Zadonshchina author and year of creation. "Zadonshchina": year of creation

One of the very first works that sang of the battle on the Kulikovo field, "Zadonshchina" has already been mentioned above in connection with "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" (see pp. 77–78). This monument is remarkable not only because it is an 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 Russia, but also because of its own literary significance.
The exact time of the creation of "Zadonshchina" is unknown. We adhere to the point of view on this issue, most clearly formulated by VF 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, referring the Word of Zephaniah either to the beginning of the 15th century or to the end of the 14th century. Only relatively recently attention was drawn to the fact that the monument mentions Tornava, i.e., Tarnovo, the capital of the Bulgarian kingdom, and since in 1393 Turkish troops took Tarnovo, it was concluded from this that the Word of Zephanius of Ryazan was created before 1393 d. In order to clarify this provision, the indication in the Word of Zephaniah was also used to the fact that 160 years had passed from the time of the battle on the Kalka River to the Mamaev battle. If this chronological indication is interpreted as having to do with the dating of the work, then it turns out that the Word of Zephaniah was written in 1384. It is difficult to say whether this is true or not. It must be admitted, however, that attempts to date the monument to a time closer to 1380 seem quite expedient. They correspond to that obviously emotional character which 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 she dates back to 40 mi. 15th century (for more on this, see below, p. 197). Consequently, according to Salmina, "Zadonshchina" could not have arisen before the end of the 40s. 15th century The arguments given by M. A. Salmina in favor of the textual dependence of the “Zadonshchina” on a lengthy chronicle story are unconvincing. Moreover, a textual comparative analysis of the "Zadonshchina" and the chronicle story, taking into account the indisputable dependence of the "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 on itself the influence of "Zadonshchina".
Thus, the comparison of "Zadonshchina" with the annalistic story about the Mamaev Battle 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 the brief conventions that are often used in scientific literature have firmly established themselves: 1) U, mid-17th century. (also referred to as the list of Undolsky - GBL, collected by Undolsky, No. 632); 2) I 1, late XVI - early XVII century. (also referred to as the Historical First - State Historical Museum, Collection Museum, No. 2060); 3) And 2, late XV - early XVI century. (also referred to as Historical Second - State Historical Museum, collection of Museum, No. 3045; a fragment of the text without beginning and end); 4) F, second half of the 17th century. (BAN, No. 1.4.1.; a brief excerpt is the very beginning of the work); 5) K B, 1470s. (also referred to 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, coll. Synodal, No. 790). The name "Zadonshchina" is found only in the title of the list K B and belongs to the author of this list, Euphrosyn (about Euphrosyn and his book-writing activity, see below, p. 192), 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. In all lists, the text is heavily distorted, full of errors, the KB list is an abbreviation of the processing of the original text made by Euphrosynus. The poor preservation of the text of "Zadonshchina" in the surviving lists forces us to use the reconstructed text of the work.
In the "Zadonshchina" we do not have a description of the ups and downs of the Battle of Kulikovo (we will find all this in the "Tale of the Battle of Mamaev"), 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 to the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimir Ondreevich." This is pity - lamentation for the dead, and praise - glory to the courage and military prowess of the Russians.
“Zadonshchina” is all based on the text of “The Tale of Igor's Campaign” – here is the repetition of entire passages from the Lay, and the same characteristics, and similar poetic devices. But "Zadonshchina" not only rewrites, but alters the "Word" in its own way. The appeal of the author of Zadonshchina to the Lay is creative: “The author of Zadonshchina had in mind not 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 his style (as is usually considered) , but a completely conscious comparison of the events of the past and present, the events depicted in the Tale of Igor's Campaign, with the events of contemporary reality. Both of them are symbolically opposed in Zadonshchina. By 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 a guarantee of victory. In this regard, it is significant that the "Zadonshchina" does not say anything about Mamai's allies Oleg Ryazansky and Yagail 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, having learned too late about Mamai’s campaign and no longer hoping to catch up “for help” to the Grand Duke, nevertheless “like orly flocking” and left Novgorod “on the sidelines” (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.
Comparison of the past with the present, the events described in the "Word" with the events of 1380, goes from the very beginning and throughout the text. Already in the introduction, this comparison is expressed clearly and has a deep meaning. The beginning of the troubles of the Russian land, the author of “Zadonshchina” leads from the ill-fated battle on Kayala and the battle on Kalka: “... filthy Tatars, Busormans ... on the river on Kayal they defeated the Afet family (i.e., Russians, - L. D.). And henceforth the Russian land sits gloomy, and from the Kalatsky rati to Mamaev the battle is tight and covered with sadness ”(p. 380). From the moment of the Mamaev battle, a turning point occurred in the fate of the Russian land: “Let us descend, brothers and friends and sons of the Russians, let us compose word for word, rejoice the Russian land and bring sadness to the eastern country” (p. 380). And we can trace such a comparison and opposition throughout the text. Let's give just one example. When Dmitry sets out on a campaign, “the sun shines clearly on him in the East and will tell the way” (p. 386). Recall that in the "Word" Igor's army leaves at the moment of a solar eclipse ("Then Igor looked at the bright sun and saw from it all his howling is covered by darkness"). In the story "Zadonshchina" about the movement of Mamai's forces to the Kulikovo field, a picture of sinister natural phenomena is given: foxes lie on bones” (p. 386). In the Lay, this passage is correlated with the march of the Russian forces.
In the "Zadonshchina", in comparison with the "Word", images of church poetics are more often used ("for the land, for Russia and for the peasant faith", "having stepped into your golden stirrup, and take your sword in your right hand, and pray 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 art, are closer to their prototypes, a number of original epithets of "Zadonshchina" in comparison with "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" are clearly folk oral in nature (a phrase typical of the epic style “such is the word”, “quick don”, “damp earth” and some others).
The style of "Zadonshchina" is variegated: the poetic parts of the monument are closely intertwined with parts that are prosaic, sometimes even businesslike. It is possible that this variegation and "disorganization" of the text are explained by the state of the lists of the monument that have come down to us. Prosaisms could have arisen as a result of later layers, 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 Zephanius from Ryazan, about whom we know nothing. The name Zephaniah is also mentioned in the text of the Zadonshchina itself, and here the author of the Zadonshchina speaks of Zephaniah as a different person in relation to him: “I will remember the chisel Zephaniah” (list Y), “And here we will remember Sophon the chisel” (list FROM). In addition, in a number of lists of the main edition of the "Tale of the Mamaev Battle" Zephanius is already named in the title as the author of the "Tale". All this gave R.P. Dmitrieva grounds to suggest that Zephanius, contrary to the generally accepted opinion, was not the author of the Zadonshchina. R.P. Dmitrieva believes that Zephanius is the author of a poetic work about the Battle of Kulikovo that has not come down to us, to which, independently of each other, both the author of the “Zadonshchina” and the author of the “Tale” addressed. 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 surviving works of the Kulikovo cycle. A. A. Shakhmatov called this hypothetical text "The Word about the Battle of Mamaev."
In addition to its literary merits, in addition to the emotional significance that is 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 rule of the Moscow Grand Duke serves as a guarantee of the liberation of the Russian land from Mongol-Tatar domination.

