167

p Founded in 1147 by Prince Yury Dolgoruky, Moscow was long considered a provincial town belonging to the principality of Vladimir. In 1237 steppe nomads burned the town as they passed. But thanks to its geography—Moscow was in the centre of the Volga and Oka river junctions—and its many forests and swamps that foiled invaders, Moscow was elevated in status. Already in the late thirteenth century refugees fromlhe southeast borders of Vladimir-Suzdal land began to pour into the Muscovite principality. Muscovite Prince Daniil Alexandrovich (1276-1303), youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, almost doubled the territory of the principality. His sons began a political struggle against the princes of Tver for the title of great prince of Vladimir. Ivan Danilovich (known as Kalita, the Moneybag) vanquished his rival Prince Mikhail of Tver. He persuaded the Russian metropolitan to support him and turned the khan into an obedient tool of his policies.

p In 1328 the Horde granted Kalita the title of Great Prince of Vladimir; from that point on for a century every great prince was from Muscovy.

p The birth of Muscovite literature was conditioned by the political elevation of Moscow and the Muscovite princes.

p The formation of a Russian centralised state facilitated the establishment and development of elements 168 of national culture. The main theme of literature became the construction of a unified state. The compilers of Muscovite chronicles turned to the traditions of Kievan chronicles. In both folklore and literature Vladimir’s Kiev became a symbol of Rus’ independence, glory and magnificence. The idea of a struggle against the hated Mongol-Tatar yoke became of increasing concern to the population at large.

p In 1380 Muscovite prince Dmitry Ivanovich united almost all of Northeast Rus under his banner and dealt a killing blow to the Golden Horde. His triumph showed that the Russian people had the power for a decisive struggle against their enemy, but only under the centralised rule of the great prince. After the victory at Kulikovo Field, the final defeat of the Tatars was merely a matter of time.

p Muscovy’s victory over Mamai led to a significant increase in authority before the Russian people. Muscovy played an important role in the development of literature and art, assisting the flowering of the works of Theophanus the Greek, Andrei Rublev and Epifany the Wise.

The historical events of 1380 were widely reflected in oral folk art and also in literary genres: chronicle tales, the Don Tale, the Tale of the Battle with Mamai, and the Discourse on the Life and Passing of Dmitry Ivanovich.

The Chronicle Tale of the
Battle of Kulikovo

p The Tale of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich’s Battle with Mamai on the Don was, evidently, written on the heels of the event. Basic facts are given: the gathering of enemy forces and the Russian army, the battle on the river Nepryadva, the return of victorious Prince Dmitry to Moscow and the death of Mamai. At the same time these facts are evaluated in an emotional, expressive polemic. The central hero of the chronicle tale is Dmitry Ivanovich, Great Prince of Muscovy. His piety and military prowess are stressed.

169

p This ideal Christian soldier is counterposed to the “Godless”, “impious”, “old villain”, “asp”, “headless beast" Mamai and his ally, the “impious”, “pagan”, Lithuanian Prince Jagailo and that “sweet-tongued apostate" and traitor, Prince Oleg of Ryazan. Typically the treachery of the Russian prince who has made a treaty with the enemy is particularly distasteful to the author who bestows the most negative epithets on Oleg: “fighter for the pagans”, “flattering agent of Satan”, “covered in sin”, and “counsellor to the devil”.

p Among models for the tale are The Life of Alexander Nevsky, parimiyny readings on SS Boris and Gleb and the apocryphal Discourse on the Birth of Christ and the Coming of the Magi. The means’ for depicting Mamai’s invasion of Rus, Dmitry’s mobilisation of troops and pious meditations, the battle and the help from heavenly forces make the tale close to The Life of Alexander Nevsky. The readings on SS Boris and Gleb are the basis for the idealised portrait of Dmitry and the means of depicting his enemies: Mamai and Oleg of Ryazan are called “new Svyatopolks”. The Discourse on the Birth of Christ is the model for the expression of the grief of Russian women and Mamai’s rage and lament.

p Although he has many literary sources, the author still conveys a good deal of historical detail connected to the movement of forces and course of the battle. Facts on the organisation of regiments were taken by the author from the razryadnaya kniga (a book listing participants in battles and describing battles themselves—TV. ) and the names of the leaders who fell in battle from the Synodik (book listing the names of the dead to be remembered in prayer—TV.).

