russian lands!”

But at this congress it was discovered that a return to the past unity of the Russian land was no longer possible. And Vladimir Monomakh himself was forced to make concessions.

The congress decided to recognize the fact of the autonomy of individual reigns: “each one holds his own patrimony.” Vladimir Monomakh only insisted on ending the strife.

The congress also made another decision: “If anyone is against anyone, then we will all be against him,” that is, the princes decided to jointly stop the aggression of each of them. As we know, nothing came of these promises. The strife continued.

Ninety years later, the author of the Lay was forced to admit that the behests of Yaroslav and Vladimir Monomakh were not fulfilled and sad consequences were evident. The leaders of the political life of Rus' - the princes - began to consider the small as great and neglected the truly great, they continued to "create sedition on themselves. And trash from all countries came with victories to the Russian land."

For a hundred and fifty years, people who sincerely want the good of their Motherland have been repeating the same thing, calling for unity and an end to strife, but the strife does not stop, their harmful consequences are expanding.

The author of the Lay points to one of the active figures who is hostile to the policy of preserving the unity of the Kyiv state. This is Yaroslav’s grandson, Oleg Svyatoslavich, whom the Poet calls Gorislavich. It was he who forged sedition with a sword and sowed arrows across the Earth. From here the corresponding shoots appeared: “Then in the Russian land the Rataevs rarely squawked, but often blared lies, carving up corpses for themselves, and the Galicians blabbered their speech, wanting to fly to the country... It was not a merry time.”

The poet suffers along with his people, he grieves for his people. This is the people who created the greatness of Kyiv, who united the Eastern European tribes, a people who knew how to set high goals, and most importantly, to implement them.

When the song about Igor’s campaign was heard for the first time, these people did not change, but the trouble is that the princes look at Rus' differently and pursue a policy of disunity. The author of the Lay notes this with sadness:

"Oh! groan the Russian land, remembering the first year and the first princes! That old Vladimir cannot be nailed to the Kiev mountains. For now the lords of Rurik are stash, and the friends of David are: and separately their trunks (horses) plow (wind), spears ( squads) sing."

There was unity - the key to the state power of the country, but now it is gone.

Kievan Rus, which grew up by uniting all parts of the Eastern Slavs and many non-Slavic lands that had cast their lot with the Russian people, was a great cultural and political force.

The culture of Kievan Rus was not only not inferior to other European nations, but in many ways it was superior to them. It is enough to recall at least the fact of writing your own history. The task is complex and difficult, requiring great knowledge, the ability to systematize material, separate the main from the secondary, and identify the main line of development of a large country. The monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery coped with this task so successfully that he surpassed his European contemporaries in the quality of his work.

People such as Hilarion, Kirill of Turov, Metropolitan Clement, as well as the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” clearly testify not only to the presence of great talents in Rus', but also to the opportunity here to receive a serious education. The Kiev state managed to occupy a prominent place in Europe. He was considered as a force with which it was useful to be in friendship and terrible - in enmity.

There was not a single state in Europe that did not strive to achieve an alliance or good relations with the Kyiv Grand Ducal Court. Emperors and kings sought for these purposes to become related to the Kyiv prince. Yaroslav's daughters and granddaughters became wives: one of the French king, the other of the German king, and the third of the Byzantine emperor. Poland, Norway, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were also related to the Kyiv prince. Vladimir Monomakh was related to the Byzantine imperial house through his mother, and to the English king through his wife.

The King of the Kingdom of Jerusalem pays exceptional attention to the simple Russian abbot who arrived to him, of course, not as an abbot, but as a representative of the Russian state. On Easter, King Baldwin led him in his retinue through a crowd of pilgrims to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and “commanded to place him high above the very doors of the tomb.” By order of the king, the abbot was allowed into places where no one was allowed to enter. The Arabs, for their part, showed signs of attention to the Russian abbot: “The elder of the Saracen himself with weapons escorted us all the way to Bethlehem and escorted us all the way to that place.”

All this taken together makes clear the attitude of the Russian people themselves towards their country. “Whom does God love, as He loved us to eat? Whom did He honor to eat, as He glorified us to eat and exalt?” the chronicler asks the question and answers with conviction: “No one.” The Russian land “was more venerable than all others and was more enlightened than all others.”