Somewhat apart in the cycle of stories about the Battle of Kulikovo stands the work, briefly called "Zadonshchina", which has various titles according to the lists. The timing of the text's creation remains controversial. The most substantiated point of view is that "Zadonshchina" was written in the 80s. XIV century, since in 1392 the two cities mentioned in it - Tarnovo and Ornach - were captured and devastated: one - by the Turks, the other - by the Tatars. The author of the work is also unknown, the hypothesis about the authorship of Zephanius Ryazants, actively discussed in the scientific press, does not find solid confirmation. Most researchers come to the conclusion that he was the author of some literary work about the Battle of Kulikovo, which did not reach us and preceded the "Zadonshchina".

Composition

From the moment of its discovery, the greatest attention to the work was attracted by the fact that the author took "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" as a model for the story. But "Zadonshchina" did not become an imitation, in everything following the text of the sample, it is an independent work of art, which was undoubtedly influenced by two more traditions - folklore and the tradition of annalistic military stories. In the construction of the text, the author intertwines the features of the military story and "Words ...". The introduction is focused mainly on a poetic monument of the 12th century, Boyan is mentioned here, previously known only from the text of "Words ...". But at the end of the fragment, the time of the event is set (“And from the Kalat rati to the Momai massacre 160 years”) there is no analogy in the “Word ...”. The further text of "Zadonshchina" as a whole repeats the structural three-part scheme of the military story. However, within each of the parts, the narrative is built on the basis of individual episodes-pictures, which alternate with the author's digressions, and both of them are often directly oriented to the text of an earlier monument. At the same time, they are not in everything similar to the "Word ...". First of all, "Zadonshchina" is characterized by documentary elements that are absent in the work of the 12th century. and expressed in the widespread use of digital data, for example, in the speech of the Lithuanian princes: "And the brave Lithuanians are with us 70,000 chained rati"; the number of Novgorod warriors is indicated: "And with them 7000 troops" and others. boyars who died in the first half of the battle; loss of soldiers from different lands at the end of the battle. These elements are connected with the tradition of military stories. The same circle of documentalisms includes three cases of mentioning dates according to the church calendar, for example: "And they fought from morning until noon on Saturday on the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God." This is how the dates of events were often indicated in chronicles.

Basically, in the "Zadonshchina" the chronological principle of narration, characteristic of a military story, is preserved, while in "The Word ..." one of the most important features of the composition can be considered historical digressions, correlated with the fate of the main characters and the author's idea. Minor deviations from the chronological order in the "Zadonshchina" can be explained by various reasons. The passage predicting the victory of the Russian princes at the beginning of the battle (“Shibla glory to the Bile Gates ...”), although it uses the images of the “Word ...”, but follows the military chronicle tradition, which allowed predictions of the outcome of the battle before it began, mainly in the form of a mention of the Divine patronage of one of the parties.