The battle itself is depicted through characteristic phrases from military tales: “There was a fierce battle and a hard struggle and a great noise... blood flowed like rain from both sides... corpses fell upon each other, and Tatar bodies fell upon the bodies of Christians.” The basic purpose of the chronicle tale was to show the superior bravery of the Russian forces and the arrogance and violence of the “beasts”, “Godless Tatars" and “vile Lithuania”, to brand Oleg of Ryazan as a traitor.

170

The Don Tale

p In the early fifteenth century, the priest Sofony of Ryazan wrote a poetic tale of the battle at Kulikovo Field known as the Zadonshchina (the Don Tale), which has survived in six copies, forming two redactions. The older redaction dates to the 1470’s; it has lost the ending and there are many omissions. Sixteenth and seventeenth -century copies also have defects. On this basis S. K. Shambinago reconstructed a compiled text of the Don Tale. Detailed textual analysis of all extant copies was done by R. P. Dmitrieva.  [170•1 

p The Don Tale glorifies the victory of Russian forces over the Mongol-Tatar hordes; its material is taken from the chronicle tale and its imagery from the Igor tale.

p The use of artistic devices from The Lay of Igor’s Host is due to the theme and artistic design of the Don Tale. Sofony consciously compared the events of the past with current events: while the Igor tale summoned the Russian princes to unite for the struggle against the “Steppe”, the Don Tale glorified the unification of Russian princes which allowed them to triumph over the foreign invaders. Sofony not only juxtaposed events from past and present, but set them in opposition. As D. S. Likhachev notes, “the spirit of the Don Tale’s historical conception lies in the convergence of events from past and present”. The struggle with the Polovtsy and the struggle against the Mongol-Tatars were seen as one struggle against the “Steppe”, for national independence.

p The poetic plane of the Don Tale has two basic components: grief and tribute. These are preceded by a brief introduction. The introduction not only tries to set a solemn mood, but to define the theme of the work—a “tribute” to Dmitry Ivanovich, and his brother Vladimir Andreyevich—and to make the East grieve. Sofony stresses that his tale is intended to gladden the 171 Russian land and to praise the great-grandsons of Kievan princes Igor Rurikovich, Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich “with songs and gay words sung to the psaltery”. Thus the Don Tale establishes the genealogical relations between the Muscovite princes and the Kievan princes, stressing that Rus’ new political centre is Moscow, the heir of Kiev and its culture. With this in mind Sofony praises prophetic Boyan “the best bard in Kiev”. In his address to the Russian princes, Dmitry counts them as part of the “nest” of Great Prince Vladimir of Kiev. In an effort to raise the Muscovite prince’s political prestige, the author of the Don Tale calls Vladimir Svyatoslavich “the tsar of Russia”.

p The first part of the Don Tale—the “grief of the Russian land"—describes the assembling of Russian warriors, their departure on the campaign, the first battle and the defeat. The Don Tale depicts the assembling of Russian troops by the same means as we saw in the Igor tale: “Horses neigh in Moscow; glory sounds all over the land of Rus. Trumpets blare in Kolomna; tambourines are beaten in Serpukhov; banners fly over the Great Don by the shores.”

p The warriors of Andrei of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk, like those of Vsevolod, are “swaddled to the call of trumpets and rocked in helmets, and fed on the tips of spears in the land of Lithuania”.

p Nature’s forces side with the Russian host in the Don Tale and foreshadow the defeat of the Tatars: “Their misfortune is watched for by winged birds soaring beneath the clouds; ravens croak without cease; the jackdaws chatter in their language; eagles scream; wolves howl terribly; and the vixen barks at the bones.” For Dmitry Ivanovich, however, “the sun shines clearly toward the East, showing the way”.

p In the first bloody battle with the Tatars, the Russians are defeated: “For it was terrible and sad to watch; the grass streamed with blood, and the trees bent toward the earth in grief.” “In the land of Ryazan and by the Don, neither soldier nor shepherd did cry, but ravens croaked over human corpses, and cuckoos wept.”

p Princesses and noblewomen grieved for their husbands. The laments of the voyevodas’ wives are 172 based, like Yaroslavna’s lament, on appeals to the wind, the Don and the Moscow rivers.

p The second part is a tribute to the victory of the Russians in the second battle when Dmitry Bobrok of Volhynia led his troops in an ambush.

