A word about Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, how they defeated their adversary Tsar Mamai.

Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich with his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, was at a feast with the Moscow governor. And he said: “The news has come to us, brothers, that Tsar Mamai is standing at the fast Don, he has come to Rus' and wants to go to us in the Zalessk land.” And the Grand Duke and his brother, having prayed to God, steeling their hearts with their courage, gathered brave Russian regiments. All the Russian princes came to the glorious city of Moscow and said: “The filthy Tatars are standing near the Don, Mamai the Tsar is at the Mechi River, they want to cross the river and part with their lives for our glory.” And Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich turned to his brother: “Let’s go there, test our brave men and fill the Don River with blood for the Russian land and for the Christian faith.”

What makes noise, what thunders early before dawn? Then Prince Vladimir Andreevich builds regiments and leads them to the great Don. And the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich admonished him: “We have already appointed governors - seventy boyars, and the princes of Belozersk are brave, and both brothers Olgerdovich, and Dmitry Volynsky, and the soldiers with us are three hundred thousand men-at-arms. The squad has been tested in battles, and all, as one, are ready to lay down their heads for the Russian land.”

After all, those falcons and gyrfalcons and Belozersk hawks soon flew over the Don and struck countless herds of geese and swans. It was not falcons or gyrfalcons - it was the Russian princes who attacked the Tatar force. And the red-hot spears struck the Tatar armor, and the damask swords thundered against the Khinov helmets on the Kulikovo field, on the Nepryadva river.

The ground is black under the hooves, the fields are strewn with Tatar bones, and the ground is flooded with their blood. On that field, menacing clouds converged, and from them lightning continuously flashed and great thunder roared. It was not the tours that roared near the Don on the Kulikovo field. It’s not the Turs who were beaten, but the Russian princes, and the boyars, and the governors of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich. Peresvet the Chernets, a Bryansk boyar, was brought to the place of judgment. And Peresvet the Chernets said: “It’s better for us to be killed than to be captured by the filthy Tatars!”

At that time, in the Ryazan land near the Don, neither plowmen nor shepherds called in the field, only crows incessantly cawing over human corpses, it was scary and pitiful to hear this then; and the grass was drenched in blood, and the trees bowed to the ground in sadness. The birds sang pitiful songs - all the princesses, and boyars, and all the voivod's wives began to lament for the dead. So they said: “Can you, sir, great prince, block the Dnieper with oars, and scoop up the Don with helmets, and dam the Sword River with Tatar corpses? Lock the gates at the Oka River, sir, so that the filthy Tatars don’t come to us anymore. Our husbands have already been beaten in battle.” The wife of Mikula Vasilyevich, the Moscow governor, Marya cried on the visors of the Moscow walls, wailing: “Oh Don, Don, fast river, bring my master Mikula Vasilyevich to me on your waves!”

And, throwing out a cry, Prince Vladimir Andreevich rushed with his army to the shelves of the filthy Tatars. And he praised his brother: “Brother, Dmitry Ivanovich! In evil and bitter times, you are a strong shield for us. Do not give in, Great Prince, with your great regiments, do not indulge the seditious people! Don’t delay with your boyars.” And Prince Dmitry Ivanovich said: “Brothers, boyars and governors, here are your Moscow sweet honeys and great places! Then get a place for yourself and your wives. Here, brothers, the old must become younger, and the young must gain honor.” And then, like falcons, they flew headlong to the fast Don. It was not falcons that flew: the Grand Duke galloped with his regiments beyond the Don, and behind him the entire Russian army.

And then the Grand Duke began the offensive. Damask swords rattle against Khinov helmets. And so the filthy ones rushed back. The wind roars in the battles of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, the Tatars are fleeing, and the Russian sons fenced off the wide fields with a clique and illuminated them with gilded armor. The battle has already begun! Here the Tatars scattered in confusion and ran along unbeaten roads into the Lukomorie, gnashing their teeth and tearing their faces, saying: “We, brothers, will not be in our own land, and will not see our children, and will not caress our wives, but we will caress the raw the earth, but we should kiss the green grass, and we should not go to Rus' as an army and we should not ask tribute from the Russian princes.”

Now the Russian sons have captured Tatar armor and horses, and are bringing wine, fine fabrics and silks to their wives. Fun and rejoicing already spread across the Russian land. Russian glory has overcome the blasphemy of the filthy. And the cruel Mamai darted away from his squad like a gray wolf and ran to Cafe-town. And the Fryags said to him: “You came to Russian land with great forces, with nine hordes and seventy princes. But, apparently, the Russian princes thoroughly treated you: there are neither princes nor governors with you! Run away, you filthy Mamai, from us beyond the dark forests.”

