Rostov Chronicle about the Battle of Kulikovo. Battle of Kulikovo - the battle that never happened

Information about the Battle of Kulikovo is contained in 4 main works of ancient Russian writing, textual criticism and dating of which this chapter is dedicated to.

These are the “Short chronicle story” and “Long chronicle story” about the Battle of Kulikovo, “Zadonshchina” and “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”. In addition, a short secondary story about her contains “The Tale of the Life and Repose of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich,” and the story about the meeting before the battle of Dmitry Donskoy with Sergius of Radonezh and about sending Peresvet and Oslyaby to the battle is contained in the Life of Sergius of Radonezh. This source will also be characterized and involved in analyzing the reliability of this episode.

Brief mentions of the Battle of Kulikovo were also preserved by two Prussian chroniclers, contemporaries of the event: Johann Poschilge and Dietmar of Lübeck. I quote them translated from German:

Chronicle of Johann Poschilge	Chronicle of Dietmar of Lübeck
That same year there was a big war in many countries: the Russians especially fought with the Tatars at Blue Water, and about 40 thousand people were killed on both sides. However, the Russians held the field. And when they were leaving the battle, they encountered the Lithuanians, who were called there by the Tatars to help, and they killed a lot of Russians and took from them a lot of booty, which they took from the Tatars.	At the same time, there was a great battle at Blue Water between the Russians and the Tatars, and then four hundred thousand people were killed on both sides; then the Russians won the battle. When they wanted to go home with a large booty, they encountered the Lithuanians, who were called to help by the Tatars, and took their booty from the Russians, and killed many of them in the field.

Chronicle of Johann Poschilge

Chronicle of Dietmar of Lübeck

That same year there was a big war in many countries: the Russians especially fought with the Tatars at Blue Water, and about 40 thousand people were killed on both sides. However, the Russians held the field. And when they were leaving the battle, they encountered the Lithuanians, who were called there by the Tatars to help, and they killed a lot of Russians and took from them a lot of booty, which they took from the Tatars.

At the same time, there was a great battle at Blue Water between the Russians and the Tatars, and then four hundred thousand people were killed on both sides; then the Russians won the battle. When they wanted to go home with a large booty, they encountered the Lithuanians, who were called to help by the Tatars, and took their booty from the Russians, and killed many of them in the field.

Dietmar of Lübeck, a Franciscan monk of the Thorn monastery, completed his chronicle in Latin until 1395. Then his successor translated it into Low German until 1400. Johann Poschilge, an official from Pomesania who lived in Riesenburg, also wrote his chronicle in Latin from the 60-70s. XIV century until 1406. Then his successor translated it into High German until 1419 [Begunov, 22]. Their information about the Battle of Kulikovo goes back, obviously, to a message brought from Rus' by Hanseatic merchants to a congress in Lübeck in 1381. It was preserved in a highly distorted form in the “Vandalia” of a German historian of the late 15th century. A. Krantz [Begunov, 22. Page. 508]. I have never found a reasonable explanation for the Prussian chroniclers naming the battle site “Blue Water.” In the "Book of the Big Drawing" a river with the same name is mentioned, but it is a tributary of the Southern Bug (now the Sinyukha River).

A SHORT NARRATIVE

Created at the very beginning of the 15th century, most likely before 1409, which dates back to the Trinity Chronicle, which was destroyed in the fire of Moscow in 1812. We know that it was contained in it from Karamzin’s extracts from the Trinity Chronicle in the notes to the “History of the State” Russian" [Priselkov M.D. Trinity Chronicle. M. L. 1950]. Its texts, which coincide almost word for word, were preserved in the Rogozh Chronicle (mid-15th century) and the Simeonovskaya Chronicle (early 16th century).

The story of the Simeonovskaya Chronicle is very similar to its story about the battle on the Vozha River and apparently came from the pen of the same author, like the entire text for the second half of the 14th century, representing numerous stylistic parallels to the Brief Tale. Since the Simeonovskaya Chronicle in this part goes back to the Trinity Chronicle, it should be assumed that all these stories were formed simultaneously as part of the “corpus of 1408”.