We see the same assessment of the greatness of Rus' in Hilarion:

"... let us also, according to our strength, praise with small praises the great and wondrous creator, our teacher and mentor, the great Khagan of our land Vladimir, the grandson of old Igor, the son of the glorious Svyatoslav, who in her time reigned supreme, with courage and bravery in the countries Many are remembered now and say: “For your dominion is not in evil and not in the unknown of the earth, but in Russia, which is known and heard by all, is the ends of the earth.”

How did it really happen that this huge, strong and glorious state fell into pieces?

Although history is made by people, this circumstance does not in the least interfere with the fact that the life of human societies develops naturally.

And in this case, the huge Kiev state collapsed for the same reasons for which the empire of Charlemagne, and the empire of Genghis Khan, and the state of Tigran the Great, and other so-called pre-feudal states collapsed.

The pre-feudal state is precisely characterized by the fact that it is welded together by a fairly strong government, that the apparatus of power is directly connected with the people without an intermediary link in the form of a feudal landowning nobility, that there is no serfdom yet.

This is the period in the political life of the country when tribes turn into people, when state territory is determined and a foundation is laid that largely determines the further course of the political life of the people. In the depths of the pre-feudal state, feudal relations matured, large-scale agriculture was created and strengthened, the economic and political power of the nobility strengthened, up to a certain point they went along with power, but as they grew, they began to be burdened by it and, ultimately, oppose it.

A large seigneury is created, the head of which recognizes himself as the sovereign in his domains, makes the peasant mass dependent on himself, turning them into his subjects.

State power, in need of the assistance of the nobility, is forced to help it, that is, it participates in the creation of force, which at a certain moment becomes a threat to power and destroys the political unity of the country.

The Kiev state in the pre-feudal period of its existence reached enormous proportions. It stretched from north to south from the White Sea to the Black Sea, from the Carpathian region to the banks of the Volga - from west to east.

With the growth of productive forces, the emergence of new production and political centers, and the strengthening of the feudal nobility, Kyiv is increasingly losing its primacy. He is forced to cede part of his prerogatives to such cities as Novgorod, Polotsk, Galich, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Chernigov, Tmutarakan, etc.

Each of these new political centers has its own large material resources, its own political tasks, its own major political figures, for whom dependence on Kyiv begins to become an obstacle to the implementation of their local tasks.

These large cities, uniting economically and politically significant territories, and the local feudal nobility elect their own princes, albeit from the same Rurik dynasty, but by this time they had managed to associate themselves with the places and had largely lost a common political language. Hence, with complete inevitability, a clash of interests of these principalities and endless feudal wars follow.

There is not a single state that lives in isolation. There were no states that did not monitor what was happening in the neighboring country and did not try to take advantage of at least a temporary weakening of their neighbor.

Hence the inevitability of international clashes.

Already at the end of the 11th century, it was clear to our first historian that Kievan Rus was in danger. He began to write his work largely in order to warn, to help those who stood up to defend the integrity of the state.

Vladimir Monomakh, with his powerful hand, did the very thing that was dear to the chronicler Nestor, and to many other like-minded people of Monomakh, and to the entire Russian people. It was clear to Vladimir Monomakh, just like the chronicler, that the Russian state had strong enemies who were striving for other goals, who had forgotten the great all-Russian for their local small ones, which seemed to them closer and selfishly more profitable.

The separation of parts and chronic feudal wars undoubtedly weakened Rus'.

The struggle of the Russian people for their independence during this period becomes especially acute. The changes taking place in the Kiev state, and above all the weakening of its military power in connection with the isolation of lands that had recently recognized the power of the Kiev prince, aroused hopes among neighboring states for an easy seizure of Russian lands.

The Polovtsy, who had been pushed beyond the Don during Monomakh, again began to advance on the southern borders of Rus', and from the sixties of the 12th century this pressure of the steppe nomads reached enormous strength.

Monomakh and his son could only delay the further deepening of the beginning of the collapse of the Kyiv state, but did not stop it completely.

It would be most natural to expect that Monomakh’s son, Mstislav, would transfer Kyiv to his son in the same manner as he himself received it from his father, Monomakh. But it didn't turn out that way.