The Russian land is like a sweet baby to its mother: its mother caresses it, flogs it for mischief, and praises it for its good deeds. So the Lord God had mercy on the Russian princes, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, between the Don and the Dnieper on the Kulikovo field, on the Nepryadva river. And Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich said: “Brothers, you laid down your heads for the Russian land and for the Christian faith. Forgive me and bless me in this age and in the next. Let’s go, brother Vladimir Andreevich, to our Zalesskaya land to the glorious city of Moscow and sit on our reign, and we have won honor and a glorious name.”

One of the very first works glorifying the battle on the Kulikovo Field, “Zadonshchina” was already mentioned above in connection with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (see pp. 77–78). This monument is remarkable not only because it is indisputable evidence of the antiquity and authenticity of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” not only because it is dedicated to such a significant event in the history of Rus', but also because of its own literary significance.
The exact time of creation of “Zadonshchina” is unknown. We adhere to the point of view on this issue most clearly formulated by V.F. Rzhiga. The researcher, calling “Zadonshchina” “The Word of Zephanius of Ryazan,” wrote: “To understand the Word of Zephanius of Ryazan, it is also important to clarify the time of its creation. Literary scholars who dealt with this question, for the most part, answered it approximately, attributing the Word of Zephaniah either to the beginning of the 15th century, or to the end of the 14th century. Only relatively recently was attention drawn to the fact that the monument mentions Tornava, i.e. Tarnovo, the capital of the Bulgarian kingdom, and since Turkish troops took Tarnovo in 1393, it was concluded that the Word of Zephaniah of Ryazan was created before 1393 d. In order to clarify this position, the indication in the Word of Zephaniah was also used that 160 years had passed from the time of the battle on the Kalka River to the Massacre of Mamaev. If we interpret this chronological indication as related to the dating of the work, then it turns out that the Word of Zephaniah was written in 1384. Whether this is true or not is difficult to say. It must, however, be recognized that attempts to date the monument to a time closer to 1380 seem quite appropriate. They correspond to the clearly emotional character that the Word of Zephaniah has from beginning to end. In this regard, there is reason to believe that the Word of Zephaniah appeared immediately after the Battle of Kulikovo, perhaps in the same 1380 or the next.”
M.A. Salmina, who compared “Zadonshchina” with the chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo, came to the conclusion that the author of “Zadonshchina” used the text of a lengthy chronicle story, the time of which it dates back to the 40s. XV century (for more details on this, see below, p. 197). Consequently, according to Salmina, “Zadonshchina” could not have arisen before the end of the 40s. XV century The arguments given by M. A. Salmina in favor of the textual dependence of “Zadonshchina” on the lengthy chronicle story are unconvincing. Moreover, a textual comparative analysis of “Zadonshchina” and the chronicle story, taking into account the indisputable dependence of “Zadonshchina” on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” gives grounds to assert that the chronicle story in the form in which it was read in the code of 1408 experienced influenced by “Zadonshchina”.
Thus, a comparison of “Zadonshchina” with the chronicle story about the Massacre of Mamayev only confirms the correctness of the point of view according to which “Zadonshchina” is a direct response to the Battle of Kulikovo.
“Zadonshchina” has come down to us in 6 lists, behind which short symbols are firmly established, often used in scientific literature: 1) U, mid-17th century. (also referred to as Undolsky’s list - GBL, Undolsky’s collection, No. 632); 2) And 1, late XVI – early XVII centuries. (also designated as Historical First - State Historical Museum, collection Muzeiskoe, No. 2060); 3) And 2, late XV - early XVI centuries. (also designated as Historical Second - State Historical Museum, collection Muzeiskoe, No. 3045; a text fragment without beginning and end); 4) F, second half of the 17th century. (BAN, No. 1.4.1.; short excerpt - the very beginning of the work); 5) K B, 1470s. (also designated as Kirillo Belozersky or Efrosinovsky - GPB, collection of Kirillo Belozersky Monastery, No. 9/1086); 6) C, XVII century. (also referred to as Synodal - State Historical Museum, collection Synodal, No. 790). The name “Zadonshchina” appears only in the title of the list KB and belongs to the author of this list Efrosyn (about Efrosyn and his book-writing activity, see below, p. 192), in other lists the monument is called “The Word” about the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimir Andreevich or “Praise” to these princes. In all lists, the text is greatly distorted and replete with errors; list KB is an abbreviation of the reworking of the original text made by Efrosyn. The poor preservation of the text of “Zadonshchina” in surviving copies forces us to use the reconstructed text of the work.
In “Zadonshchina” we do not have a description of the vicissitudes of the Battle of Kulikovo (we will find all this in “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”), but a poetic expression of emotionally lyrical feelings about the event. The author recalls both the past and the present, his story is transferred from one place to another: from Moscow to the Kulikovo Field, again to Moscow, to Novgorod, again to the Kulikovo Field. He himself defined the nature of his work as “pity and praise for Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimer Ondreevich.” This is pity—crying for the dead, and praise—glory to the courage and military valor of the Russians.