Another case of moving fragments in time cannot be explained unambiguously. This is a transfer of Peresvet's speech addressed to Dmitry, and Oslyaby's prophecy addressed to Peresvet, after the story of the death of the boyars in battle, while both remarks could only be uttered before the battle, since Peresvet died at its very beginning. The most likely reason for this rearrangement is the relative compositional freedom of the text, built on the basis of a chain of scene-pictures depicting the main points of events. It is also possible that it arose in the process of rewriting the text, especially since all known lists of the monument contain defects. These minor chronological violations of the text do not change the very principle of narration, which is close to a military story.

A significant difference between the composition "Zadonshchina" and the composition "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" is a smaller number of lyrical fragments. They are represented by the author's digressions, most often inspired by the text of an earlier monument, and the laments of Russian wives, which are created in imitation of the laments of Yaroslavna, but occupy a different compositional place. Yaroslavna's lamentation is placed towards the end of the work, when the story of Igor's campaign has already been completed and the princes' call for unity has been voiced, immediately before the story of Igor's escape from captivity, which is symbolically caused by weeping. The weeping of the wives in "Zadonshchina" breaks the story of the Battle of Kulikovo, completing the story of its first half, which was extremely difficult for the Russian army, in which many soldiers died. They add an additional emotional touch to the story of the battle, but do not carry any symbolic meaning. In addition, each of the four lamentations is many times shorter than Yaroslavna's lamentation, uses one of its images, often adding to it stylistic turns from other passages of the "Word ...".

Of the other lyrical genres unknown to the text of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", prayers are used in "Zadonshchina", one of which is only mentioned, and the other is given in the text. Both were uttered by Dmitry Ivanovich before the battle. In military stories already in the XII century. similar fragments began to appear, and in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo they became widespread. The appearance of this genre in "Zadonshchina" is due to the fact that the text contains the motive of God's patronage of the Russian army, which sounds in the author's remarks and in the refrain, taken from "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", but modified. This motive itself was widespread in military stories, where it was embodied in the formulas of God's anger or protection of one of the parties. In the "Word..." it sounds only in one fragment.

Thus, the lyrical fragments in the "Zadonshchina" are not numerous and are connected both with the tradition of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and with the tradition of military stories.

Heroes of "Zadonshchina"

The protagonist of the Zadonshchina, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, is presented, both in chronicle stories and in the Tale of the Battle of Mamaev, as an ideal hero. First of all, he is the unifier of the forces of the Russian princes, and in this regard, no doubt, he continues the tradition of the image of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kyiv in the Tale of Igor's Campaign. But at the same time, the features of a brave warrior and commander, characteristic of Igor, are transferred to him; the author directly borrows the characterization of this hero, giving it to Dmitry and Vladimir. They draw the image of the prince-defender of Russia, his speech and actions during the preparation of the campaign and in its process. In general, the image of the protagonist is similar to the chronicles of that era, and only a few stylistic means connect him with the "Word ...". At the same time, it must be admitted that the “Large Chronicle Tale” and “The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev” depict the image of the protagonist in a more versatile and detailed way, paying close attention to his personality and inner world.

Other princes are depicted in the "Zadonshchina" within the framework of the annalistic military tradition with one or two strokes: they emphasize the desire to unite all the forces of Russia, military prowess. Only in the images of Dmitry and Andrei Olgerdovich is the influence of the image of Igor and Vsevolod in the Tale of Igor's Campaign noticeable.

More schematically than in other monuments of the Kulikovo cycle, the enemies of Russia are drawn. Mamai and his warriors appear only at the moment of flight from the battlefield, and the author conveys the fear and disappointment of the enemies through their gestures and direct speech. The depiction of enemies in the "Zadonshchina", as in the "Word...", and in the tradition of the military story, is schematic and one-sided; as a new feature, one can note the use of Russian folklore in the speech of the Tatars.

Artistic means in "Zadonshchina"

The figurative and expressive means of the "Zadonshchina" are also associated with the combination of the three indicated traditions, although the leading influence in this area undoubtedly belongs to the "Tale of Igor's Campaign" (up to direct borrowings). Folklore influence is most noticeable in the use of negative comparisons (in contrast to "The Word...", where their function was usually played by metaphors-symbols, which, on the contrary, were almost never used by the author of "Zadonshchina").

So, "Zadonshchina" is a monument created at the intersection of three artistic traditions (folklore, the tradition of a military story, in ideological and partly stylistic terms - "The Tale of Igor's Campaign"). Based on the structure of the text, the ways of depicting heroes, the predominance of the epic narrative, and not the emotional-lyrical beginning, the tradition of the military story should be recognized as the leading one, respectively, attributing the work to the genre of the military story.