In the work of B.M. Klossa Trinity Chronicle based on stylistic features and the attention it pays to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and the Reverend himself, as well as the fact that, according to Karamzin, under the year 6900 it contained a word of praise to Sergius of Radonezh “on 20 sheets” ( apparently a famous word of praise written by Epiphanius the Wise), attributed to Epiphanius the Wise and dates from 1412-1414. Considering the fact that the Trinity Chronicle has not survived and we know only the processing of its fragments as part of the Rogozh Chronicle and the Simeon Chronicle, such an attribution looks too bold. Kloss's arguments in its favor are very superficial [see. Kloss, 7. Pp. 100-102, 241-255].

Be that as it may, this does not fundamentally change the dating of the time of creation of the Tale.
I give its full text here:

About the great massacre on the Don.

That same summer, the godless, evil Orda prince Mamai the filthy, gathered many armies and all the land of the Polovets and Tatars and hired armies, Fryaz and Cherkasy and Yasy, and with all these went against the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and the whole Russian land. And when the month of August came, the Horde came to lead the prince to the great Dmitry Ivanovich, and the army of the Tatars was moving up against the Christians, the filthy race of Maltes, and the wicked Mamai was fiercely angry at the great prince Dmitry about his friends and lovers and about the princes who had been beaten on the river this on Vozha, moving with great strength, although to captivate the Russian land. Having heard the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich, he gathered together many people and went against them, although he was fighting for his fatherland and for the holy churches and for the orthodox Christian faith and for the entire Russian land. And having crossed the Oka, another message came to him, telling him that Mamaia had gathered beyond the Don, standing in the field and waiting for Jagiel to come to his aid, the Lithuanian army. The great prince went beyond the Don and the field was clean and large and green, and there was the abomination of the Polovtsy, the Tatars of the Platsi, but the field was clean at the mouth of the Nepryadva. And then the wallpaper began to cry, and rushed to fight, and the wallpaper gave way, and for a long time the battle was fierce and the slaughter of evil. All day long there was cutting and falling of the dead, countless numbers from both. And God help the great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, and Mamaev’s lapis escaped, and ours after, beating, slashing, without mercy. God, with an invisible power, terrified the sons of Hagar, and when they ran, they turned their shoulders into wounds, and fell with many weapons, and trampled the Druzians in the river. And she drove them to the river to Mecha and there killed a lot of them, and drowned the friends in the water and flooded them. Drive away the foreigners with the wrath of God and overcome the fear of existence, and flee Mamaia in a small squad to her Tatar land. Behold, the massacre of the month of September happened on the 8th day, on the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God, on Saturday before lunch. And that murder was carried out by Prince Feodor Romanovich Belozersky, his son Prince Ivan Feodorovich, Semyon Mikhailovich, Mikula Vasilievich, Mikhailo Ivanovich Okinfovich, Andrei Serkizov, Timofey Volui, Mikhailo Brenkov, Lev Morozov, Semyon Melik, Alexander Peresvet and others mnozi. The great prince Dmitry Ivanovich with the other Russian princes and with the governors and with the boyars and with the nobles and with the remaining Russian plakas, standing on the bone, thank God and praise with praises his squad, who fought hard with the foreigners and fought firmly, and were courageously brave and mocking God for the Christian faith, and returning from there to Moscow to his homeland with a great victory, victorious, defeating his enemies. And many of his warriors rejoiced, as if they had gained a lot of bark, having driven with them many herds of horses, oxen and oxen, of which there is no number, and armor, and ports, and goods. Then she told the great prince that Prince Oleg of Ryazansky sent Mamaia his strength to help, and he himself swept bridges on the rivers. The great prince wanted to send his army to Olga. And suddenly at that time the boyars of Ryazan came to him and told him that Prince Oleg had overthrown his land, and he himself fled with the princess and with the children and with the boyars and with his Duma members. And begging him about this, so that he would not send an army against them, but they themselves would beat him with their brows and stand in a row with him. The great prince, having listened to them and accepted their petition, did not abandon their words, did not send an army against them, but he himself went to his land, and installed his governors in the Ryazan princedom. Then Mamai, not in great numbers, fled from the Don battle and ran to her land in a small squad, seeing herself beaten and fled and shamed and desecrated, again angry, frantic, furious and embarrassed, and having gathered her remaining strength, she still wanted to go expelled back to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and the entire Russian land. I plotted something for him and the news came to him that a certain king from the east, named Toktamysh from the Blue Horde, was coming against him. Mamai, who had prepared an army for him, went with that army ready against him, and gathered at Kalki. The Mamaev princes dismounted from their horses and beat King Toktamysh with their foreheads and gave him the truth according to their faith, and wrote to him in company, and swore for him, and Mamaia left, as if he had been scolded, Mamai, seeing that, and soon ran away with with their Duma members and like-minded people. King Toktamysh sent after him in pursuit and killed Mamai, and he himself went and took Mamaev’s Horde and his queens and his treasury and captured the entire ulus, and divided Mamaev’s wealth to his squad. And from there, send your ambassadors to the Russian land to the great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich and to all the Russian princes, telling them your arrival and how you reigned, and how Mamai defeated his opponent and their enemy, and he himself went to the kingdom of the Volga. The princes of Russia sent his ambassadors away with honor and with gifts, and for that winter and that spring they sent each of their kiliches with many gifts to King Toktamysh.