“Zadonshchina” is entirely based on the text of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - there is a repetition of entire passages from the “Tale”, and the same characteristics, and similar poetic devices. But “Zadonshchina” does not just rewrite, it reinterprets the “Word” in its own way. The appeal of the author of “Zadonshchina” to “The Lay” is of a creative nature: “The author of “Zadonshchina” did not mean the unconscious use of the artistic treasures of the greatest work of ancient Russian literature - “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, not a simple imitation of its style (as is usually believed) , but a completely conscious comparison of events of the past and present, the events depicted in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” with the events of contemporary reality. Both are symbolically opposed in “Zadonshchina.” With this comparison, the author of “Zadonshchina” made it clear that disagreement in the actions of the princes (as was the case in “The Lay”) leads to defeat, while uniting everyone to fight the enemy is the key to victory. In this regard, it is significant that “Zadonshchina” says nothing about Mamai’s allies Oleg Ryazansky and Jogaila of Lithuania. And at the same time, about the Novgorodians (who, apparently, did not take part in the Battle of Kulikovo), the author of “Zadonshchina” writes that they, having learned too late about Mamai’s campaign and no longer hoping to be in time “for assistance” to the Grand Duke, nevertheless “like eagles flew down” and left Novgorod “on aid” (p. 382) to the Moscow prince. The author of “Zadonshchina,” contrary to historical truth, sought to show the complete unity of all Russian lands in the fight against Mamai.
A comparison of the past with the present, the events described in the Lay with the events of 1380, occurs from the very beginning and throughout the entire text. Already in the introduction this comparison is clearly expressed and has a deep meaning. The author of “Zadonshchina” traces the beginning of the troubles of the Russian land with the ill-fated battle on Kayal and the battle on Kalka: “... the filthy Tatars, Busormans... on the river on Kayal they defeated the Afet family (i.e. Russians - L.D.). And from then on, the Russian land sat sadly, and from the Kalat army to the Mamaev battle, it was covered with tightness and sadness” (p. 380). From the moment of the Mamaev massacre, a turning point came in the fate of the Russian land: “Let us descend, brothers and friends and sons of Russia, let us compose word for word, rejoice the Russian land and cast sorrow upon the eastern country” (p. 380). And we can trace such comparison and contrast throughout the text. Let's give just one example. When Dmitry sets out on a campaign, “the sun shines clearly for him and tells him the way” (p. 386). Let us recall that in the “Tale” Igor’s army comes out at the moment of a solar eclipse (“Then Igor looked at the bright sun and saw that all his howls were covered with darkness”). In the story “Zadonshchina” about the movement of Mamai’s forces to the Kulikovo field, a picture of ominous natural phenomena is given: “And already their misfortunes are shepherded by birds winging, flying under the clouds, crows often playing, and Galicians speaking their speeches, eagles slurping, and wolves howling menacingly, and foxes break bones” (p. 386). In the Lay this passage is correlated with the march of Russian forces.
In “Zadonshchina”, in comparison with “The Lay”, images of church poetics are more often used (“for the land, for the Russian and for the peasant faith”, “stepping into your golden stirrup, and taking your sword in your right hand, and praying to God and the Most Pure his mother”, etc.). The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” turned to the means of oral folk poetics and processed them creatively, creating his own original poetic images based on folklore material. The author of “Zadonshchina” simplifies many of these images, his poetic means, which go back to the poetics of oral creativity, are closer to their prototypes, a number of original epithets of “Zadonshchina” in comparison with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” are clearly of a folk oral nature (a phrase typical of the epic style “such is the word”, “fast Don”, “damp earth” and some others).
The style of “Zadonshchina” is distinguished by its diversity: the poetic parts of the monument are closely intertwined with parts of a prosaic, sometimes even businesslike nature. It is possible that this diversity and “disorganization” of the text is explained by the state of the copies of the monument that have reached us. Prosaisms could have arisen as a result of later stratifications, and do not reflect the author's text.
In the lists of “Zadonshchina” K B and C in the title the author of the work is named Sophony of Ryazan, about whom we know nothing. The name Zephaniah is mentioned in the text of “Zadonshchina” itself, and here the author of “Zadonshchina” speaks of Zephaniah as a different person in relation to him: “I will remember Zephanius the cutter” (list U), “And here we will remember Sophon the cutter” (list WITH). In addition, in a number of lists of the Main Edition of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev,” Zephanius is named in the title as the author of the “Tale.” All this gave reason to R.P. Dmitrieva to suggest that Sophony, contrary to generally accepted opinion, was not the author of “Zadonshchina”. R.P. Dmitrieva believes that Sophony is the author of a poetic work about the Battle of Kulikovo that has not reached us, to which both the author of “Zadonshchina” and the author of “The Tale” independently addressed each other. The possibility of the existence of another, not preserved poetic monument about the Battle of Kulikovo, as academician A. A. Shakhmatov believed, follows from the nature of the textual relationships of the extant works of the Kulikovo cycle. A. A. Shakhmatov called this hypothetical text “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev.”
In addition to its literary merits, in addition to the emotional meaning inherent in this work, “Zadonshchina” is remarkable as a reflection of the advanced political idea of ​​its time: Moscow should be at the head of all Russian lands, and the unity of Russian princes under the authority of the Moscow Grand Duke serves as the key to the liberation of the Russian land from Mongol Tatar rule.