At the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV century. A poetic story about the Battle of Kulikovo was written - "Zadonshchina", preserved in six lists, two editions. The oldest list that has come down to us dates back to the 70s of the 15th century, there is no end to the list, 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 the Zadonshchina. Textual analysis of the surviving lists of "Zadonshchina" was done by R.P. Dmitrieva.

"Zadonshchina" is dedicated to the glorification of the victory of the Russian troops over the Mongol-Tatar hordes, its author drew the actual material from the chronicle story, and the "Tale of Igor's Campaign" served as a literary model.

The use of the poetic plan and artistic techniques of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" in "Zadonshchina" is due to the whole ideological and artistic design of this work, where the events of the past were consciously compared with modern events: if the "Lay" called on the Russian princes to unite to fight the "steppe", then " Zadonshchina" glorified the unity of the Russian princes, thanks to which the victory over the foreigners was won. The author not only compared, but also opposed them. As D.S. Likhachev notes, “the pathos of the historical plan of the Zadonshchina is in the convergence of the events of the past and the present.” The struggle against the Polovtsy and the Mongols-Tatars was interpreted as a struggle against the “wild field” for national independence.

The poetic plan of "Zadonshchina" consists of two parts: "pity" and "praise". They are preceded by a short introduction. It aims not only to set the listener in a high solemn mood, but also to determine the thematic content of the work: to give "praise" to Dmitry Ivanovich, his brother Vladimir Andreevich and "bring sorrow upon the eastern country." The author emphasizes that the purpose of his story "rejoice the Russian land", praise "songs and gosly riotous words" great-grandchildren of the Grand Dukes of Kyiv Igor Rurikovich, Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich. "Zadonshchina" emphasizes the genealogical connection between the princes of Moscow and Kyiv, noting that the new political center of Russia - Moscow - is the heir to Kyiv and its culture. For the same purpose, the prophetic Boyan is also praised. "a great buzzard in Kyiv". In an appeal to the Russian princes, Dmitry classifies them as "nest" Grand Duke Vladimir of Kyiv. In order to raise the political prestige of the Moscow prince, the author of "Zadonshchina" calls Vladimir Svyatoslavich "Tsar of Russia"

The military prowess and courage of the princes are characterized in "Zadonshchina" by the same methods as in "The Tale of Igor's Campaign": "Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimir Ondreevich, having tormented their minds with strength and sharpened their hearts with courage and filled with military spirit."

The first part of "Zadonshchina" - "a pity" describes the gathering of Russian troops, their campaign, the first battle and defeat. The gathering of Russian troops in the "Zadonshchina" is depicted by the stylistic means of the "Word": "Konirzhut in Moscow, glory rings throughout the Russian land. Trumpets are blown on Kolosha, tambourines are beaten in Serpokhov, there are banners near the Don near the great one on the breeze."

The warriors of Andrei Polotsk and Dmitry Bryansk, like Vsevolod's whips, "under the pipes they were twisted and under the helmets they lifted, the end of the copy was fed in the Lithuanian land."

Nature in the "Zadonshchina" is on the side of the Russians and portends defeat "filthy": "And already their troubles(enemies. - VC) grazing birds krilati, fly under the clouds, crows often roar, and speak with their own speech, eagles exalt, and wolves howl menacingly, and foxes lie on bones. But Dmitry Ivanovich "the sun ... shines clearly on the sky, the path will tell."

The first bloody battle ends with the defeat of the Russians: “It’s terrible and pitiful then to see the grass spilled with blood in the zone, and the wood bending tight to the ground”; "On the land of Reza, near the Don: neither the ratai nor the shepherds call, but often the crows crow, the zogzitsi roam the corpse for the sake of a human being."

The fallen soldiers are mourned by their wives: princesses and boyars. Their laments are built, like the lament of Yaroslavna, on the appeal to the wind, the Don, the Moscow River.

The second part of "Zadonshchina" - "praise" glorifies the victory won by the Russians, when the regiment of Dmitry Bob rock Volynets stepped out of the ambush. The enemies took to flight, and the Russians got rich booty: "... the Russian wives splashed with Tatar gold", "fun and rampage spread across the Russian land and the glory of the Russians ascended to the filthy blasphemy."

The narrative style of "Zadonshchina" is joyful, major. Its author is imbued with the consciousness of the end of the period "tug" and "sorrows". Compared to the "Word", "Zadongtsin" abstracts and "psychologises" the action more. So, Novgorodians complain that they are not in time to help Dmitry. The assembled Russian princes address Dmitry with a speech. Andrey Polotsky is talking with Dmitry Bryansky, Dmitry Ivanovich - with Vladimir Andreevich, the brave Peresvet is talking with Oslyabey, Dmitry is making a solemn speech "on the bone" after the victory.