In the Laurentian Chronicle, under the year 1132, it is written about this: “Mstislav, the son of Volodymer, reposed in the month of April on the 14th day, and his brother Yaropolk, Prince of Kiev, passed away after him: the people of the Kiyans were sent after him.” The question of the succession of the Kyiv table was decided by the “people - the Kiyans” themselves, that is, the city Kiev veche. In the flourishing times of the Kyiv state, there was nothing like this.

The children of Mstislav Vladimirovich were at the disposal of their uncle Yaropolk. He tried to retain power over the Russian land in his hands, but he could no longer do this.

One of Yaropolk’s nephews, Izyaslav Mstislavich, entered into an agreement with the princes of Chernigov, the famous Olgovichs, descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich. This was an alliance that did not bode well for Kiev, since the Olgovichi were the most energetic and principled supporters of the new political order, so clearly expressed in the resolution of the Lyubech Congress (“let each one keep his own estate”). The Olgovichs have now told Yaropolk that they want to own what their father owned (“what our father held... we want the same thing”). If Yaropolk opposes this and insists on the right to dispose of the entire Russian land, then they absolve themselves of responsibility for the consequences: “... then you are to blame, then there will be blood on you.” The Olgovichi were preparing to defend their isolation with weapons. Novgorod also protested against the actions of Yaropolk, the first to make an attempt to secede from Kyiv.

The Olgovichi of Chernigov, in alliance with Izyaslaz and his brother Svyatopolk, the Mstislavichs and the Polovtsians, opposed Yaropolk. The fight ended with the triumph of the Olgovichs. They established themselves in the Chernigov region, and in 1139, after the death of Yaropolk, Vsevolod Olgovich even occupied Kiev, driving out Vyacheslav, the brother of the deceased Yaropolk, who tried to establish himself there.

As a result of this struggle, not only Chernigov land, but also Galicia, Polotsk, and Rostov-Suzdal strengthened its independence from Kyiv. The Olgovichi grew into great strength, that is, the principle of fragmenting Rus' into parts began to triumph clearly.

An energetic politician who perfectly knew how to use very difficult and confusing situations to his advantage and defeat some of his enemies with the help of others, Vsevolod Olgovich (1139 - 1146) achieved very great success. However, he still remained only the Prince of Chernigov. True, expanding the boundaries of his reign, he managed to take possession of Kiev, but the nature of his rule in Kiev suggests that he looked at Kiev not as the capital of a large state, but as his prey, and it is not surprising that the Kiev urban masses treated hostile towards him. Unable to rebel against her oppressor, she could only take advantage of his death to deal with Vsevolod’s hated henchmen. Very characteristically, the Kyiv masses hostile to him motivated their negative attitude towards the Olgovichs in general: “... we don’t want the Olgovichs to dispose of us like an inheritance.” The people of Kiev, who had already experienced their strength and importance in the matter of choosing a prince for themselves, were unhappy that Vsevolod and his brother Igor, whom Vsevolod tried to impose on them as his successor, were treating Kiev as hereditary property.

The twelve days that followed the death of Vsevolod are very significant. Vsevolod had already prepared the ground in advance for the placement of his brother Igor on the Kiev table. Relying on his own strength, skillfully attracting the top of Kyiv society to his side, he, however, did not take into account the growing importance of Kyiv merchants, artisans and the urban masses. The speech of these latter annulled the will of Vsevolod Olgovich. By the will of the Kyiv Veche, the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh, Izyaslav Mstislavich, Prince of Pereyaslav, sat on the Kiev table.

The Olgovichi tried to create a coalition of their supporters against Izyaslav. Svyatoslav Olgovich, brother of the deposed Igor, in turn, entered into an agreement with Yuri Dolgoruky, Prince of Rostov-Suzdal. land.

A stubborn struggle began, in which not only Russians, but also Hungarians, Poles, Black Klobuks, and Polovtsians took part.