At the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV centuries. a poetic story about the Battle of Kulikovo was written - “Zadonshchina”, preserved in six copies, two editions. The oldest list that has come down to us dates back to the 70s of the 15th century; the list has no end, there are many omissions.

Lists of the 16th and 17th centuries. are also defective, but on their basis S.K. Shambinago reconstructed the consolidated text of “Zadonshchina”. A textual analysis of the surviving lists of “Zadonshchina” was carried out by R. P. Dmitrieva.

The name “Zadonshchina” appears only in the title of the K-B list and belongs to the author of this list, Efrosin; in other lists the monument is called the “Word” about Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimir Andreevich or “Praise” to these princes.

“Zadonshchina” is dedicated to the glorification of the victory of Russian troops over the Mongol-Tatar hordes; its author drew factual material from the chronicle story, and the literary model was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”

Revealing the connection between a later work of art and its prototype, the researcher does not limit himself to simply establishing a fact: he strives to find precisely in this plan the reason for the artist’s appeal to this sample.

It is usually easy to determine which of two overlapping works is the original. Two monuments, ideologically and artistically connected with each other, found themselves in a special situation - “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and “Zadonshchina”. Each of these monuments is dedicated to a precisely dated event - Igor Svyatoslavich’s campaign against the Polovtsians in 1185 and the Battle of Kulikovo in 1330. But while “Zadonshchina,” although unknown in the author’s list or one close to it, still reached the manuscript in 1470 s and later, and therefore its dating did not cause much controversy, the fate of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” gave skeptics additional reason to doubt its proximity to the event described in it. This work, even in the burned Musin-Pushkin copy, was only read in a copy no older than the end of the 15th century. In the three centuries separating this copy from the author’s text, not a single copy has survived, and to top it all off, the Musin-Pushkin manuscript burned, and the only evidence of its existence remained the 1800 edition, Catherine’s copy and translations of the late 18th century.

In the preface to “Zadonshchina”, only one name of the river on which in the past the Russians were defeated by the “filthy”, “Kayala”, is reminiscent of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”. However, due to the fact that the “Kayala River” as the site of the battle is also in the description of Igor Svyatoslavich’s campaign in the Ipatiev Chronicle, we will not bring our monuments together on the basis of the presence in both of this still not entirely clear geographical (or stylistic?) name. 5 The undoubted overlap between “Zadonshchina” and “The Lay” begins with the same introductory phrase with which each author introduces his narration:

The next episode of “Zadonshchina”, which brings it closer to “The Lay”, is a characterization of princes Dmitry Ivanovich and Vladimir Andreevich, repeated almost verbatim in the description of the psychological state of Igor Svyatoslavich, setting out on a campaign:

In this episode of the Lay there is one of the hapaxes not found in other ancient Russian monuments - the verb “istyagnu”. Researchers, comparing it with the same root “contract”,

The description of the beginning of Prince Igor’s campaign does not immediately result in its final form in the Lay: the author reflects on how Boyan would begin this story, and therefore turns his thoughts to this old singer: “Oh Boyan, the nightingale of the old time, if only you had tickled his cheeks " Boyan’s metaphorical epithet in “Zadonshchina” corresponds to the real image of a lark, to which the author turns with a request to sing the glory of the Grand Duke and his brother: “O lark bird, red days of joy, fly under the blue skies, look to the strong city of Moscow, sing glory.” However, in “Zadonshchina” there is a closer parallel to the image of Boyan the Nightingale, although also devoid of metaphorical meaning.

Comparing the text of this description of the warriors in the two monuments, restored on the basis of the surviving lists of “Zadonshchina,” we discover an almost complete coincidence between them. “Kameti” “Words” could not find a place in “Zadonshchina”, where it was not about the prince’s warriors, but about the leaders of the army themselves, hence their name “commanders”.