The Christian element is significantly strengthened in the "Zadonshchina" in comparison with the "Word" and there are no pagan mythological images at all. Pious reflections, prayer appeals are put into the mouths of the heroes, religious fiction is introduced (Boris and Gleb pray "for one's relatives"), Russian troops are fighting for "holy churches, for the Orthodox faith." Dmitry Ivanovich and Vladimir Andreevich are fighting "for the Russian land and for the peasant faith." All this testifies to the increased role of the church in the Muscovite state.

The complex metaphorical images of the "Word", the symbolism associated with pagan mythology, are alien to the author of "Zadonshchina".

In contrast to the "Word", he uses some of the techniques of oral folk poetry more widely. So, negative comparisons are extremely common in Zadonshchina: "... like eagles flying from all over the midnight country; it’s not like eagles flying down ecu princes of Russia came together ...", or "gray wolves ... howling, they want to step on the rivers on the Swords on the Russian land. Those were not gray wolves, but the filth of the Tatars came..."

Symbolic images of folk poetry: "geese", "swans", "falcons", "gyrfalcons", "wolves", "eagles" are constantly present in "Zadonshchina".

In the style of "Zadonshchina" there are significant traces of business prose of the 15th century, which are reflected in chronological clarifications, titles of princes, genealogical formulas, a list of those killed, and the monotony of methods for introducing direct speech.

At the same time, the poetic structure of "Zadonshchina" is characterized by strophicity, which is emphasized by the same beginnings: "And the prince spoke to them ...", "And silently Ondrey ...", "And Dmitry spoke to him ..."; "Already flying like eagles ...", "Already raising the radiance of the wind ...", "Already the carts creaked ..."

Emphasizing the political role of Moscow and the Moscow prince in the fight against the Mongol-Tatars, "Zadonshchina", apparently, deliberately did not mention the betrayal of the Ryazan prince Oleg. All his pathos, lyrically agitated and pathetic, the author directed to the promotion of the idea of ​​unity, the unity of all the forces of the Russian land around Moscow, emphasizing that only thanks to the unity of forces was a historic victory won and the princes and Russian soldiers got themselves "honor and glorious name."

• Cm.: Dmitrieva R. P. The relationship between the lists of "Zadonshchina" and "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" // "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and the monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. M.; L., 1966. R. P. Dmitrieva questioned the belonging of "Zadonshchina" to the pen of the former Bryansk boyar, who later became a priest, Zephany Ryazants. According to her observations, Zephanius owned a work that has not come down to us, which A. A. Shakhmatov conditionally called "The Tale of the Mamai Battle." This "Word" was used by the unknown compiler of "Zadonshchina" (see: TODRL. L., 1979. Vol. 34. P. 21).
• Likhachev D.S. Man in the Literature of Ancient Russia. M., 1970. S. 81.

The purpose of this article is to provide information about such a great monument as "Zadonshchina". Year of creation, author, compositional and artistic features - we will discuss all these issues with you.

Historical conditions

In 1380, an event took place that played a big role in the life of not only Russia, but the whole world. It means in which the Tatars were defeated. This event once and for all dispelled rumors about the invincibility of the enemy, and Russia was hopeful of getting rid of the long-term yoke. It also served as a prerequisite for the unification of the principalities around the center, Moscow, which marked the beginnings of the future state. So one should not be surprised why the great victory was so often covered in the literary monuments of the ancient Russian era. Researchers talk about the Kulikovo cycle, which includes the work of interest to us.

"Zadonshchina": year of creation, general information

A glorious monument of literature, a highly artistic creation ... Indisputable proof of the authenticity of the "Word ..." - all these characteristics are applicable to a military story called "Zadonshchina". Who wrote it is a moot point and hardly solvable. There are suggestions that the author was Sofony Ryazantsev. This name is indicated by the text of "Zadonshchina" and another work - "Tales of the Battle of Mamaev." Literary critics do not have other information about Ryazantsev. But the reference to his name suggests that Zephanius created some kind of literary monument that has not come down to us. The unknown author was guided by him, from whose pen “Zadonshchina” came out. The year of creation of this military story is not exactly known (which is not surprising for ancient Russian literature). It is assumed that the work was a direct response to events, which means that the time of the creation of "Zadonshchina" falls at the turn of the 80-90s

The story is presented in six lists. The earliest that has come down to us, scientists date back to the 1470s. Its other name is the list of Euphrosynus. The variant is an abbreviation of some original lengthy text and therefore is distinguished by a large number of errors, distortions, and omissions. By the way, only in the list of Euphrosynus is the name "Zadonshchina" used. The year of creation of the latest version of the story is also not established (approximately the 17th century), and there the work is designated as “The Tale of ... Prince Dmitry Ivanovich”. The same applies to all other variants of a literary monument. They are also defective, but allow literary scholars to reconstruct the original text.

