109

Discovery and Publication

p That immortal work of Russian and world literature, The Lay of Igor’s Host, was discovered by the collector of Old Russian manuscripts A. I. Musin-Pushkin in the late 1780’s. Archimandrite loel, Father Superior of the Monastery of the Saviour at Yaroslavl (non-active by Catherine II’s command) handed over a manuscript miscellany to Musin-Pushkin which, if we judge by the description, was written in the sixteenth century somewhere in Northwestern Rus (around Pskov or Novgorod). Many of the works included in the miscellany were secular including the World Chronicle, The Short Chronicle of Russian Princes and the Russian Land, the Tale of the Wealth of India, the Tale of Akir the Wise, The Lay of Igor’s Host and The Deeds ofDigenis.

p Musin-Pushkin’s discovery was first mentioned in 1792 by the journalist and playwright P. A. Plavilshchikov. Early in 1797 M. M. Kheraskov in his commentary to the sixteenth song of poem Vladimir informed readers that a medieval work had been discovered. In October of that year the French journal Spectateur du Nord featured a note by N. M. Karamzin reporting the discovery of the Lay of Igor’s Warriors which he felt compared with the best poems of the Ossian cycle.

p Scholars A. F. Malinovsky, N. N. Bantysh- Kamensky, and N. M. Karamzin (as a consultant) were requested by Musin-Pushkin to work on the manuscript and as a result of their labours in 1800 the text of the Lay together with a modern translation, introduction and notes was published.

p In either 1795 or 1796 a copy seems to have been made for Catherine II which was then lost in the archives and published only in 1864 by P. P. Pekarsky.

110

The great Moscow fire of 1812 destroyed MusinPushkin’s manuscript collection, including the copy of the Lay and a good portion of the first printed edition. Scholars were left with the printed text and the notes made by the first men to work with the manuscript. One hundred and seventy-five years have elapsed since the first edition saw the light, but to this day there remains a tremendous interest in this work. The clearest evidence of this are the many articles and monographs, both Soviet and foreign, which continue to treat The Lay of Igor’s Host.   [110•1 

The Historical Basis of the Lay

p The plot is based on genuine historical events. From 1061 on the southeastern borders of the Kievan state were subjected to devastating attacks by the nomadic Polovtsy from the steppe. Often Russian princes themselves urged the “pagans” to attack in the heat of internecine strife. Early in the twelfth century Vladimir Monomakh undertook a series of major campaigns against the nomads and managed to throw them back, far beyond the River Don.

p After Monomakh’s death, however, the feudal disintegration of the Kiev state increased and the Polovtsy commenced regular attacks on South and Southeast Rus. South Russian princes were compelled to take emergency measures to defend themselves against the nomads from the steppes. In 1170 a conference of South Russian princes was convened at which Mstislav 111 Izyaslavich declared: “The Polovtsy are taking over the Greek Road (along the Dnieper), the Road along the Don, and the Road along the Danube.”

p Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Great Prince of Kiev, managed in 1183 to form a small coalition of South Russian princes; they attacked the Polovtsy in summer 1184. The campaign was successful; Khan Kobyak was captured and executed in Kiev. Heartened by this victory, Svyatoslav and his allies prepared for a second assault in summer 1185. The pricnes of Novgorod- Seversky, led by Igor Svyatoslavich, had also agreed to participate in the campaign of 1184 but were unable to reach South Rus in time due to ice-crusted roads. Thus they did not participate in this campaign.

p As he prepared to join the battle against the nomads in the spring of 1185, the prince of Novgorod-Seversky was eager for a victory, and dreamt of personal glory and possibly of recovering the ancient land of Tmutarakan which had once been ruled by the princes of Chernigov, in particular, Igor’s grandfather Oleg. But the campaign ended in a stunning defeat. The Russian princes were captured and only 16 men remained to tell the tale.

p These historic events—the campaign and defeat of the Seversky princes, Igor Svyatoslavich, his brother Vsevolod of Kursk, his son Vladimir of Putivl and nephew Svyatoslav Olgovich of Rylsk—form the basis for The Lay of Igor’s Host.

p Two historical tales describing this campaign have survived in the North Russian Laurentian Chronicle and in the South Russian Hypatian Chronicle.

p The tale of Prince Igor of Novgorod-Seversky’s campaign against the Polovtsy in the Hypatian Chronicle gives a detailed, consistent description of the event. The narrative is steeped in sorrowful sympathy for the participants of the campaign and their defeat. It is an artistic, dramatic, vivid account and its author was apparently either a participant in the event or a man close to the Prince of Novgorod-Seversky.

p The Laurentian Chronicle gives a laconic, general account. The chronicler clearly condemns Igor and his brother Vsevolod, and the narrative shows a clear 112 religious, didactic colouring with abundant citations from Scripture.

p Of these two different redactions one was composed in Southern Rus by a man who took the defeat of the Seversky princes and the South Russian principalities to heart; the other appeared in the northeast where the misfortunes of the distant south failed to move the chronicler, who used the defeat of Igor for religious, didactic purposes.

p If we compare The Lay of Igor’s Host with the historical entries in the chronicle we can more readily appreciate its consummate art.

p The Lay of Igor’s Host was written between 1185 and 1187 which can be established on the basis of the text. The author speaks of Prince Vladimir Glebovich of Percyaslavl as being among the living; the chronicle tells us that he died in 1187.

Igor Svyatoslavich escaped from captivity in 1185 and accordingly the Lay could not have been written before his return to Rus. In 1187 Vladimir Igorevich, together with his young wife Konchakovna and son, was released by the Polovtsy; the concluding part of the Lay proposes a toast in honour of this prince. These considerations determine the chronological framework of The Lay of Igor’s Host. N. S. Demkova has proposed other dates.   [112•1 

The Theme of the Igor Tale and
Its Development in Plot and Composition

p Our unknown author composed his work right on the heels of the event and accordingly assumed that his contemporaries were well aware of historical details. His goal was to offer a fitting political evaluation of the campaign, to show his contemporaries the significance of Igor’s defeat for the fate of the entire Russian land.