p The Tatars fled and the Russians took trophies: “...Russian women splashed about in Tatar gold”. “There was gaiety and rejoicing in the Russian land and they praised the Russians and reviled the pagans.”

p The Don Tale is written in a joyous, major key. Its author has an acute awareness of the end of “grief” and “woe”.

p By comparison to the Igor tale, this story is more abstract and tends to be concerned with the psychology of actions.  [172•1  This is achieved through wide use of direct speech, which at times can be very abstract. For example the Novgorodians complain that they will not arrive in time to help Dmitry. The assembled Russian princes address Dmitry. Andrei of Polotsk converses with Dmitry of Bryansk, Dmitry Ivanovich with Vladimir Andreyevich, brave Peresvet with Oslyabya, and so on. Dmitry delivers a solemn speech “over the bones" after his victory.

p Christian elements are much stronger in the Don Tale than in the Igor tale; there are no pagan mythological images. The heroes deliver pious speeches and prayers; there are fantastic religious elements (SS Boris and Gleb pray for their countrymen). The Russian armies fight for “the holy Church, for the Orthodox faith”. Dmitry Ivanovich and Vladimir Andreyevich fight “for the land of Rus and the Christian faith”. This all shows the growing role played by the Church in the Muscovite state.

p Complex methaphorical images, like those in the Igor tale, that are connected to pagan mythology are alien to the author of the Don Tale.

p As opposed to The Lay of Igor’s Host he makes broader use of devices from folk poetry. Negative similes are, for example, fairly common in the Dem Tale. Symbolic images found in folk poetry such as goose, 173 swans, falcons, gerfalcons, wolves and eagles, occur repeatedly in the Don Tale.

p Its style shows traces of the prose of fifteenth century documents and official records with chronological specifications, the titling of princes, genealogical formulas, lists of the dead, and a monotonous way of introducing direct speech.

p At the same time the poetical structure of the Don Tale tends, to a certain degree, to fall into stanzas, which is stressed by similar beginnings: “And said the prince...”, “And said Andrei...”, “And quoth the prince...”, “Already the eagles are flying...”, “Already strong winds are blowing...”, “Already carts are creaking...", “Already falcons and gerfalcons and Belozersky hawks...”, “Already those falcons and gerfalcons...”.

In stressing the political role of Moscow and the Muscovite prince in the struggle against the MongolTatars, the Don Tale deliberately did not mention the treachery of the Ryazan prince Oleg. All of its spirit and lyricism were directed by Sofony towards propagandising the unity of all forces of the Russian land around Moscow and the Muscovite prince; he stressed that only thanks to this unification did the Russian conquer their enemy and the princes gain honour and glory.

The Tale of the Battle Against Mamai

p In the mid-fifteenth century, based on the chronicle tale of the Kulikovo battle, the Don Tale and folk legends, The Tale of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich’s Battle was written; it has survived in over 100 manuscripts, forming four redactions. Legends introduced many details and poetic episodes to the tale: the sending of Zakhary Tyutchev to Mamai with gifts, Dmitry’s visit to the Trinity Monastery, bogatyr Peresvet’s duel with the Tatar Telebei, Dmitry’s fortune-telling before the battle (he listens to the earth, the cries of beasts and birds, and gazes at the fires in the enemy camp), Dmitry’s exchange of clothing and horses with boyar Mikhailo Brenko, who resembles the great prince and dies heroically, the tale of Yurka the shoemaker’s exploit, 174 and finally the search for the great prince after the battle (he is discovered badly wounded beneath a birch tree).

p The religious element is significantly emphasised in the tale. Dmitry’s piety is stressed through numerous prayer-monologues. One redaction focuses on the figure of Metropolitan Kiprian whom the great prince respects and obeys—he is Dmitry’s father confessor. Actually Dmitry had ordered Kiprian to be exiled from Moscow and during the Battle of Kulikovo he was in Kiev. The tale attempted to show the total unity of secular and religious authorities.

p The tale is constructed so as to contrast the steadfastness, courage and Christian piety of the Russians with the boastfulness, pride and impiety of the Tatar Mamai and his allies, Olgerd (Jagailo), and Oleg of Ryazan. The author spares no dark colours to depict the enemies of Rus. He creates numerous speeches exchanged, via messengers, between Oleg, Mamai and Jagailo. True, Oleg of Ryazan later repents his behaviour, his treachery to the Orthodox faith, and refuses to unite with Olgerd (Jagailo).