Andrei Olgerdovich’s speech in “Zadonshchina” echoes both the beginning of Vsevolod’s appeal and Igor Svyatoslavich’s previous call to the squad:

From the moment of the Mamaev massacre, a turning point came in the fate of the Russian land: “Let us descend, brothers and friends and sons of Russia, let us compose word for word, rejoice the Russian land and cast sorrow on the eastern country.”

And we can trace such comparison and contrast throughout the text. Let's give just one example. When Dmitry sets out on a campaign, “the sun shines clearly for him and will tell him the way.” Let us recall that in the “Tale” Igor’s army comes out at the moment of a solar eclipse (“Then Igor looked at the bright sun and saw that all his howls were covered with darkness”).

In the story “Zadonshchina” about the movement of Mamai’s forces to the Kulikovo field, a picture of ominous natural phenomena is given: “And already their misfortunes are shepherded by birds winging, flying under the clouds, crows often playing, and Galicians speaking their speeches, eagles slurping, and wolves howling menacingly, and foxes break bones." In the Lay this passage is correlated with the march of Russian forces.

In “Zadonshchina”, in comparison with “The Lay”, images of church poetics are more often used (“for the land, for the Russian and for the peasant faith”, “stepping into your golden stirrup, and taking your sword in your right hand, and praying to God and the Most Pure his mother”, etc.). The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” turned to the means of oral folk poetics and processed them creatively, creating his own original poetic images based on folklore material.

The author of “Zadonshchina” simplifies many of these images, his poetic means, going back to the poetics of oral creativity, are closer to their prototypes, a number of original epithets of “Zadonshchina” in comparison with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” are clearly of a folk-oral nature (typical of the epic style the phrase “such is the word”, “fast Don”, “damp earth” and some others).

In all lists, the text is greatly distorted and replete with errors; the K-B list is a reduction and reworking of the original text made by Efrosyn. The poor preservation of the text of “Zadonshchina” in surviving copies forces us to use the reconstructed text of the work.

In “Zadonshchina” we do not have a description of the vicissitudes of the Battle of Kulikovo (we will find all this in “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”), but a poetic expression of emotional and lyrical feelings about the event. The author recalls both the past and the present, his story is transferred from one place to another: from Moscow to the Kulikovo Field, again to Moscow, to Novgorod, again to the Kulikovo Field. He himself defined the nature of his work as “pity and praise for Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimer Ondreevich.”

This is pity—crying for the dead, and praise—glory to the courage and military valor of the Russians.

The style of “Zadonshchina” is distinguished by its diversity: the poetic parts of the monument are closely intertwined with parts of a prosaic, sometimes even businesslike nature. It is possible that this diversity and “disorganization” of the text is explained by the state of the copies of the monument that have reached us. Prosaisms could have arisen as a result of later stratifications, and do not reflect the author's text.

Features of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” as a monument of the Kulikovo cycle

The most detailed description of the events of the Battle of Kulikovo has been preserved for us by “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” - the main monument of the Kulikovo cycle. This work was extremely popular among ancient Russian readers.

The legend was rewritten and revised many times and has come to us in eight editions and a large number of variants. The popularity of the monument among the medieval reader as “someone’s” work is evidenced by the large number of front copies (illustrated with miniatures) of it.

The exact time of creation of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” is unknown. There are anachronisms and errors in the text of the Legend (we will dwell on some of them in more detail below). They are usually explained by the late origin of the monument. This is a deep misconception.

Some of these “mistakes” are so obvious that they could not have taken place in a detailed narrative about a historical event if the author had not pursued some specific goal. And, as we will see later, the deliberate replacement of one name with another made sense only if the story was compiled at a time not too distant from the events described in it. Anachronisms and “mistakes” of the Legend are explained by the journalistic orientation of the work.

Recently, the question of dating the Legend has attracted a lot of attention. Yu. K. Begunov dates the creation of the Legend to the period between the middle and end of the 15th century, I. B. Grekov - to the 90s. XIV century, V. S. Mingalev - by the 30-40s. XVI century, M.A. Salmina - to the period from the 40s. XV century until the beginning of the 16th century.

This question is very hypothetical and cannot be considered resolved. It is considered most likely to date the origin of the Legend to the first quarter of the 15th century. The particular interest in the Battle of Kulikovo at this time can be explained by the newly aggravated relations with the Horde, and in particular by the invasion of Edigei into Rus' in 1408.

The invasion of Edigei, the success of which was explained by the lack of cohesion and unanimity of the Russian princes, awakens the idea of ​​​​the need to restore unity under the leadership of the Grand Duke of Moscow to fight the external enemy. This idea is the main one in the Legend.