113

p For the author of the tale the Russian defeat on the River Kayala did not indicate God’s wrath and desire to punish Igor for his reprisals against the inhabitants of the city of Glebov (which he captured earlier), but as an indication of the great evil of feudal disintegration, the lack of unity among princes and the breaking of faith between vassal and suzerain—the Great Prince of Kiev. It condemns the egoistic policies of princes hungry for personal glory. As a result Rus was faced with a “sad year”, when princes began to praise their own small deeds and victorious pagans entered the Russian lands to demand tribute.

p Igor’s defeat inspires serious thought on the part of the patriotic poet with regard to the fate of the Russian land; the message of the tale is a passionate “call on the Russian princes for unity—just before the invasion of the Mongolian hordes proper..."  [113•1 , as Karl Marx noted in a letter to Frederick Engels when he became acquainted with this magnificent work of Russian literature. This theme is embodied throughout the artistic structure of the tale, above all in its plot and composition.

p The tale begins with a brief introduction, an address to Boyan, a poet of ancient times. This introduction is not directly connected to the narrative, but deals with artistic principles of narration and is a sort of dialogue with the reader or listener. It stresses the sorrowful, solemn pathos of the work. Subsequently the author begins the actual narration of events of the campaign including a laconic, expressive portrait of Igor with emphasis on his patriotic goals. The author stresses that he undertook the campaign in the name of the entire Russian land: Igor “led his brave host beyond the Russian land to the land of the Polovtsy”.

p The tale commences with a description of how the Russian warriors embark upon the campaign. As opposed to the chronicle account the initiative is taken not by Igor, but by Vsevolod who calls for his brother to saddle his spirited steeds. The author does not tell us when Igor set off or from what point, nor does he follow the path of the Russian host; but he does insert a 114 vivid picture of the landscape that has profound symbolic meaning. In comparison with the chronicle account events come swiftly to a head. After a brief emotional tale of the first conflict between the Russian and the Polovtsy and the many trophies taken by the Russian, there is a sharply contrasting scene with a symbolic description of nature on the eve of the second battle: bloody twilight, clouds coming in from the sea, and other evil portents. When he describes the battle the author focuses on the heroic figure of Vsevolod-fcuz tur (courageous aurochs) and briefly mentions that Igor is attempting to get his forces back to the battlefield and prevent them from fleeing.

p The plot culminates in the defeat of the Russian forces. Here the author shows the consequence of this defeat for the entire Russian land, stressing that as a result of Igor’s disaster the chances of success for Kievan Prince Svyatoslav’s coalition campaign have been reduced to zero.

p Kiev and the Great Prince emerge as symbols for a unified Russian land. For this reason the action shifts to the Russian capital. Svyatoslav then has “obscure” symbolic dream which is interpreted by his boyars: Igor has been defeated. In the chronicle account Svyatoslav learns of the defeat in Chernigov from Belovod Prosovich. The prince expresses his sorrow at the events in his “golden speech" mingled with tears. The monologue of the Great Kievan Prince becomes a passionate polemical call addressed by the tale’s author to the Russian princes and urging them to stand up for the Russian land, to avenge the wounds of Igor Svyatoslavich, and finally to cease the incessant internecine warfare.

p This polemical address is then followed by the lyrical lament of Igor’s wife Yaroslavna. It functions as a vital link in the development of the plot by foreshadowing the denouement—Igor’s flight from captivity. Igor returns to Kiev (in the chronicle he first goes to Novgorod-Seversky) and thus acknowledges his guilt for betraying his obligations to his sovereign and the Russian land. The Lay concludes with a proclamation of a tribute to princes Igor, Vsevolod, Vladimir Igorevich and their guardsmen.

115

Thus The Lay of Igor’s Host does not offer a consistent tale of the campaign and even contradicts certain historical facts. The author chooses the most significant episodes and thus is able to express his own relation to events more vividly and convey his basic theme to the reader. The civic patriotic theme is precisely the means for fusing the parts of the work into an artistic whole. Its clear political thought, lyrical agitation, polemical passion and broad historical philosophy make The Lay of Igor’s Host “a magnificent, fragrant flower of Slavic folk poetry worthy of attention, remembrance and respect.   [115•1 

The Historical Background

p The author of the tale constantly strives to evaluate contemporary events in terms of history. He attempts to explain Igor’s defeat by relating the events of 1185 in historical perspective, comparing past and present, “ contrasting the glory of both times”.

p In a resume of the plot he declares that he will tell of events “from old Vladimir to our contemporary Igor”. Scholars have not yet determined who he means by Vladimir. Some believe that he is referring to Vladimir Monomakh, others—Vladimir Svyatoslavich. The latter would appear to be more justified in their opinions since there is no mention of events after the death of Vladimir Monomakh in 1125 in the tale, but many references to events in the mid and late eleventh century which would link the allusion to the name of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. The author would thus be comparing this “sorrowful year" of feudal internecine strife with the period of the flowering of the Kievan state.

p Furthermore when the author does mention Vladimir Monomakh he does not refer to him as “old”. Ilarion uses the same epithet in his Sermon on Law and Grace, calling Vladimir the grandson of “old Igor”.

p The author of the Igor tale creates his own poetic, 116 but nevertheless precise periodisation of the history of Rus: “the age of Troyan" marks the distant pagan past; it is followed by the flowering of Rus under Vladimir and his son Yaroslav; their deaths mark the period of princely strife and internecine war continuing to the time of “our contemporary Igor”.