In this struggle we can once again clearly see the increased role of cities. Izyaslav was sure that the Kyiv townspeople - and since the decision of the main city council was also mandatory for the suburbs and villages - then the smerds would follow him against Svyatoslav Olgovich and Yuri Dolgoruky. But he soon became convinced that this was not entirely true. The townspeople of Kiev and Vladimir-on-Klyazma looked at this struggle with their own eyes, and Izyaslav, in response to the invitation to the people of Kiev to act with him against Yuri and Svyatoslav, heard a decisive refusal from the Kiev veche. During this struggle, Yuri took possession of Kiev three times and only the last time (1156) remained there forever, that is, until his death on May 15, 1158.

As soon as Yuri died, a popular movement broke out in Kyiv. “A lot of evil was done that day,” the chronicler writes: “I plundered his (Yuri’s) red yard and plundered his other yard beyond the Dnieper, which you call paradise itself, and plundered Vasilkov’s son’s yard in the city; the judgments of the city and the village were slaughtered, and their goods are more plundered." This movement was not unexpected. Yuri took possession of Kiev by force, and the people of Kiev have long declared that they “cannot get along with Gurgem.”

What exactly did Yuri own in the south, in the Kiev region? This is far from an idle question. Yuri owned only a small space along the Goryn River, the Turovo-Pinsk land, which, however, very soon also became isolated, Kiev itself with its surroundings and the threshold to Kyiv - Pereyaslavl. Yuri could not claim more, since the remaining lands were already independent and had enough strength to defend their independence. And under Yuri, Kyiv is no longer the capital city of all Rus'.

Yuri, having arrived in Kyiv, seated his sons not very far from himself: Andrei - in Vyshgorod, Rostislav - in Pereyaslavl, Boris - in Belgorod, Gleb - in Kanev; only Vasilko was imprisoned in Suzdal.

The lands - volosts - outside the borders of the Kiev region were already living their own lives, regardless of the Kyiv prince.

The reign of Yuri Vladimirovich can rightfully be called the historical moment when the fragmentation of Rus' was completely determined, and the Kiev land took an inconspicuous place in the system of feudal-fragmented Rus'. The Kiev region did not even have to form into a special political whole and develop an internal organization under the control of its local dynasty. The princes, settled in their appanages, jealously ensured that none of them got the Kiev region as an independent reign.

The Volyn prince Mstislav Izyaslazich acquired Kyiv for himself in the sixties of the 12th century. But Volyn remains his stronghold and refuge in difficult moments of his life and his permanent possession. If until recently Kyiv sought to keep Volyn in its hands and actually held it, now, as we see, Kyiv and Volyn have changed places.

Mstislav was an energetic and enterprising man, a lover of books and a talented, undaunted commander. He managed to organize a grandiose campaign against the Polovtsians, in which thirteen named in the chronicle by the names of princes, rulers of principalities, and “many people” took part. The Black Klobuki also took part in the campaign, having long since linked their historical destiny with Kievan Rus. The victory over the Polovtsians was complete. But this prince also failed to defend Kyiv from the power that had grown during this time between the Volga and Oka rivers.

The reason for the war between Andrei Vladimirsky and Mstislav of Kyiv was Novgorod. The Vladimir prince, interested in his possession of Novgorod, could not accept the fact that Mstislav took very specific steps to keep Novgorod in his hands:

Mstislav Izyaslavich planted his son Roman in Novgorod, while Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky had his protege there as a prince. In addition, Roman began to pursue an aggressive policy towards Andrei’s allies. Andrei decided to strike both Novgorod and Kyiv at the same time. On March 8, 1169, Kyiv fell. The Novgorodians managed to defend themselves and on February 25, 1170 they celebrated their victory over the Suzdal-Vladimir army.

Thus, in the struggle between the defenders of the unity of Rus' and the supporters of the political independence of its parts, a new period was brewing in the history of the Russian people - a period of state fragmentation.

Feudal wars, devastating for the peasantry and townspeople, made the political existence of these disparate units extremely unstable.

Entire regions that had recently been part of the Kyiv state, lacking the strength to defend their independence from the aggression of their neighbors, became victims of stronger feudal formations.

At different times, certain parts of the Kyiv state fell into the hands of their neighbors. The Black Sea and Azov regions are part of the Polovtsian possessions.

“Div calls out at the top of the tree, orders you to listen to the unknown lands - Volza, and Pomoria, and Suliy, and Surozh, and Korsun, and you, Tmutorokan idiot.”