The list of those killed in the story of the Trinity Chronicle completely coincides with the list of those killed in the Battle of Kulikovo, preserved in the parchment Synodik of the 14th-15th centuries. [State Historical Museum, collection. Synodal Library, No. 667]. The only thing missing is the name of Alexander Peresvet, added in the Trinity Chronicle. I quote the full text from the Synodic concerning those who fell on the Kulikovo Field: " Prince Theodore Belozersky and his son Ivan [a footnote to this name in a different hand: Konstantin Konanovich], killed by the godless Mamai, eternal [memory]. And in the same battle, Simeon Mikhailovich, Nikula Vasilyevich, Timofey Vasilyevich were beaten [ note in a different hand: to Valuev], Andrei Ivanovich Serkizov, Mikhail Ivanovich and another Mikhail Ivanovich, Lv Ivanovich, Semyon Melik and their entire squad, who died in piety for the holy churches and for the Orthodox faith, eternal [memory]. " So, this list can be considered generally historically reliable.

Since we are talking about Epiphanius the Wise, I present here the text of an interesting entry made on the leaves of the Trinity sticherarion of the 14th century. by a certain scribe Epiphanes, whom B.M. Kloss identifies with Epiphanius the Wise, under September 21, 1380:
"September month on 21 days on Friday in memory of the apostle Kondrat's liturgy started quickly [t] pis[a]t[t] tatr[ad] 6. That’s [...] [...] the Simonovsky arrived, that’s the day the cellarer went to Rezan, on the same [day] the monk u[...] [...]d[e]n Isakii Andronikov came to us, on the same day the news came ], for Letva is coming from the Hagarians [...]"
[Stolyarova L.V. Records of historical content of the 11th-14th centuries on ancient Russian parchment codices. In the book: The Ancient States of Eastern Europe. M. 1997]

Based on this record, it is sometimes concluded that the news of Mamai’s arrival reached the Trinity-Sergius Monastery only on September 21, 1380. Other researchers see here a message about the diplomatic mission of the Trinity cellarer sent to Ryazan with the aim of preventing the Lithuanians from uniting with the troops of Oleg Ryazansky for a joint attack on the Moscow Principality [N. Shlyakov. Unexplained news from the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh. In the book: Addition to the Church Gazette. St. Petersburg 1892. No. 41; N.S. Borisov. Sergius of Radonezh (In the series "Life of Remarkable People")].
In my opinion, the text does not provide any special grounds for either one. It is too unclear due to its poor preservation and will not be used as a source in the future.