p The beginning of princely wars is connected by the author to the activities of Oleg Svyatoslavich of Chernigov, Igor’s grandfather. This is the reason that at the climax of the tale during the battle between the Russians and the Polovtsy the author introduces a historical episode dealing with strife in Oleg’s reign. It was the grandfather of Igor who began “to forge strife with his sword and sow arrows throughout the land”. Episodes in Oleg’s internecine war are recalled with laconic expressiveness. It was Oleg who first called upon the Polovtsy to help him and attack the Russian land. The author also recalls the bloody battle on Nezhatina field in 1078 when both sides suffered heavy losses and Oleg’s young and conceited ally Boris Vyacheslavich fell in battle. His main concern was, of course, the serious consequences of Oleg’s civil wars for the Russian land: “Under Oleg, Son of Woe, civil war was sown and grew among us; the good of Dazhdbog’s grandson was lost; and man’s age was cut short in princely strife; then the ploughman was rarely heard on the Russian land, but ravens croaked and divvied up the corpses and jackdaws chattered. They want to fly off to get their prey! " Oleg’s constant warfare was above all harmful to the people whose peaceful labours were interrupted. Internecine strife robbed the country of its economic resources and decimated the population. The author calls Oleg “Son of Woe" because the aggressive prince earned a bitter renown in the Russian land.

p Like the chronicler the author takes a tribal view of history. He believes that the politics of strife and alliance with the Polovtsy and the violation of feudal obligations begun by Oleg will be continued by his grandsons, the princes of Seversky. Igor’s defeat is seen as a consequence of that policy begun by the prince of Chernigov, the progenitor of the brave nest of the Olgoviches (descendents of Oleg).

117

p The author also recalls another instigator of feudal strife: Vseslav Bryachislavich of Polotsk. The tale of Vseslav is connected to the author’s plea to his contemporaries, the grandsons of Yaroslav and Vseslav, to end old enmities and abandon their grandfather’s notoriety, to unite their forces for a struggle against Rus’ foreign enemies.

p Princes of Polotsk first took a hostile view of Kievan princes, according to the chronicle, when Vladimir Svyatoslavich married Rogneda, Princess of Polotsk. Legend has it that she tried to murder her hated husband as revenge for his killing of her father and brothers. Her grandson, Vseslav Bryacheslavich of Polotsk, was born of “magical charms”, and had a pellicle on his head which, the chronicler explains, made him prone to spill blood without mercy. In 1066 Vseslav attacked the sons of Yaroslav and took Novgorod “with women and children and hauled down the bells of St. Sophia”. The author of the Lay mentions this with laconic expressiveness: “... he opened the gates of Novgorod and shattered Yaroslav’s glory”.

p In 1067 the armies of Vseslav and the Yaroslaviches (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod) clashed on the Nemiga: “there was a fierce battle and many fell”. Vseslav had to flee. Soon the princes made peace, “kissing the cross”. But Izyaslav, who did not trust Vseslav, broke the oath; he seized Vseslav and threw him into a Kievan dungeon.

p In 1068 for the first time the Polovtsy defeated Russian princes Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod. The people of Kiev held a veche and demanded that Izyaslav supply arms and horses so that they could attack their enemies. When the prince refused the citizens rebelled and on September 15 freed Vseslav from the dungeon since the latter had promised them mounts. This episode is narrated at length in The Tale of Bygone Years; our author relates it as follows: “He [Vseslav] through cunning, relying on horses, galloped to the city of Kiev and touched the golden throne with his spear.” After a week as Great Prince Vseslav was obliged to flee. The Lay describes this symbolically: “He galloped off in the form of a wild beast at midnight from the white city 118 wreathed in blue mist.”

p Events are not always in chronological order in the Lay. First the author speaks of things that occurred in 1068, then of 1066 and 1067. He is concerned with showing the disastrous consequences of the strife between the Yaroslaviches and Vseslav when “the bloody banks of the Nemiga were sown, not with good seed, but with the bones of the sons of Rus”.

p As D. S. Likhachev notes, Vseslav is depicted in the Lay not only with condemnation but with a certain warmth: the restless prince darting about Rus like a hunted beast astouned his contemporaries with his swiftness and was nicknamed veshchy—a. magician and werewolf. At the same time he was also an unhappy, unlucky victim; Boyan composed the following refrain about his fate: “Neither the cunning, nor the capable, nor the able bird can escape God’s judgement.”

p When speaking of the strife between the descendants of Vseslav of Polotsk and Yaroslav’s family in Kiev the author notes that it led to glory for no one and only helped to strengthen the enemies of Rus—the Polovtsy and the Lithuanians.

p Among the author’s sources were The Tale of Bygone Years and folk epics. But the author of The Lay of Igor’s Host never treats facts from the chronicle from a religious, moralistic point of view; he evaluates them from the perspective of the people’s interests. His historical digressions and excurses are intended to remind his contemporaries, the descendents of the ill-fated Vseslav and the warring Oleg, of the consequences of a policy of civil strife and to restore a firm, peaceful coalition of princes for a united struggle against the enemies of Rus.

p In order to better comprehend and explain current events the Lay’s author recreates a picture of the past. He also attempts to give a historical explanation for the attacks of the Polovtsy: they are trying to avenge Sharuakan, grandfather of Konchak, who was routed by Vladimir Monomakh in 1106. This is what the song of the Goth “beautiful women" “on the blue sea" tells us; they “sing of Booz’s time”, that is of the days when Vinitar, leader of the Goths, defeated the Ants and 119 executed their leader Booz.