The main character of the Legend is Dmitry Donskoy. The legend is not only a story about the Battle of Kulikovo, but also a work dedicated to the praise of the Grand Duke of Moscow. The author portrays Dmitry as a wise and courageous commander, emphasizing his military valor and courage. All other characters are grouped around Dmitry Donskoy. Dmitry is the eldest among the Russian princes, all of them are his faithful vassals, his younger brothers.

The relationship between senior and junior princes, which seems ideal to the author and which all Russian princes should follow, is shown in the monument using the example of the relationship between Dmitry Ivanovich and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky.

Vladimir Andreevich is portrayed everywhere as a faithful vassal of the Grand Duke of Moscow, unquestioningly carrying out all his commands. Such an emphasis on the devotion and love of the Prince of Serpukhov to the Prince of Moscow clearly illustrated the vassal devotion of the younger prince to the elder prince.

In the Legend, Dmitry Ivanovich’s campaign is blessed by Metropolitan Cyprian, who in fact in 1380 was not even within the borders of Rus', and because of the “mess up” at the metropolis, there was no metropolitan in Moscow at that time. This, of course, is not a mistake by the author of the Tale, but a literary and journalistic device.

The author of the Legend, who set as his goal in the person of Dmitry Donskoy to show the ideal image of the Grand Duke of Moscow, it was necessary to present him as supporting a strong alliance with the Metropolitan. For journalistic reasons, the author could have included Metropolitan Cyprian among the characters, although this contradicted historical reality (formally Cyprian was at that time the Metropolitan of All Rus').

The principle of “abstract psychologism” in this case manifests itself very clearly. The Tatars are also directly opposed to Russian warriors. The Russian army is characterized as a bright, morally high force, the Tatar army as a dark, cruel, sharply negative force. Even death is completely different for both.

For the Russians this is glory and salvation for eternal life, for the Tatars it is endless destruction: “Many people become sad because of both, seeing death before their eyes. Having begun to defile the Polovtsians, they were darkened with much grief over the destruction of their lives, before the wicked died, and their memory perished with a noise. But people who are orthodox are more than prosperous, rejoicing, longing for this fulfilled promise, for beautiful crowns, about which the Venerable Abbot Sergius told the Grand Duke.”

The Lithuanian ally of Mamai in the Legend is named Prince Olgerd. In fact, during the events of the Battle of Kulikovo, the son of Olgerd Jagiello concluded an alliance with Mamai, and Olgerd had already died by this time. As in the case of Cyprian, this is not a mistake, but a conscious literary and journalistic device.

For Russian people of the late XIV - early XV centuries, and especially for Muscovites, the name of Olgerd was associated with memories of his campaigns against the Moscow Principality; he was an insidious and dangerous enemy of Rus', whose military cunning was reported in the chronicle obituary article about his death.

Therefore, they could call Olgerd an ally of Mamai instead of Jogaila only at a time when this name was still well remembered as the name of a dangerous enemy of Moscow. At a later time, such a change of names did not make any sense. It is no coincidence, therefore, that already in the early period of the literary history of the monument, in some editions of the Legend, the name of Olgerd was replaced, in accordance with historical truth, by the name of Jogaila. By calling Mamai Olgerd an ally, the author of the Legend thereby strengthened both the journalistic and artistic sound of his work: the most insidious and dangerous enemies opposed Moscow, but they too were defeated.

The replacement of the name of the Lithuanian prince also had another connotation: the princes Andrei and Dmitry Olgerdovich, the children of Olgerd, were in alliance with Dmitry. Due to the fact that Olgerd appeared in the Tale, it turned out that even his own children opposed him, which also enhanced the journalistic and plot sharpness of the work.

The heroic nature of the event depicted in the Legend led the author to turn to oral traditions about the Massacre of Mamaev, to epic stories about this event. Most likely, the episode of single combat before the start of the general battle of the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of Peresvet with the Tatar hero goes back to oral traditions.

The epic basis is felt in the story about the “test of omens” by Dmitry Volynets - the experienced commander Dmitry Volynets and the Grand Duke, on the night before the battle, go into the field between the Russian and Tatar troops, and Volynets hears how the earth is crying “in two” - about the Tatars and Russians soldiers: there will be many killed, but the Russians will still prevail. Oral tradition probably underlies the message of the Legend that before the battle Dmitry put princely armor on his beloved governor Mikhail Brenka, and he himself, in the clothes of a simple warrior with an iron club, was the first to rush into battle.