A LONG STORY

The original and most complete texts of the Tale are contained in the Novgorod IV and Sofia I chronicles. The texts of the Tale in the remaining chronicles containing it are abridged or revised editions, going back to the texts of the Tale as part of the above chronicles. For a detailed review of them, see the work of Salmina. They are of no interest, with one exception. In the Novgorod Chronicle of Dubrovsky (XVI century), several insertions were made into the text of the Tale, the most significant of which are: the story about the “organization of the regiments” before the battle, the story about the “hidden regiment” of Vladimir Andreevich and the story about the search for Grand Duke Dmitry on the battlefield. All inserts go back to the text of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev,” with the exception of the painting of the regiments, which, according to L.A. Dmitrieva, taken from the official category. Here is the text of this insert:

And that prince became great, discharging the regiments according to his wealth and establishing governors. And then in his advanced regiment, according to divine faith, were the self-bred Princes Ondrey and Dmitry Olgerdovich, and the boyar and governor Mikula Vasilyevich, and Prince Fyodor Romanovich Belozersky. And the Great Prince Dmitry had in his regiment a certain boyar and governor Ivan Rodivonovich Kvashnya, and his boyar and governor Mikhail Bryank, and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Smolensky. And in the right hand of the governor make: Prince Andrei Fedorovich of Rostov, and Fedor Grunka, and Prince Ondrei Fedorovich Starodubsky; in the left hand of the governor make: Prince Vasilyevich Yaroslavsky, and Lev Morozov, and Prince Fyodor Mikhailovich Molozhsky. Then in the guard regiment the governors instituted: Mikhail Ivanov, son of Okinfovich, and Prince Semyon Kostyantinovich Obolensky, and his brother Prince Ivan Torussky, and Andrei Serkiz, and discharged many of his other regiments and inflicted the governors: in the ambush regiment in the oak forests, hiding the noble and brave brother his prince Vladimer Andreevich, and with him a certain husband, the wise and brave Dmitry Mikhailovich Volynets, and Prince Roman Mikhailovich Bryansky, and Prince Vasily Mikhailovich Kashinsky, and Prince Romanovich Novosilsky. Having become angry, I went against myself.

In the Second Preface to the 2000 edition of the IV Novgorod Chronicle B.M. Kloss, based on the work of G.M. Prokhorov “Chronicle collections of the GPB manuscript F.IV.603 and the problem of a consolidated all-Russian chronicle” [TODRL. t. 32. L. 1977], showed that the oldest type of the Novgorod IV Chronicle was preserved in its Karamzin list (published in). This text of the Tale will be used in the future.

The lengthy chronicle story is an artistic and journalistic work, in the creation of which reminiscences from the Life of Alexander Nevsky and the proverbial Reading about Boris and Gleb, as well as numerous biblical quotations, were used. In the description of the grief of Russian women and in the "cry of Mamai" the apocryphal "Word on the Nativity of Christ about the coming of the Magi" is used.

M.A. Salmina in her work convincingly substantiates the secondary nature of the Long chronicle story in relation to the Brief one, showing that it is a dissemination of the latter (mainly of a rhetorical nature), and its author does not seem to have enough patience to fully withstand this “high calm”, as a result of which As it approaches the end, the lengthy story becomes more and more close in style to a short story. “Saturated with religious rhetoric, sharply condemnatory epithets of enemies, especially Oleg Ryazansky, at the end this story loses its tone and, obeying the presentation of the story “about the great massacre on the Don,” loses these signs of its ideological and artistic structure,” writes M. .A. Salmina.

Novgorod IV and Sofia I chronicles, according to A.A. Shakhmatov [A.A. Shakhmatov. Review of Russian chronicles of the XIV-XVI centuries. M.-L. 1938], go back to one “vault of 1448” (dating is speculative).

New names have been added to the list of those killed in the Long Tale: “Prince Fyodor Torussky, his brother Mstislav, Prince Dmitry Monastyrev,” “Ivan Alexandrovich,” “Dmitry Mininich.” Of these, Dmitry Mininich (correct: Minich) was killed in the battle with Olgerd in 1368 [Simeonovskaya Chronicle, 10], and Dmitry Monastyrev - in the battle on the Vozha River in 1378 (mentioned in the Synodikon among those killed in this battle). Prince Fyodor of Tarusa was killed in a battle with the Tatars near Belev in 1437 ([Simeonovskaya Chronicle, 10], but his brother Mstislav does not appear in her story). Textual analysis of the copies of the Tale, carried out by M.A. Salmina, shows the presence of his name in the protograph, which allows us to date the creation of the Tale to a time no earlier than this date.