Thus the author of The Lay of Igor’s Host examines each current event in historical perspective, comparing the present with the past, and drawing a poetic picture of Russian history in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

The Depiction of the Princes

p Much of the Lay deals with the deeds of Igor and Vsevolod, the main figures in the campaign (Vladimir Igorevich is mentioned only toward the end in the toast and Oleg Svyatoslavich is not mentioned at all). The author clearly sympathises with his heroes and sees them as the finest representatives of his generation of princes.

p Above all Igor is extraordinarily courageous, an illustrious warrior who has decided to stand up for the Russian land: “Igor ... strengthened his wits with his will and honed his heart with courage, and was filled with the spirit of battle.” For the good of his native land he is ready to undergo any sacrifice or trial. His speech to his druzhina is courageous and noble: “‘My brothers and druzhinal It is better to be killed than captured; thus, brothers, let us mount our swift steeds and look upon the dark blue Don.’... ’I wish,’ he said, ’to break a lance on the edge of the Polovtsian land, together with you men of Rus; I wish to lay down my head, or else to quaff of the Don from my helmet.’ " Igor delivers this inspired speech at the time of a solar eclipse when “darkness obscured all his men”. The dire omen could not influence the prince who had made up his mind with passionate firmness to “quaff of the great Don”, and defend the Russian land.

p We do not see Igor in the battle at the Kayala, but the author does mention his courage and nobility when turning back fleeing troops to help his brother Vsevolod.

p Vsevolod is just as valiant a soldier and cannot be separated from his brave, experienced troops who “were swaddled to the call of trumpets, rocked to sleep beneath helmets, fed from the tip of spears, and knew 120 every road and ravine; their bows were drawn, their quivers open, their swords sharpened; they leap like grey wolves in the field seeking honour for themselves and glory for their prince”.

p Vsevolod’s valour at the battle on the Kayala is unequalled. Like the Russian bogatyrs in byliny Vsevolod-bui tur rains arrows on the enemy and thunders against their helmets with steel swords. His gold helmet gleaming, he gallops about the battle field, striking down his foes. He is utterly absorbed in the battle, forgetting his own wounds and his father’s golden throne, and even the caresses of his beautiful wife Glebovna. This hyperbolic depiction of Vsevolod’s behaviour in battle and the transfer of the soldiers’ feats onto his persona is based on the artistic principles of oral folk literature.

p The author also praises the military prowess of princes from “Oleg’s good nest”, closely related to their “brave forces”, the brave men of Rus. Svyatoslav, Great Prince of Kiev, values their courage highly. His address, “Your valiant hearts are forged of strong damask steel and tempered in courage,” expresses his thoughts toward those princes defeated on the River Kayala.

p Such epithets as “suns”, “light” and “falcons” symbolise the protagonists, Igor and Vsevolod. Symbolically they are in clear contrast to images of “darkness”, “clouds”, “jackdaws”, and “black ravens" representing the enemy, Polovtsy.

p “Black clouds approach from the sea, wishing to obscure four suns.”“For it was dark on the third day; two suns were eclipsed; both purple pillars were extinguished and sank into the sea, and with them both young moons, Oleg and Svyatoslav, were obscured.” These symbolic pictures of the defeat of the princes of Seversky are employed by the nobles who decipher Svyatoslav’s “obscure dream”. “On the river, on the Kayala darkness overcame light.” This triumph of darkness and the enemies’ “great boldness" is only temporary. As soon as Igor returns to Kiev “the sun shines in the heavens, for Prince Igor is in the Russian land”. “As the body needs a head,” says the author, “so the Russian land cannot do without Prince Igor.”

121

p The princes’ deeds are evaluated from the people’s point of view. Igor and Vsevolod are condemned for wanting personal glory. When they decide to see the city of Tmutarakan, which belonged to Chernigov before being seized by the Polovtsy, these “falcons” flew away from their father’s “golden throne" and “conquered without honour, spilling pagan blood without honour”. “Already pagan swords have clipped the falcons’ wings and have captured them in iron traps.” They began to “assault the Polovtsian land too early with their swords”, without waiting for the coalition of princes organised by Svyatoslav of Kiev and thus reduced to nil the earlier successful campaign. Thus these two brave sons of Svyatoslav, Igor and Vsevolod, aroused an evil which their father had subdued earlier.

p The author stresses the tremendous harm done by the defeat of Russian forces on the Kayala, not only to the princes of Seversky, but to the entire Russian land whose “times turned for the worst”. Therefore Igor has exchanged his golden saddle for that of a slave and is condemned by Germans, Venetians, Greeks and Moravians.

p For their failure to keep feudal obligations to the Great Prince of Kiev and their desire for personal glory, Igor and Vsevolod are condemned by the author. Gripped by a thirst for personal renown they resolved to “screw up their courage and steal past honours and secure those of the future”.

p One cannot place personal, princely glory above the honour and glory of the Russian land, says the civic poet. For this reason he has Igor flee first to Kiev, in effect confessing his guilt before the sovereign and the Russian land. Both through events and their evaluation the author calls upon the princes to strictly observe their feudal obligations to their sovereign, the Great Prince of Kiev, who embodies the honour and glory of the entire Russian land.

p At the same time the author is deeply sympathetic to the plight of the princes of Seversky. Together with nature, the Russian women, Yaroslavna and the Russian land, the poet expresses his pity and sorrow on the occasion of the defeat of Igor, Vsevolod and their brave 122 men. Like Kievan Prince Svyatoslav the author cannot allow the molting falcon to leave his nest unprotected; for the civic poet Igor’s wounds become a symbol of the consolidation of all forces in the Russian land for the struggle with foreign enemies.

p Svyatoslav, the “great and terrible Kievan prince”, is more the embodiment of an ideally wise and powerful Russian ruler, a guardian of Rus’ honour and glory, than a historical portrait. Svyatoslav is idealised. Historically Svyatoslav did not play an essential role in the politics of the time. A protege of the more powerful and active Prince Rurik Rostislavich, he governed Kiev alone and at times his rule was only nominal.