Composition and plot

The glorification of the victory of Russian troops over the enemy - such a plot outline has "Zadonshchina". At the same time, the author deliberately draws a parallel with The Lay ..., however, the appeal to the great monument is explained not by blind imitation, but by a deliberate comparison of the present and the past (and not in favor of the latter). The mention of the "Words ..." makes it clear that only the disagreement of the princes led to troubles in the Russian land. But this is in the past, now the victory over the conquerors was won. The echoes with The Word... are found both at the level of individual devices (transferring the narrator from one geographical point to another in one moment), and plot components. For example, the sun shines on Dmitry Donskoy on the way before the start of the battle - this is how Zadonshchina tells. The author of The Lay... (also unnamed, by the way) mentions the eclipse as a bad omen.

The story consists of two parts. They are preceded by an introduction, with the help of which the author sets the reader in a special, solemn mood, and also informs him of the true goals pursued by the creation of "Zadonshchina". The introduction also emphasizes the optimistic mood of the story, it is indicated that Moscow - as the current center of statehood - is a continuation of Kyiv, etc. The first part of the work is "pity". The narrator depicts the defeat of the Russian troops, the mourning of the dead by the princesses and boyars. However, nature suggests: soon the "nasty" will be defeated. So it happened in the "praise", when the enemies took to their heels, and the Russians received rich booty.

Artistic features

The poetics of "Zadonshchina" is largely determined by its similarity with "The Lay ...". The reader is faced with the same anthropomorphic images, epithets that are clearly of folklore origin. At the same time, there are more images that have religious significance, and there are no references to paganism at all. This story differs significantly from the pretext. The work "Zadonshchina" is very heterogeneous in style. So, along with poetic texts, there are fragments that are very reminiscent of business prose. Its traces also appear in chronological details, close attention to the titles of princes.

"Zadonshchina" and "Word..."

As already mentioned, "Zadonshchina" is also valuable in that it is proof of the authenticity of the "Lay". The latter is called into question not only because before the sudden discovery of the monument by Musin-Pushkin in 1795, "The Word ..." was never seen by anyone, but also because of the extraordinary artistic value of the poem. This suggested a fake (and there were precedents). Its mention in the "Zadonshchina" should have put an end to the dispute, but ... There were suggestions that this "Word ..." was created following the example of the supposedly subsequent monument. Well, the question of the origin of both works of ancient Russian literature remained unresolved.

military story about the battle of Kulikovo 1380, a monument of ancient Russian literature of the late 14th century. Author "Z." used the work of Zephanius Ryazants, as well as "The Tale of Igor's Campaign". The main idea of ​​"Z." - the struggle for the unity of the Russian principalities in the face of an external enemy, as well as opposing the disastrous outcome of events in the "Word" to the victorious one in "Z."