The influence of oral folk poetry on the Legend is revealed in the author’s use of certain visual means, which go back to the techniques of oral folk art. Russian warriors are compared to falcons and gyrfalcons, Russians beat their enemies “like a forest, like a scythe of grass.” The cry of Grand Duchess Evdokia after bidding farewell to the prince, who was leaving Moscow to fight the Tatars, can be regarded as a reflection of folklore influence.

Although the author gives this lament in the form of a prayer, one can still note in it a reflection of the elements of folk lamentation. The descriptions of the Russian army are imbued with poetry (“The armor of the Russian sons, like water swaying in all the winds. The golden Sholoms on their heads, like the dawn of the morning during buckets of light, the yalovtsi of their Sholoms, like a fiery flame plows”), the pictures of nature are bright, deeply Some of the author's comments are emotional and not devoid of life-like truthfulness.

Talking, for example, about the farewell of soldiers leaving Moscow for battle with their wives, the author writes that the wives “were unable to utter a word in tears and exclamations from the heart,” and adds that “the great prince himself could hardly help himself from tears, without giving I want to make the people cry."

“The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” was of interest to readers simply because it described in detail all the circumstances of the Battle of Kulikovo. Some of them were of a legendary-epic nature, some are a reflection of actual facts not recorded in any other sources.

However, this is not the only attractiveness of the work. Despite a significant touch of rhetoric, “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” has a pronounced plot character. Not only the event itself, but also the fates of individuals, the development of the twists and turns of the plot made readers worry and empathize with what was being described.

And in a number of editions of the monument, the plot episodes become more complex and their number increases. All this made “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” not only a historical and journalistic narrative, but also a work that could captivate the reader with its plot and the nature of the development of this plot.

Ancient Moscow. XII-XV centuries Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich

"ZADONSHCHINA"

"ZADONSHCHINA"

The attention of literary historians has long been drawn to “Zadonshchina,” and yet it cannot be said that the results of its study were completely satisfactory. Most researchers were interested in the question of the imitability of this monument associated with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” S.K. Shambinago writes: “This work, which bore the usual names of the Word or the Tale, but later received the name of the Narrative, was written in imitation of the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” preserving not only its images and expressions, but also its plan.” . The origin of “Zadonshchina” is correlated with the authorship of Zephanius, a priest, a Ryazan resident, named in one list as a Bryansk boyar. The book by S.K. Shambinago depicts the arrival of a southern native in Ryazan, where he brings the manuscript of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” and perhaps an entire library. In N.K. Gudzia, the author of “Zadonshchina” is also a Bryansk boyar, “...apparently, an adherent of Dmitry Bryansky, a participant in the coalition against Mamai, and then a Ryazan priest.” A new work in French by A. Mazon is also dedicated to “Zadonshchina,” who praises it in order to prove that it was the source of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” considered by A. Mazon as a forged work compiled at the end of the 18th century.

Currently, the question of the origin of “Zadonshchina” is increasingly attracting researchers, especially since a new copy of this work has been found. Personally, he was known to me for a long time from his work on the chroniclers of the State Historical Museum. The new list of “Zadonshchina” is included in the Novgorod 4th Chronicle of the Dubrovsky list type (manuscript of the museum collection No. 2060). The significance of the new list is self-evident if we take into account that of the known copies of this work, two date back to the 17th century, and one (incomplete) to the 15th century. Our list of the mid-16th century. the most complete and correct, basically similar to Undolsky’s list.

The text of “Zadonshchina” is inserted into the chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo. That's why he remained little known. At the beginning it says: “In the summer of 6887. Praise to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimer Ondreevich, who, by God’s help, defeated the filthy Mamai with all his strength.” This is followed by the text of the chronicle story “about the finding of Mamai,” interrupted by the story of Dmitry Donskoy sending for Prince Vladimir Andreevich and the governors. Here “Zadonshchina” begins: “And then I wrote off pity and praise for Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimer Ondreevich. Let us dream, brothers and friends, sons of Rusti, let us put word by word and magnify the Russian land...”

A.D. Sedelnikov wrote an interesting article in which he connects “Zadonshchina” with Pskov writing, but his evidence is shaky and stands far from the text of “Zadonshchina” itself. Meanwhile, a number of strokes scattered in “Zadonshchina” indicate that the author wrote it in the years close to the Battle of Kulikovo. He was well aware of the life of the highest Moscow circles. So, in the word there appear Moscow “Bolyaryny”, the wives of the deceased governors: the wife of Mikula Vasilyevich - Marya, the wife of Dmitry Vsevolozhsky - also Marya, Fedosya - the wife of Timofey Valuevich, Marya - Andrei Serkizovich, Oksenya (or, according to Undolsky's list, Anisya) - the wife Mikhail Andreevich Brenk. One must assume the author's good knowledge of Moscow affairs in order to explain the appearance of a list of boyar wives, interesting and understandable only to contemporaries. Of course, the following words describing the formidable Russian army did not belong to the later author: “We have komoni greyhounds under us, and on ourselves gilded armor, and Cherkasy helmets, and Moscow shields, and Orda sulitsa, and Fransky charms, and damask swords.” The “strong”, “glorious”, “stone” city of Moscow, the fast river Moscow are in the center of the author’s attention.