The successful campaign of the Kyiv prince Mstislav Izyaslavich against the Polovtsians did not change the situation in any significant way. The Polovtsians continued to threaten weakened Rus'.

Among the principalities into which the Kievan state broke up, the largest ones stood out for their strength: Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician, Volyn and Novgorod. Each of them had its own characteristics and its own destiny. Novgorod, thanks to the extraordinary strengthening of its boyars and merchants, turned into a republic at the beginning of the 12th century, took up its internal affairs, concentrated its forces on protecting its western borders and had relatively little interest in what was happening throughout the country. But the same cannot be said about the Russian principalities neighboring Novgorod. They were very interested in keeping in touch with wealthy Novgorod, and if possible, then influencing its policies. After all, Novgorod was then a window to Europe.

Galician Rus' at the end of the 12th century became noticeably stronger. Successfully defending itself from Hungary and Poland, it made attempts to include the Dnieper region under its rule and take the place of weakened Kyiv.

“Galich Osmomysl Yaroslav! sitting high on his gold-plated table, propping up the Ugric mountains with his iron regiments, blocking the queen’s path, closing the gates of the Danube, swords of burden through the clouds, rowing judgments to the Danube. Your thunderstorms flow across the lands. Opening the gates of Kiev, shooting from gold of the Saltani table for the lands. Shoot, sir, Konchak, the filthy Koshchei, for the Russian land..." The poet also knows the Volyn prince Roman, who managed to unite Galich and Volyn a little later under one rule (Convinced by the arguments of A.K. Yugov, I must change his opinion, expressed in the article “The Author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and His Time” (“Marxist Historian”, 1938, book four, p. 18), that it was Svyatoslav who allegedly addressed political figures of his time Russia But, as A.K. Yugov correctly thinks, this is undoubtedly an appeal from the author of the Lay himself. - B.G.).

The position of the Galician and Volyn princes was not very easy. What the Novgorod boyars managed to do, that is, take all power into their own hands, relegate the prince to the background and paralyze his initiative, they also sought to introduce the powerful Galician boyars. At times he succeeded in doing so. But the popular masses were against them and went towards the unifying policy of their princes. The struggle of the boyars with the princely power did not stop here, but did not give the results that we see in Novgorod.

It was the Vladimir-Suzdal prince who achieved what the poet thought was necessary for Rus'.

And here there was the same fierce struggle between the princely power and the powerful and proud boyars. Andrei Bogolyubsky fell victim to this struggle. The boyars killed him. But the popular, mainly urban, masses resolutely opposed the boyars and helped their princes defeat this force. Andrei's brother Vsevolod, who sat in Andrei's place at the invitation of the Vladimir townspeople, inflicted a great defeat on the boyars. This elevated Vsevolod in the eyes of those who were ready to fight the separatist tendencies of the boyars.

The author of the Lay knows another feature of the policy of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes. They not only have a lot of power, but also broad political horizons. They are not confined to their local interests. More than anywhere else in Rus', they think about the entire Russian people. It is not for nothing that chronicles of all-Russian content continued here, while in other principalities political interests were narrowed to the limits of their territorial borders.

The author of the Lay, seeing the misfortunes of his people, who recently stood so high, calls Vsevolod of Vladimir: “Great Prince Vsevolod! I don’t think of flying from afar and taking away the gold of the table? was, then chaga would be nogat, and koschey would be cut!” “Zlat oten table” is the Kiev table, a table dear to the living memories of the Poet. The poet is sure that if Vsevolod had managed to arrive in the south, the Motherland would have gotten rid of its internal troubles and external enemies.

The call of the ardent patriot remained only a call: Vsevolod could not “watch over the table.” The table lost its former importance and ended up in the hands of less powerful princes. All-Russian interests remained relegated to second place. Narrow local selfish politics prevailed. The princes continued to forge sedition and destroy the Russian land.

People who dreamed of seeing their country united and great had to wait a long time. We had to endure a blow the likes of which Europe had never known before.

And under the Tatar yoke, the Russian people draw strength from memories and images of Kievan Rus to fight for a better future.