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

ZADONSHINA

On September 8, 1380, on the Kulikovo field (a locality within the Tula region, located in the upper reaches of the Don River, at the confluence of the Nepryadva River, in 1380 - a "wild field" - an uninhabited steppe), a battle took place between the coalition of Russian princes , headed by the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Ivanovich, with the Mongol-Tatar army, reinforced by mercenary detachments, under the leadership of the Horde ruler Mamai. This was the first big battle between the Russians and the enslavers after the establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke (1237), which ended in the complete defeat of the Mongol-Tatars. The Battle of Kulikovo (often called the Battle of Mamaev) did not put an end to the foreign yoke in Russia (this will happen only after 100 years - in 1480), but the nature of the relationship between the Russian principalities and the Horde has changed dramatically, the dominant unifying role of the Moscow principality and the Moscow prince has been identified. The Battle of Kulikovo showed that in an alliance, the Russian principalities could successfully resist the Mongol-Tatars. The victory at the Kulikovo field was of great moral significance for national self-consciousness. It is no coincidence that the name of St. Sergius (see LIFE ...): the founder and rector of the Trinity Monastery, according to legend, blessed the campaign of Dmitry of Moscow (see TALE OF LIFE) (nicknamed "Donskoy" after the battle on Kulikovo Field) against Mamai and, contrary to monastery rules, sent with Dmitry's soldiers on the battlefield of two monks of his monastery - Oslyabya and Peresvet. Interest in the events of the Battle of Kulikovo in Russia has not weakened since the battle to the present day. In Ancient Russia, a number of works dedicated to the battle of 1380 were created, which in science are combined under the name "Kulikovo cycle": chronicle stories about the Battle of Kulikovo, "Zadonshchina", "The Legend of the Mamaev Battle". 3.- emotional, lyrical response to the events of the Battle of Kulikovo. 3. came to us in 6 lists, the earliest of which, Kirillo-Belozersky (K-B), compiled by the monk of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery Euphrosyn in the 70-80s. XV century, is a reworking of only the first half of the original text 3. The remaining 5 lists are of a later time (the earliest of them is an excerpt from the late XV - early XVI century, the rest - XVI-XVII centuries). Only two lists contain the full text, all lists contain many errors and distortions. Therefore, based on the data of only all the lists taken together, it is possible to reconstruct the text of the work. Based on the totality of a number of indirect data, but mainly on the basis of the very nature of the work, most researchers date the time of its creation to the 80s. 14th century V. F. Rzhiga, who paid much attention in his works to 3., wrote: “Attempts to date the monument to a time closer to 1380 seem quite appropriate. They correspond to the explicitly emotional character that the Word of Zephaniah has (3.- L.D.) 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. " It is traditionally considered that the author of 3. was a certain Sofony Ryazanets: in two lists 3. he is named in the title as the author of the work. In the Chronicle of Tver there is a small passage of text, close in separate readings to 3. and "The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev", beginning with the following phrase: "And this is the writing of Sophony Rezants, the Bryansk boyar, to the praise of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Volodimer Andreevich" (before this entry is the date of the Battle of Kulikovo - 1380). A. D. Sedelnikov drew attention to the similarity of this name with the name of the Ryazan boyar from the entourage of the Ryazan prince Oleg - Sofony Alty-kulachevich (Oleg Ryazansky in 1380 was going to take the side of Mamai). Thus, Zephanius of Ryazan is undoubtedly somehow connected with the monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. But can we consider him the author of 3.? In some lists of the main edition of the "Tales of the Battle of Mamaev" Zephanius is named the author of this work. In the text itself 3. it is said about him as a person in relation to the author 3. an outsider: "Az (i.e. "I" - the author of 3.) I will remember the chisel Zephanius ..." Based on this reading, 3. the researcher of Kulikovsky of the cycle, I. Nazarov, back in 1858, argued that it identifies Zephanius as the predecessor of the author of 3. Recently, the hypothesis of the authorship of Zephanius was considered by R.P. Dmitrieva, who came to the conclusion that Zephanius was not the author of 3.: ". ..the latter refers to Zephanius as a poet or singer of his time, whose work he was inclined to imitate" ("Was Zephanius Ryazanets the author of "Zadonshchina"?" - p. 24). Apparently, Zephanius was the author of another poetic work about the Battle of Kulikovo, which has not come down to us, the poetic images of which influenced the authors of both 3. and "Tales of the Battle of Mamaev." This assumption is consistent with the hypothesis of Acad. A. A. Shakhmatova on the existence of the non-preserved "Tale of the Battle of Mamaev". The main idea 3. is the greatness of the Battle of Kulikovo. The author of the work exclaims that the glory of the victory on the Kulikovo field reached different parts of the earth ("Shibla glory to the Iron Gates, and to Karanachi, to Rome, and to Cafe by the sea, and to Tornav, and from there to Tsaryugrad to the praise of the Russian prince") . The work is based on the real events of the Battle of Kulikovo, but this is not a consistent historical story about the preparation for the battle, about the battle itself, about the return of the winners from the battlefield, but the emotional refraction of all these events in the author's perception. The story is transferred from one place to another: from Moscow to the Kulikovo field, again to Moscow, to Novgorod, again to the Kulikovo field. The present is intertwined with memories of the past. The author himself described his work as "pity and praise to the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimir Ondreevich". "Pity" is a cry for the dead, for the difficult share of the Russian land. "Praise" - glory to the courage and military prowess of Russian soldiers and their leaders. About many events, about which the "Legend of the Mamaev Battle" narrates in detail, in 3. is said in one or two phrases, half a hint. So, for example, about the actions of an ambush regiment under the command of Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov, a cousin of Dmitry Donskoy, who decided the outcome of the battle, it