Our conclusions seem to be contradicted by the reference to Zephanius of Ryazan as the author of the legend. But already S.K. Shambinago noted that in the text of “Zadonshchina” the Ryazan priest Sophony (in our list Efonya) is mentioned in the third person, as if the author of some other work, but in the new list it is said about him like this: “And I I will remember Efonya, the priest of Ryazan, in praise with songs and harps and riotous words.” Considerations of literary historians about the origin of Zephaniah do not change anything in the Moscow character of the work. Indeed, in all Russian cities the nicknames “Ryazanian”, “Volodimerets”, etc. were given to those people who settled in a foreign city. Muscovite did not call himself a Muscovite in Moscow, but called himself that in another place. Therefore, the nickname Ryazan does not in the least contradict the fact that Sophony was a Muscovite, unless his name was inscribed on the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” which the author of “Zadonshchina” used, attributing to him the compilation of this work (and also taking gusl and violent words from there) .

The most important question for us is: when was “Zadonshchina” written? Literary historians respond to this with general words about the composition of the work at the beginning of the 15th century, while in the text of the monument we have a fairly precise dating indication. In the summary text of S.K. Shambinago, the passage that interests us, rearranged by him to another place, reads like this: “Shibla glory to the sea, Chu, and to the Cafe, and to the Tsar’s city, that Rus' has overcome the filthy.” The given phrase is not in the Kirillo-Belozersky list, and in the Undolsky list it is read in a faulty, but significantly different form than S.K. Shambinago gives it. In it we find the words: “And glory went to the Iron Gates, to Karanachi, to Rome, and to Safa, by sea, and to Kotornov, and from there to Constantinople.”

Having correctly restored the reading “to Cafe” instead of “to Safa,” S. K. Shambinago eliminated from the text the obscure words “to Kotornov,” and they contain important dating indications. Indeed, in the Museum list we read: “Shibla glory to the Iron Gates, to Rome and to Cafe by sea and to Tornav and then to Constantinople for praise: Great Rus' defeated Mamai on the Kulikovo field” (L. 219v). These words are read in a completely corrupted form in the Synodal list: “Shibla glory to the sea and (to) Vornavich, and to the Iron Gates, to the Cafe and to the Turks and to Tsar-grad.”

It is easy to notice that the phrase about glory changed during correspondence, and some names became incomprehensible. What is unclear in Undolsky’s list is “Karanachi” (in Synodal – “to Vornavich”) means “to Ornach”, by which we must understand Urgench in Central Asia. The Iron Gate is most likely Derbent, but what does Kotorny mean? The Museum list makes it clear the text of Undolsky's list: one must read “to Tornov” (in the Museum list – “to Tornav”). Under such a name one cannot see any other city except Tarnovo, the capital of Bulgaria. It is known that the last Bulgarian kingdom was conquered by the Turks in 1393, when Tarnov also fell. This means that the original text of “Zadonshchina” was compiled no later than this year.

Our conclusion can be confirmed by another consideration. The complete lists of “Zadonshchina” show 160 years from the Kalat army to the Mamaev massacre. There is no doubt that “Zadonshchina” refers to the battle on Kalka, with which the battle on Kayal, glorified in “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” was confused. The Battle of Kalka took place, according to our chronicles, in 6731 (Lavrentievskaya) or 6732 (Ipatievskaya). In Moscow chronicles, the second date was usually accepted (see Troitskaya, Lvovskaya, etc.). Let's add 160 years to 6732, we get 6892, which is equal to 1384 in our chronology. Meanwhile, in the chronicles, 6888 is constantly indicated as the date of the Battle of Kulikovo. Of course, we can assume an error in the calculation of time, but nothing prevents us from seeing in this a certain dating sign that dates the composition of the monument to 1384.

“Zadonshchina” absorbed many features of Moscow life of the 14th century. Therefore, in it North-Eastern Rus' is called Zalesskaya land, as in other monuments of that time. Moscow is called the “glorious city”, the Moscow River is called “fast”, “the honey is our sweet Moscow”, the shields are “Moscow”. The special imitative nature of “Zadonshchina” and its small size did not give its author the opportunity to widely develop Moscow motifs, but even without that “Zadonshchina” can be considered a monument of Moscow literature par excellence, whatever the origin of the author.