p Shamed and accursed on the field at Kulikovo, Mamai flees to Kafa. “Raging and very angry" he again prepares to attack the Russian land, but his armies are beaten on the Kalka by the King Tokhtamysh. Mamai is murdered in Kafa by a merchant; this is seen as just punishment for this impious king who devoted his life to evil.

p The tale is distinguished by its fictional plot, the “speeches” of the characters, and elements of psychology. This shows the author’s efforts to change the nature of historical narrative, make it more interesting and fictional. The style is rhetorical and literary, with elements of military tales and official writing. Steeped in the patriotic pathos glorifying a heroic exploit of the Russian people, the tale stresses the political significance of Moscow and the Muscovite great prince who united all the Russian princes and therefore was able to emerge victorious.

The Tale of the Battle Against Mamai was included in a seventeenth century Synopsis, and subsequently 175 underwent many literary reworkings: nineteenth century playwright V. A. Ozerov used the tale for the basis of a patriotic tragedy called Dmitry Donskoi; Soviet writer S. Borodin used it for a historical novel, also called Dmitry Donskoi; V. Sayanov wrote a long poem, The Tale of the Battle with Mamai. In Alexander Blok’s cycle On Kulikovo field we also find traces of this work.

The Tale of How King Tokhtamysh Took Moscow

p The Russian victory at Kulikovo Field encouraged the growth of national awareness, stressing the idea that princes must conquer their differences if they were to conquer their enslavers. This theme was vividly embodied in the historical Tale of how King Tokhtamysh Took Moscow and Captured the Land of Rus. Written in 1382, the tale has two redactions: the first was probably composed in ruling circles, the second is extant in the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle, the Sophian First Chronicle, and the Voskresensky Chronicles, and is democratic and factual in nature. This redaction was probably written by townsmen and reflects a new tendency: the democratisation of the historical tale. Attention is focused on a collective hero—the ordinary participants in the event: craftsmen and merchants. Citizens convene a meeting and take the initiative in the fight against the Tatars who have beseiged Moscow. They end the disorder in the city: Dmitry Ivanovich, who has not been supported by the other princes, leaves Moscow to gather strength. The populace refuses to let out those who want to leave the beseiged city and begin a courageous struggle against the enemy. The tale glorifies the exploit of Muscovite Adam the Weaver, who spotted an enemy soldier fighting gloriously and well “loosed an arrow at him and wounded his wrathful heart and killed him”, causing great woe for the beseigers.

p Only by cunning and deceit do the enemy forces capture the city: the Muscovites believe the Suzdal princelings who have joined the Tatar camp and open 176 the gates. The violence of the enemy is vividly depicted; they destroy everything with fire and sword, sparing neither the elderly, the young, nor women.

p The Tale of How King Tokhtamysh Took Moscow condemns the quarrels of the princes with one another, the treacherous politics of Oleg of Ryazan who has let Tokhtamysh cross his lands, and the betrayal of the sons of Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal who convinced the Muscovites to open the gates to the enemy.

p Facts are combined with expressive artistic details, and a lyrical, emotional lament for the devastated city. There are neither miracles nor pious sentiments; only at the very beginning does the author speak of a heavenly sign—a star with a tail appears, rising like a spear.

The democratic tendencies in this tale were not developed in the historical genres of Muscovite literature during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. One can find them later in the literature of Pskov, but they do not appear in full force until the seventeenth century.

Sources

p 1. Voinskie povesti Drevnei Rusi (Military Tales of Old Rus). Ed. by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1949.

p 2. Povesti o Kulikovskoi bitve (Tales of the Kulikovo Battle). Ed. by M. N. Tikhomirov, V. F. Rzhiga and L. D. Dmitriev, M.,1959.

p 3. Russkie povesti XV-XVI vv. (Russian Tales of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries). Compiled by M. O. Skripil, M., 1948.

p 4. ’Slovo o polku Igoreve’ i pamyatniki Kulikovskogo tsikla. K voprosu o vremeni napisaniya ’Slova’ (’The Lay of Igor’s Host’ and Works of the Kulikovo Cycle: The Date when the Lay Was Composed), M.-L., 1966.

5.Ya. S. Lurye. Obshcherusskie letopisnye svody XIV-XV vv. (Common Russian Chronicle Compilations of the fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries), L., 1976.