p In The Lay of Igor’s Host Svyatoslav’s victory over the Polovtsy in 1184 is celebrated. Then, at the head of his valiant forces, “he marched on the land of the Polovtsy, over hills and ravines, stirring up rivers and lakes, drying out streams and swamps. Then the pagan Kobyak was wrested by him like a whirlwind from the cove, from the iron ranks of the Polovtsy regiments”. Svyatoslav’s victory is praised by the Germans, Venetians, Greeks and Moravians for it guaranteed safe trade routes between Rus and Southwestern Europe.

p Svyatoslav’s image is developed in his “obscure dream" and “golden speech”. Here the wise ruler expresses his grief over his imprudent vassals and “sons”, and his bitter distress that his vassal-princes do not help him, their sovereign. His “golden speech" is filled with civic sorrow at the discord among princes, their lack of unity, and above all their neglect of their obligations to their father’s “golden throne”, the Russian land. The author finds it simple to transform the “golden speech" into a polemical, passionate call for the most powerful princes of Rus to stand up “for the land of Rus and the wounds of Igor, bold son of Svyatoslav! "

p With a sober assessment of contemporary politics the author addresses those princes on whom the fate of the nation depends, above all Vsevolod Great-Nest of Vladimir-Suzdal. This mighty prince had just completed a successful campaign against the Kama Bulgarians; his forces could “stir up the Volga with oars, and pour out the Don with helmets! " By calling him “Great Prince" 123 the author appears to be reminding Vsevolod of his obligations to Kiev and the Russian land to “guard the paternal golden throne”. Perhaps these words contained a subtle political allusion. People of the times still recalled the events of 1169 when Vsevolod Ill’s brother Andrei Bogolyubsky sacked Kiev (this was how the princes of Suzdal guarded the golden throne! ): “If you were here then there would be slavewomen for a nogata and slaves for a rezana," says the author to Vsevolod. (The hyperbole stresses that if Vsevolod were in Kiev, slavewomen would cost about thirty cents—and slaves—about twelve cents—Tr.). We should note that in the Old Russian Legal Code (Russkaya pravda) the value of a slave was estimated at about 35 roubles (twenty-six dollars—Tr.}.

p In case Vsevolod does not wish to fly to distant Kiev the author mentions that he will have the opportunity to “shoot living spears (no one has yet deciphered this word, sherishiry—Tr.) over land by means of the bold sons of Gleb”. That is he can send his vassals like “living spears" against the Polovtsy; thus the princes of Ryazan would perform their duties to their “paternal golden throne”.

p Knowing that prince Rurik Rostislavich and his brother Davyd of Smolensk also had an interest in Kievan and South Russian affairs, and praising the courage of their men who “roar like aurochses wounded with tempered swords on unknown fields”, the author calls upon the princes to put their feet in the “golden stirrups and avenge the insults of the day, the Russian land, the wounds of bold Igor Svyatoslavich! "

p The author gives credit to Prince Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galich. His iron men stopped the King of Hungary from attacking Rus and participated in the Crusades, “from the patriarchal golden throne shooting sultans of distant lands”. His power extends as far southwest as the Danube; even Kiev is dependent on this prince who opens its gates. The author is well aware that Yaroslav remained in his native Galich all his life and never himself participated in one military campaign. He therefore asks the prince to send his army against Konchak, but not to join the battle himself.

p The author also addresses the brave prince Roman 124 Mstislavich of Volhynia, renowned for his valour, with an appeal to help his motherland, asking him and the princes of Lutsk and Peresopnitsk—Ingvar and Vsevolod—to close the gates so that the nomads cannot enter Rus.

p These appeals to the princes reveal an estimate of each principality’s strength. The author asks that forces be consolidated, not calling for a united state; he merely wishes feudal obligations to be honoured and reminds the vassals of their duty to remain faithful to their sovereign, the Great Prince of Kiev. As an example of the consequences of not fulfilling these obligations the author points to Oleg “Son of Woe”, Vseslav of Polotsk and the bitter fate of his contemporary Igor.

The appealing character of Yaroslavna, a Russian woman who remains true to her husband Igor, represents one of the finest artistic achievements of the Lay. She embodies the loftiest features of Old Russian womanhood. The author does not take the religious view of woman propagandised by the Church as a “vessel of the devil”, a source of all male misfortunes and sorrows, but sees her as a faithful helpmate who deeply loves her beloved husband and with the power of true womanly love helps him to return from captivity. In her lyrical lament Yaroslavna sends her thoughts both to her husband and his soldiers. Her sorrow at Igor’s defeat is the sorrow of all women and mothers of Rus made universal in one magnificent, sublime image!

Nature

p The Russian landscape is an independent character in The Lay of Igor’s Host, for its author’s poetic view of the world is that of the folk epic. Nature has its own existence here and at the same time serves as an artistic means for commenting on events. One of the oral folk devices is the personification of forces of nature. Although the author is a Christian, his Christian views remain beyond the borders of his poetry. He finds a certain aesthetic value in paganism and thus incorporates many images from pagan mythology in his poem. 125 Pagan mythology serves as a poetic repository of images. “The whole lay is Christian-heroic in character though heathen elements are still very much in evidence,” wrote Karl Marx.   [125•1 

p Before going into battle Igor and his forces are warned by nature of the dangers that threaten them: “The sun barred his path with darkness; with moans of a storm the night woke the birds; the whistling of beasts rose in the air: the Div awoke and called from the treetops....

p “Wolves call to the storm from along the ravines; eagles cry for the beasts to come to the bones; vixens yelp at the scarlet shields.”

p The author of the Lay is well versed in flora and fauna of the steppe. But the animal world takes on symbolic meaning in the poet’s writing. Together with the mythological Div who warns the Polovtsy that Igor has begun his campaign, the forces of nature foreshadow the defeat of the Russian warriors.