Soon after the Tatar pogrom, “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land” was compiled, a work imbued with a sad motif about the disasters that befell Christians. With a deep feeling of love and admiration, they speak here about the “bright, bright” Russian land, about its glory, the wealth of the old Kyiv princes. Here Vsevolod, the same one on whom the author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” had placed such great hopes, and his grandfather, Vladimir Monomakh, and another, even older Vladimir, find a place for themselves.

And when a renewed Rus' was born on the Kulikovo Field, the images that were so close to the author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” were resurrected with renewed vigor and in a new interpretation. Kyiv brothers Boris and Gleb help Dimitri Donskoy defeat Mamai. The authors of the stories about the Mamaev Massacre consider it necessary to recall that Dmitry Donskoy is the “great-grandson” of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich. But the writer of the 14th century no longer focuses on Kyiv. Before him stands a triumphant Moscow, bringing victory and the unification of all Rus'.

August - September 1945

Academician B. D. GREKOV

- - - - - - - -22

The address to the prince “master” first began to be used in the northeast of Rus', where a new strong princely power was taking shape, starting in the mid-70s of the 12th century. (that is, ten years before the writing of the Lay). It begins to be used at first only among urban and rural residents. Before that, this term “master” was used only in the field of possessive relations: this was the name of the owner of slaves, the owner of purchases (in “Russkaya Pravda”). In political life, in relation to the prince, the term “master” is first encountered in the speeches of residents of Vladimir-Suzdal cities addressed to the Vladimir prince. This is what Suzdal and Rostovites (citizens) call Mikhail Yuryevich in 1176 and 1177; this is what Vladimir residents (again, townspeople) call Vsevolod Yuryevich in 1177; This is what they call it in other cases as well. In 1180, apparently for the first time, this term passed into the mouths of the vassal princes, in their address to their head, and again in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. This is what the Ryazan princes Vsevolod and Vladimir Glebovich called Vsevolod Yuryevich of Vladimir-Suzdal, their feudal head: “You are a lord, you are a father,” the Ryazan princes said through ambassadors to Vsevolod, “my brother (ours - D.L.) the oldest Roman occupies the volosts at nayu (us. - D.L.), listening to his father-in-law Svyatoslav, and kissed the cross and crossed over to you” (Ipat. years.). Apparently, the new relations of unconditional subordination that developed in the northeast between the Vladimir-Suzdal prince and the Ryazan princes at his side required for their definition a new term, in which any “kin softening” of political concepts, so characteristic of the old traditional feudal terminology - “father”, “son”, “brother”. That is why the word “master” began to be used instead of the word “father” or next to it at the time of strengthening of princely power.

This new political term - “lord” (instead of “father”), which reflected in the northeast the growth of the feudal head over the princes standing below him on the ladder of feudal subordination, begins to be used not only by the Ryazan princes in relation to Vsevolod Yuryevich, but also in Another center of the struggle for strong princely power was in Galicia. Just ten years later, in 1190, the son of Yaroslav Osmomysl, Vladimir Galitsky, in his request to Vsevolod of Suzdal, resorted to a similar appeal: “Mr. Father! Keep Galich under me, and God’s tongue and yours are with all Galich, and I am always in your will” (Ipat. years). The energy of this new political term is supported in this request by an unusual degree of humility, to which Vladimir agrees: “I am God’s and yours.”

The use of the word “master” in relation to the prince has a completely precise chronology. It has been used since the 70s of the 12th century. and during the XIII century. (it is typical of the “Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoner”). Subsequently, in the XIV-XV centuries, it is replaced by the word “sovereign”: the prince will be called “sovereign”, but not “master”. This word will be found only in “Zadonshchina” and “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”, but as a borrowing from “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (in the first work - directly, and in the second - through the first).

By adopting the new term “master,” the author of the Lay obviously accepted a new attitude toward princely power. It is no coincidence that he exaggerates the power of the princes, calls some of them “great” and “formidable” (Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich), and speaks of the “thunderstorm” of Svyatoslav and Yaroslav Osmomysl.