The Tale’s hatred of Oleg Ryazansky is incomprehensible, especially given the fact that in the 30-40s. XV century Moscow's relations with the Ryazan principality became increasingly stronger. M.A. Salmina in her work puts forward the assumption that the Tale journalistically reflects the struggle of Vasily II and Dmitry Shemyaka, and on this basis dates the creation of the Tale to the second half of the 40s. XV century. This assumption seems a stretch. However, taking into account all of the above, the dating of the creation of the Tale to the 40s of the 15th century. should be considered the most acceptable.

Salmina’s opinion was challenged by A.G. Bobrov and B.M. Klossom. The first in his work proposes to date the chronicle code, to which the Novgorod IV and Sophia I chronicles go back, to 1418 and connects its origin with the activities of Metropolitan Photius. Then his strong anti-Lithuanian orientation becomes clear. The dissatisfaction of Metropolitan Photius was caused by the division of the metropolis and the installation of Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblak in its western part by the will of Vytautas. Only after his death in 1419 did relations between the metropolis and Lithuania begin to normalize.

B.M. Kloss attributes the writing of a number of messages of Metropolitan Photius and a number of stories for the 1418 collection to the same Epiphanius the Wise and even calls him the “secretary” of Metropolitan Photius. In particular, Epiphany is also credited with the Long Tale of the Battle of Kulikovo, as well as the “Tale of the Life and Repose of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich” (the same sources were used in their compilation: The Tale of the Life of Alexander Nevsky, the proverbial Reading about Boris and Gleb, apocryphal "Word for the Nativity of Christ about the coming of the Magi"). Kloss's attributions are made on the basis of ideological and stylistic considerations, which, however, look quite convincing [Kloss, 7. Page. 110-128]. However, if we accept them, it turns out that Epiphanius, in fact, compiled two chronicles of different ideological orientation and stylistic coloring with an interval of five years. This seems unlikely, so I’ll risk putting forward my own assumption: the Trinity Chronicle was compiled within the walls of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (or by a person closely associated with it), but not by Epiphanius, but by some other scribe, who included in it Epiphanius’ Eulogy to Sergius of Radonezh , and the text of the Trinity Chronicle, in turn, was used by Epiphanius the Wise when working on the “words” included in the chronicle of Metropolitan Photius. This also corresponds to the prevailing ideas about the evolution of Epiphanius’s style from the unrestrained “weaving of words” in the Life of Stephen of Perm to a calmer and more mature use of expressive techniques in later works, while exactly the opposite is observed between the texts of the Trinity Chronicle and the stories of the “1418 Code” that go back to them ratio.

Thus, the Long Chronicle Tale, in any case, dates back to the first half of the 15th century, and, if we accept the constructions of A.G. Bobrova and B.M. Kloss, the Short and Long stories, as works close in time to the creation of works, perhaps even by the same author, should be considered collectively, as I will do in the future.

ZADONSHCHINA

“Zadonshchina” is preserved in 6 lists:

1. RSL, Undolsky Collection, No. 632, 17th century, the most complete list [U]
2. State Historical Museum, Museum Collection, No. 2060, end of the 16th century, without beginning [I-1]
3. State Historical Museum, Museum Collection, No. 3045, early 16th century, excerpt [I-2]
4. Geneva, BAN No. 1.4.1, excerpt, XVII century. [AND]
5. NLR, Collection of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery No. 9/1086, 70-80. XV century [K-B]
(This is an abridged reworking of the first half of the work, made by the famous scribe Efrosyn)
6. State Historical Museum, Synodal Collection, No. 790, XVII century. [WITH]

Each individual copy of "Zadonshchina" has many distortions and defects, which makes it impossible to reliably reconstruct the original text of the work. "Zadonshchina" is a poetic response to the events of the Battle of Kulikovo. The text of the monument contains many quotes and reminiscences from “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” sometimes distorted and reinterpreted, which indicates an insufficient understanding of the ancient and difficult text of the “Tale” by the author and/or later scribes.

L.A. Dmitriev [for example, in the SKiKDR, article “Zadonshchina”], and V.A. Kuchkin ["Towards the dating of Transdonshchina". In the book: Problems of studying cultural heritage. M. 1985] defend the point of view according to which “Zadonshchina” was written shortly after the Battle of Kulikovo. There are two main arguments: the “poetry” of Zadonshchina itself, which supposedly testifies to a living epic response to an event fresh in memory, and a list of cities that were “glory-filled” about the defeat of Mamai. The first argument can be ignored if we remember what periods of time separate the Iliad or the Song of Roland from the events to which they are dedicated, and the second argument deserves close consideration.