p A symbolic picture of nature that bodes ill begins the description of the second battle: “Bloody dawns foretell the light; black clouds approach from the sea,... within them quivers blue lightning. There will be a terrible storm! Rain will flow like arrows from the great Don! " Stribog’s grandsons the winds blow from the sea like arrows at Igor’s brave men. In fact the winds did favour the Polovtsy during the battle; thus we see both a reflection of reality and a vivid symbol.

p After Igor’s defeat nature grieves along with the Russian people: “The grass droops with pity and the tree bends to the earth in its melancholy.”

p Yaroslavna turns to nature to vent her sorrow and at the same time to make the bright and thrice-bright Sun, Wind and Dnieper Slovutich help Igor to escape from his hated captivity.

p In this regard Yaroslavna’s lament also takes on the function of a magical charm designed to harness the forces of nature. The love of this Russian woman triumphs and she forces these powers, that had been hostile during Igor’s campaign and the battle, to serve her dear husband. The Donets River has a tender talk 126 with Igor, glorifying and justifying the hero: “Prince Igor! Great is your glory and your hatred for Konchak and the joy in the Russian land! " The river lulls the prince in its waves, making him a bed of green grass on its silver shores and covering him with warm mists beneath a canopy of trees.

When Igor is fleeing “the ravens don’t croak, and the jackdaws are silent, and the magpies stop their chatter; only the grass-snakes crawl; the woodpeckers beat out the path to the river, and the nightingales proclaim the light in joyful song”. When Igor reaches the Russian land “the sun shines in the heavens”. Thus the forces of nature participate directly in the development of events. These personifications of nature help the author to give vivid, poetic expression to his political ideas: by wilfully launching a campaign Igor violated his obligations to the Russian land and nature turned from him and joined his enemies; when Igor confesses his guilt before his native land and escapes in order to submit to Svyatoslav in Kiev, the forces of nature joyfully welcome the prince and actively help him.

The Russian Land

p The author of the Igor tale calls upon princes to serve the interests of the Russian land, rather than their own personal- selfish interests. The Russian land and its people, Dazhdbog’s grandsons, are the true heroes of the Lay. For it is in the name of the interests of his native land and people that the poet lifts his passionate voice. He is well aware of the complexities of Russian politics of his age and conceives of Rus’ fate in a broad historical perspective. The honour and glory of his motherland profoundly concern him. This is why he depicts Igor’s defeat as a terrible insult to the entire Russian land, a theme vividly embodied in the poetic image of the Deva-Obida (Maid Ire) who rises among the forces of “Dazhdbog’s grandson”, that is, the Russian people.

p In The Lay of Igor’s Host the Russian land is not only Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Novgorod-Seversky, Putivl and Kursk, as some scholars believe, but Great 127 Novgorod, Vladimir, Suzdal, Ryazan, Polotsk, Gorodensk, Smolensk, Turov, Pinsk, Galich, Vladimir- Volynsky, Lutsk and Peremyshl. Even distant Tmutarakan, held by the Polovtsy, is seen by the author as part of the Russian land. Its wide expanses are bounded on the south by the sea and the Danube, on the west by the Carpathian Mountains and the Western Dvina River, on the northeast by the Volga, on the east by the Donets and the Great Don, and on the southeast by the Sula.

p He traces the roots of the Russian land’s might to the deeds of “old” Vladimir and “old” Yaroslav, and focusing on Russia’s “present, sorrowful year" expresses his regret that “old Vladimir can no longer be held at the hills of Kiev”.

p As a passionate patriot and citizen the author conceives of the Russian land in terms of one mighty feudal state whose political centre is in Kiev and whose vassals are strictly loyal and obedient to their sovereign.

If the Russian land is to flourish economically it must have peace; the internecine wars where princes begin to make much of molehills must cease. The ingenious poet expresses the interests of Russian peasants and craftsmen, while condemning the egoistic policies of the princes. In this respect he is the opposite of Boyan, a court singer who composed panegyrics in honour of Russian princes.

The Image of Boyan

p For the author Boyan is the ideal bard: the prophetic grandson of Veles, that is, a man endowed by God with a talent for song. His songs are like the trills of nightingales. He uses many images and expresses lofty thoughts. Boyan’s prophetic fingers pluck out a hymn of glory to princes on the living strings of the human soul. He is master at weaving the past into the present. Among those praised in Boyan’s songs are old Yaroslav and brave Mstislav who conquered Rededya, Prince of the Kasogs, as well as the handsome Roman Svyatoslavich, the wars of Vseslav Bryachislavich whose fate was described in the “refrain”. These facts permit us to 128 conelude that Boyan probably lived and worked in the period from 1020 to 1080, during the lifetime of the princes glorified in his songs.   [128•1 

The author cites a few examples of Boyan’s poetic speech in his discussion of artistic narration, and shows how Boyan would have begun the tale of Igor: “It is not a storm that brought the falcons across the broad fields —flocks of jackdaws hurry to the Great Don.” Or, he continues, Boyan might have expressed it in this way: “Steeds neigh beyond the Sula—glory sounds in Kiev. Trumpets blare in Novgorod and banners fly in Putivl.” If we judge by these images Boyan’s style was based on negative similes, symbolic comparisons, and was aphoristic and abundant in imagery. While he admires Boyan’s work, the author still chooses another means of expression.