is said: The helmet shines like a crowbar, damask swords rattle against Khin's helmets. If the detailed narrative of the "Tale of the Battle of Mamaev" had not been preserved, many places 3. would have remained mysterious and inexplicable for us. Already by the nature of the work, by the combination of lamentation and praise in it, 3. is close to the Tale of Igor's Campaign. But this proximity is not only general, but the most direct, and this is another remarkable feature of this work of ancient Russian literature. The "Word" was a model for the author 3. at the textual level as well. The plan depends on the "Word" 3., a number of poetic images 3. - the repetition of the poetic images of the "Word", individual words, turns, large passages of the text 3. Repeat the appropriate places, "Words". The author 3. turned to the "Word" as a model in order to compare and contrast the political situation in Russia at the time of the "Word" (80s of the XII century) with the 80s of the XIV century. The main ideological meaning of the "Word" was the author’s call to the Russian princes to forget internecine strife and unite their forces to fight the external enemies of Russia.In the victory won over the Horde, the author 3. saw the real embodiment of the call of his brilliant predecessor: the combined forces of the Russian princes were able to defeat the Mongol-Tatars, who were considered before The author 3. rethinks the text of the "Lay" in accordance with the events of the Mamaev battle and contributes a lot from himself. 3. is distinguished by stylistic inconsistency - the poetic parts of the text alternate with prose, which are in the nature of business prose. 3. To a greater extent than the "Word", the methods of oral folk poetic creativity are characteristic. The main thing is that in the "Word" techniques and elements close to oral folk art are presented in an artistically performed author's processing, author's rethinking, while in 3. they are much closer both verbally and in character to oral sources. This circumstance and the state of the lists 3. (numerous distortions and errors) served as the basis for the assumption about the folklore, oral origin of the monument. It is quite possible that individual lists 3. were written down from memory, and not copied from other lists, but there are no grounds to consider that 3. originally a work of oral creativity. 3. goes back to the "Word" - a literary monument. The combination in 3. of a poetic text with prose, close in nature to business writing, also speaks of the literary character of the monument. This is also evidenced by the church-religious symbolism and terminology strongly expressed in 3.. A number of scientists proceed from the position according to which the "Word" was written in imitation of 3. (French scientists L. Leger, A. Mazon, Russian historian A. A. Zimin). Comparative textual analysis of the "Words" and 3. with the involvement of reminiscences from 3. in the "Tale of the Battle of Mamaev", the study of the nature of the book-writing activity of Euphrosynus, who authored the K-B list 3., the study of the phraseology and vocabulary of the "Words" and 3. , a comparative analysis of the grammar of the "Words" and 3. - all testify to the secondary nature of 3. in relation to the "Lay of Igor's Campaign". 3. repeatedly translated into modern Russian, several poetic transcriptions of the monument were created (V. M. Sayanov, I. A. Novikov, A. Skripov, A. Zhovtis), 3. translated into a number of foreign languages. A large scientific literature is devoted to the monument. The main bibliographic indexes for 3.: Droblenkova N. F., Begunov Yu. ; L., 1966.- S. 557-583; Aralovets N.A., Pronina P.V. Battle of Kulikovo in 1380: Literature Index // Battle of Kulikovo: Sat. Art.-M., 1980.-S. 289-318. Below is a bibliography of only the most basic publications and studies 3. Ed .: Monuments of the ancient Russian language and literature of the XV-XVIII centuries / Underg. for publication and provided explanatory remarks. Pavel Sichoni. Issue. 3: "Zadonshchina" according to the lists of the XV-XVIII centuries. - Pgr., 1922; Adrianov-Peretz V.P. 1) Zadonshchina: Text and notes // TODRL. - 1947. T. a. - S. 194-224; 2) Zadonshchina: Experience in the reconstruction of the author's text // TODRL. - 1948.- T. b-S. 201-255, Rzhiga VF Word of Zephanius Ryazanets about the Battle of Kulikovo ("Zadonshchina"): With the application of the text of the Word of Zephanius and 28 pictures from the text according to the manuscript of the State. ist. museum of the 16th century - M., 1947; Tale of the Battle of Kulikovo / Ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, V. F. Rzhiga, L. A. Dmitriev. M., 1959 - S. 9-26 (ser. "Literary monuments"); "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and the monuments of the Kulikovo cycle: On the question of the time for writing the "Lay" - M.; L., 1966.-S. 535-556 - Zadonshchina / Preparing. text, translation and notes. L. A. Dmitrieva//Izbornik (1969).-S. 380-397, 747-750; Pole Kulikovo: The Legend of the Battle of the Don / Entry. Art. D. S. Likhachev; Comp. preparation texts, after and note. L. A. Dmitrieva. M., 1980. - S. 20-49; Zadonshchina / Predg. text, translation and notes. L. A. Dmitrieva // PLDR: XIV-mid-XV century.-M., 1981- S. 96-111, 544-549; Legends and stories about the Battle of Kulikovo / Ed. preparation L. A. Dmitriev and O. P. Likhacheva.-L., 1982.-S. 7-13, 131-137. Lit .: Nazarov I. The legend of the Mamaev battle // ZhMNP. - 1858, - July - August. - P. 80-85; Shambinago S. K. The story of the Mamaev battle. - St. Petersburg, 1906. - S. 84-143; Likhachev D.S. 1) Zadonshchina//Lit. study.- 1941.-№ 3.-S. 87-100; 2) Features of imitation of "Zadonshchina": On the question of the relationship of "Zadonshchina" to the "Tale of Igor's Campaign" / / Gus. lit.-1964.-No. 3.-S. 84-107; 3) Zadonshchina // Great Heritage.- S. 278-292; 4) The relationship between the lists and editorial offices of "Zadonshchina": A study by Angelo Danti // TODRL. - 1976.-T. 31.-S. 165-175; 5) Textological triangle: "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", the story of the Ipatiev Chronicle about the campaign of Prince Igor in 1185 and "Zadonshchina": To the textological remarks of prof. J. Fennela // Likhachev D. S. "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and the culture of his time. L., 1978.-S. 296-309; Solovyov A. V. The author of "Zadonshchina" and his political ideas // TODRL.- 1958.- T. 14.- P. 183-197; Rzhiga VF 1) The word of Zephanius Ryazants about the Battle of Kulikovo ("Zadonshchina") as a literary monument of the 80s. 14th century // Tale of the Battle of Kulikovo.- S. 377-400; 2) About Zephaniah Ryazanets//Ibid.-p.401-405; Adrianov-Perets V.P. "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" and "Zadonshchina" //