Let's summarize. The author of the Lay is a man of broad historical awareness. He is an attentive reader of The Tale of Bygone Years and at the same time has heard a lot of folk historical poetry. He has his own distinct ideas about Russian history, although these ideas are the ideas of a poet, not a historian, and a poet of the 12th century. His judgments about Russian history are the fruit of a poetic perception of this history, but a poetic perception imbued with historicism within the limits accessible to his era. Russian history has for him clearly visible features of its own existence. At least three periods, three successive images of historical eras are outlined in his poetic consciousness: the time of Troyan, the time of Yaroslav and the time of Oleg Gorislavich.

In his historical views, the author of the Lay depends on the chronicle, folklore and popular rumor, but his historical views are higher than the chronicle, folklore, and those represented by rumor. What separates the author of the Lay from the chroniclers is the enormous power of historical generalization. He summarizes history in specific poetic images. What separates him from the “song makers” is his critical assessment of the past and present. However, he takes his information from the chronicle, folklore, and oral folk memory. He develops individual thoughts of the chronicler and is imbued with the spirit of folk poetic creativity.

The author of The Lay does not separate his opinions from public opinion. He constantly relies on this public opinion in his assessments of what is happening. He recognizes himself as a spokesman for public opinion, striving to convey his assessment of events as a national assessment. But at the same time, the public opinion that he expresses is the public opinion of the best Russian people of his time.

The author of “The Lay” finds the best sides in the norms of feudal behavior, in the code of squad morality, in the ideology of the top of feudal society and strives to rethink feudal concepts. He fills the concepts of “honor”, “glory”, “praise” and “blasphemy” with his own patriotic content.

The author of the Lay is a supporter of strong princely power in the name of curbing the arbitrariness of petty princes, in the name of the unity of the Russian land. The entire “Word” is imbued with a single patriotic mood and a single patriotic idea - the idea of the unity of the Russian land. Essentially, it is a call for this unity and for the firm defense of Rus' from the “filthy”. In this too, the author of the Lay was a man of his time, a mouthpiece for the opinions of the best of his contemporaries. He creates ideas, the need for which was vividly felt in his time. He is the eye and mind of the people. He says what needs to be said. That is why the author of the Lay is inseparable from his era that gave birth to him.

His true hero is the Russian people and the Russian land. The image of the Russian land is central in the Lay. The author imagines it in a broad historical perspective, in the images of military feats and peaceful creative labor. His work, with its calls for unity, is directed towards a future full of bright hopes for him; it paints pictures of a sad present and looks for the roots of this present in the past. It is full of faith in the future, sorrow for the present, pride in the past and wise reflection on the past, the present, and the future, merged for him in a single image of the Russian land.

Who was the author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign”? He could be close to Igor Svyatoslavich: he sympathizes with him. He could also be close to Svyatoslav of Kyiv: he also sympathizes with him. He could be a Chernigov resident or a Kyivian resident. He could have been a vigilante: he constantly uses vigilante concepts. However, in his political views he was neither a “courtier”, nor a defender of local trends, nor a warrior. He took his independent patriotic position. 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 population.

Did the call of the author of the Lay reach those for whom it was intended? It can be assumed that to a certain extent, yes. Igor Svyatoslavich abandons his solo actions against the Polovtsians. In 1191 he organized an entire coalition against the Polovtsians. In addition to Igor Svyatoslavich, the following participants took part in the campaign: Vsevolod Svyatoslavich, Mstislav and Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the sons of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kiev, Rostislav Yaroslavich, the son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, and the son of Oleg Svyatoslavich - Davyd. This campaign was unsuccessful, but its very organization on such a scale, I think, was not accidental.

However, the real meaning of the call of the author of the Lay may not have been 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 brand harmful feudal ideas in public opinion, to mobilize public opinion against the princes' search for personal glory, personal honor and revenge or personal grievances. The task of the “Slovo” was not only military, but also the ideological unity of the Russian people around the idea of the unity of the Russian land. That is why the author of The Lay so often and so persistently appeals to this public opinion. This task was not designed for a year or two. In contrast to the call for organizing a military campaign against the Polovtsians, it could cover with its mobilizing influence an entire period of Russian history - right up to the Tatar-Mongol invasion. “The essence of the poem,” wrote K. Marx in a letter to Engels, “is the call of the Russian princes to unity just before the invasion of the Mongol hordes proper.”

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?