The Genre and Style of
The Lay of Igor’s Host

p The author calls his work a Slovo (sermon, address—Jr.), a “sorrowful” or “military” (depending on how one interprets the adjective trudny—Tr.) “tale”, and a “lay”. In his essay, “The Lay of Igor’s Host: A Model of the Political Oratory of Kievan Rus”, Professor I. P. Eremin notes that such a combination of terminology was used only in reference to oratory, that is, works of a panegyric, rhetorical nature.  [128•2  Professor Eremin is, therefore, inclined to view the work as representing predominantly an oratorical genre. In fact oratorical style is prominent in the Lay. It is addressed to an audience, “brothers”, to whom the author constantly appeals using rhetorical questions and exclamations.

p The oratorical, polemical message of the poem is 129 embodied in the call for the Russian princes to defend the Russian land. The clear poetic design of the work, consisting of an introduction and three parts, resembles the design of Ilarion’s Sermon. This undoubtedly brings The Lay of Igor’s Host close to oratorical works. But there are also many elements of the military tale in the Lay as well. Its subject is a campaign, its heroes—- warrior-princes and their brave druzhinas who seek honour for themselves and glory for their sovereigns. Like a military tale the Lay rings with military glory and its author devotes a great deal of attention to heroic battles.

p Many images and symbols characteristic of military tales can be found in the Lay: “breaking the tips of the nomads’ spear”, meaning to rout the enemy; “drinking with a helmet from the Don"—to triumph over the foe at the Don; “to lay down one’s head"—to fall in battle; “to put one’s foot in the golden stirrup"—start a campaign; “rain flows like arrows”; “banners cry out"—the army says; “Oleg forges strife with a sword”. These and other military terms are used to show the moral qualities of the characters. Igor “strengthened his wits with his will and honed his heart with courage, filling himself with the spirit of battle”. Vsevolod’s men are described as being “swaddled to the call of trumpets, rocked to sleep beneath helmets, fed from the tip of spears”.

p But the saga of Igor is not only a military tale; it is a song according to the events of the day, which is to say it follows the facts. At the same time these facts are the foundation of the epic genre presented in the author’s lyrical, emotional perspective. By means of folklore imagery he expresses his admiration for the princes’ valour, grieves at their fate, reproaches their blindness, passionately calls upon them to unite in defense of the Russian land, rejoices at Igor’s return from captivity and glorifies the prince.

p Certain symbols are related to the poetic traditions of folk songs: the sun and young moons, the falcons (representing the princes); ten falcons loosed on a flock of swans (Boyan’s prophetic fingers on his psaltery), and the lonely cuckoo lamenting (Yaroslavna). The 130 description of Igor’s flight is also based on symbols and parallelisms frequently found in folk songs.

p Traditional folk symbols are also found in the description of Svyatoslav’s dream: the black cloth—a symbol of the funeral, the pearl—symbolising tears, boards without a roof-ridge in the golden-topped tower—a sign of misfortune, and the croaking of gray daws—an evil omen.

p The personification of nature is part of the oral poetic tradition, as is the wonderful lyricism of Yaroslavna’s lament. Personification of abstractions, including the Deva-Obida (injury) and Kama and Zhlya (grief and sorrow) who gallop across the Russian land, are also rooted in folk poetry, as are many of the Lay metaphors, similes and epithets. Among those tropes commonly found in folk poetry are “spirited steeds”, “beautiful women”, “open country”, “damask swords”, and “gray wolf”.

p We find comparisons of battle to a bloody marriage feast (“...here the brave Russians finished the feast: they gave the matchmakers to drink and laid themselves down for the land of Rus”), to the sowing (“beneath the hooves the black earth was sown with bones and watered with blood: the grief sprouted throughout the Russian land...”); and to the threshing (“on the Nemiga sheaves are formed from heads; threshed with damask flails and one’s life is given on the threshing floor, the soul winnowed from the body...”).

p The comparison of a bloody battle to peacetime agricultural work stressed the incompatibility of war and peace, and the necessity for peace if the country was to achieve a flourishing, strong economy.

p Such vivid similes and parallelisms as “it is not a storm that brought the falcons across the broad fieldflocks of jackdaws hurry to the Great Don”; “...carts cry out at midnight like frightened swans”; and “ Polovets prince Gzak runs like a gray wolf" are also tied to folk song traditions.

p Other similarities to folk songs include the refrains that separate one episode from the next. For example the refrain “Oh, Russian land, you are already over the hill! " accompanies the movements of the Russian 131 forces and increases the narrative tension. The author’s addresses to the Russian princes are consistently ended with the refrain “For the Russian land, for the wounds of bold Igor Svyatoslavich! " which expresses the basic theme of the work. Each of the three stanzas of Yaroslavna’s lament begins with the refrain: “Yaroslavna laments early in Putivl by the wall, saying...”

p The style of the Lay is based on literary images and symbols which are rooted in both folk and written traditions. The author not only tells of events, he shows them through a colourful combination of contrasting hues and sounds. V. F. Rzhiga commented on the poetic significance of sound-imagery in the Lay which is filled with the voices of birds and beasts, with songs and resonance.

p No less important are colours as, for example: the golden throne, the golden helmet, the gold-topped tower, the golden saddle, golden arrows and finally the “golden speech”. This epithet is related to the symbolism of the colour of gold in Old Russian icon painting and monumental art. Gold symbolises magnificence, glory, eternity. When he calls Svyatoslav’s speech “golden”, the author is stressing its moral significance; when speaking of Igor’s exchange of a golden saddle for that of a slave he is presenting a tangible image of the prince’s misfortune. One superb example is the image of the death of Izyaslav Vasilkovich, Prince of Polotsk: “he dropped his pearly soul from his brave body through a golden necklace”. This is comparable to the image of St. Demetrius of Salonika in twelfth century icon painting.

p Among some of the contrasting colours consistently found in Old Russian painting are: silver-gray hair, silver shores, silver streams, green cape, green grass, green tree, dark-blue sea, dark-blue Don, dark-blue mist, dark-blue wine, crimson shields, crimson banners, white standard, gray wolves, steel-blue eagles, gray ravens. These colourepithets made written images more tangible.  [131•1 

132

p While the Lay is not written in verse, its rhythms still form an organic unity with its content. Scholars note many assonances, consonances and alliterations.

p The author thus does not follow Boyan’s style, neither does he go beyond the events of his time, that is, historical tales. Rather he bases his work on traditions of folk poetry. His familiarity with the finest models of original and translated literature helped the ingenious poet to create a heroic poem that was original in form and content, profoundly lyrical, passionately patriotic, and a fine example of polemical oratory.

He chose a form that would allow for the freest possible arrangement of material and provided plenty of room for personal meditation and direct addresses to the audience—his contemporaries and distant posterity.

The Lay of Igor’s Host
and Other Medieval Epics

p Comparison of The Lay of Igor’s Host with La Chanson de Roland, Das Nibelungenlied, El Cantar de Mio Cid and The Knight in the Tiger’s Skin reveals common typological features of the medieval epos and at the same time sets the specific features of the Old Russian work in relief.   [132•1 

p The medieval epos was created in the age of chivalry on the basis of national folk and literary traditions. It elevates military glory and honour, and is based on the 133 struggle for national unity, the idea of a vassal’s loyalty to his sovereign, and a condemnation of treachery, feudal strife and selfish battles. The medieval epos depicts man in close contact with nature; nature takes an active part in the heroes’ lives; its forces heed their supplications and sympathise with their fate.

p Despite the many common features, each work has its own distinctive characteristics. In La Chanson de Roland and Das Niebelungenlied there are many fantastic elements; both heroes have miraculous swords; Siegfried conquers a dragon and becomes invulnerable after washing himself in its blood with the exception of one place where a leaf has adhered to him; he triumphs over the valkyry Brunhilde; Roland stops the movement of the sun for three days, and so on. The Lay of Igor’s Host, on the other hand, concentrates on historical events.

p La Chanson de Roland, Das Niebelungenlied and El Cid deal with the past, often the very distant past. The Lay of Igor’s Host is written close on the heels of events and is understandably far more historical.

p La Chanson de Roland has a predominantly Christian ideology (together with Roland, Archbishop Turpin fights; the battle between Christian and infidel-Saracen is stressed, etc.); pagan elements are integral to all of the poetic conceptions of the Lay.

p The cult of chivalry and military glory is not a goal in itself in The Lay of Igor’s Host, but is closely bound to the fate of the Russian land and subservient to the interests of the motherland, the idea of defending the peaceful labour of the people.

In The Lay of Igor’s Host the political, civic spirit is organically fused with artistic pathos which makes the work immortal and lets it consistently “keep its aura of modernity" as the renowned Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz observed in the last century.

The Significance of
The Lay of Igor’s Host

p The political topicality of the poem and its close bond to vital questions of the day as well as the 134 consummate artistry of its expression in the best traditions of folklore guaranteed The Lay of Igor’s Host immortality through the ages. It was popular among contemporaries and exercised a definite influence on the development of Russian literature. For it was precisely to the Lay that the author of the Zadonshchina (Don Tale) turned when he wished to glorify the victory of Rus on Kulikovo Field.

p The discovery of the Lay in the eighteenth century inspired A. N. Radishchev to compose Songs Sung at Competitions in Honour of Slavic Deities. It was widely reflected in the works of romantic poets in the early nineteenth century, and in those of Pushkin.   [134•1  In his stories A Terrible Vengeance and Taras Bulba Gogol turned to the imagery of the Lay. Among other poets who have been drawn to it are Zhukovsky, Maikov, Minaev, Gerbel, Kozlov and Mei. Soviet writers have also manifested a profound interest in this epic. A. N. Tolstoi chose the epigraph “Oh, Russian land! " for one of the books of his trilogy Ordeal. Eduard Bagritsky uses images from this immortal work of Old Russian literature in his Ballad of Op anas.

p During the Second World War the Lay took on new meaning. Ukrainian writer O. Honchar’s trilogy Standard-bearers opens with an epigraph from The Lay of Igor’s Host.

p Soviet poets and prosaists N. Zabolotsky, I. Novikov, V. Stelletsky, S. Shervinsky and N. Rylenkov have made interesting translations of the Lay into modern Russian.

“The Lay of Igor’s Host", writes Soviet poet Pavel Antokolsky, “is an eternally flowering trunk extending branches laden with fruit into the future. Therefore we 135 hear direct and indirect echos of this work in many monuments of our culture and art.... From an ancient artefact, it has been transformed into the living property of a constructive culture.”  [135•1 

Sources

p 1. L. A. Dmitriev, “Vazhneishie problemy issledovaniya ’Slova o polku Igoreve’" (“Main Problems in Researching The Lay of Igor’s Host”), TODRL, vol. 20, 1964.

p 2. D. S. Likhachev, Slovo o polku Igoreve (The Lay of Igor’s Host), M.-L., 1955.

p 3. A. S. Orlov, Slovo o polku Igoreve (The Lay of Igor’s Host), M.-L., 1946.

p 4. B. A. Rybakov, Russkie letopistsy i avtor “Slova o polku Igoreve" (Russian Chroniclers and the Author of the Lay of Igor’s Host) M., 1972.

p 5. The Lay of Igor’s Host. Edited By V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1950.

p 6. Slovo o polku Igoreve-pamyatnik XII veka (The Lay of Igor’s Host-A Twelfth Century Epic), M.-L., 1962.

p 7. Dictionary for The Lay of Igor’s Host. Compiled by V. L. Vinogradova, vols. 1-4, L., 1965-1973.

8. V. G. Fedorov, Kto by I avtorom “Slova o polku Igoreve" i gde raspolozhena reka Kayala (Who Wrote The Lay of Igor’s Host and the Whereabouts of the River Kayala), M., 1956.