I will quote the relevant places from Zadonshchina: "Shibla glory to the Iron Gates, to Rome and to Kafa by sea, and to Tornav, and from there to Constantinople"[I-1]; “And the head [glory] went to the Iron Gates, or to Karanachi, to Rome and x Safa by sea and to Kotornov, and from there to Tsarjugad” [U]; "Shibla glory to the pestilence and Vornavich and to the Iron Gates, to the Cafe and to the Turks and to Tsargrad"[WITH]. In the K-B list, in place of this fragment, the following text: “I wrote the waters, gave the news to the empty lands, beyond the Volga, to the Iron Gates, to Rome, to Cheremis, to Chiakhov, to Lyakhov, to Ustyug to the filthy Tatars, beyond the breathing sea.”

This fragment is a reminiscence of the corresponding place in the text of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: “Div is beating, calling to the top of the tree, ordering you to listen to the unknown land, Vlaza, and Pomoria, and Posulia, and Surozh, and Korsun, and you, Tmutorokansky blan.” And in the text of the K-B list, it was contaminated with a paraphrased quote from “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land”: “From here to the Ugor and to the Poles, to the Chakhs, from the Chakhs to the Yatvyaz and from the Yatvyaz to Lithuania, to the Germans, from the Germans to the Korela , from Korela to Ustyug, where there is a bahu toymitsi of desecration, and beyond the breathing sea."

The presence in this list of the city of Tarnovo, the capital of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, captured by the Turks in 1393, and Urgench (Karanach, Voronavich. Identification by G.N. Moiseeva [On the issue of dating the Trans-Don region. TODRL. vol. 34. L. 1979]), destroyed by Timur in 1388, supposedly allows us to date the creation of “Zadonshchina” to a time before 1388. However, M.A. Salmina in her work demonstrates the textual dependence of “Zadonshchina” on the Long Chronicle Tale, and it is the list of K-B in a number of places that shows the greatest closeness to it, while the remaining lists contain equally corrupted text. This leads to the dating of “Zadonshchina” to the 15th century, which is supported by other researchers. Let's figure it out.

At first glance, it seems that Efrosin, shortening the text of the first part of “Zadonshchina”, which was at his disposal, simply replaced this fragment, however, the damage to the text speaks against this (“to Ustyug of the filthy Tatars” from “to Ustyug, where there are bahu toymitsi of filth” ), impossible under the pen of Efrosin, who lived in the north of Rus', relatively close to Ustyug. In addition, in the extensive literary heritage of Euphrosynus there are no traces of his acquaintance with either “The Lay of the Destruction of the Russian Land” or “The Lay of Igor’s Host” [Kagan M.D., Ponyrko N.V., Rozhdestvenskaya M.V. Description of collections of the 15th century. book writer Efrosyn. TODRL. t. 35. L. 1980]. That. It is more logical to assume that the fragment, originally constructed on the basis of two monuments, which already contained a damaged text, was mechanically rewritten by Efrosynus, rather than to assume that the editor of “Zadonshchina” had a secondary appeal to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” [Nikitin, 19. Pp. 572-585].

In this case, all other lists of “Zadonshchina” should be attributed to a later edition of the monument, in which the original text was replaced by a “list of cities”, which from the original text included the Iron Gates (Derbent) and Rome (most likely the chronicle Rimov, borrowed originally from "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", where "at Rome they shout under Polovtsian sabers").

What unites all these cities and when could such a list be especially relevant? "All of them were captured by foreign (non-religious) conquerors, which in some cases led to their death. Rome (the chronicle Rimov) suffered in 1185 from the Polovtsians, [...] Ornach/Urgench was destroyed by Tamerlane in 1388 and approximately At the same time, Derbent fell ("Iron Gates"); Tarnovo was captured in 1393, [...] Constantinople was captured by the Turks in 1453; Kafa (Feodosia) - in 1475." [Nikitin, 19. Page. 581]. Rome and Derbent, as stated above, most likely have nothing to do with it. The relevance of the mention of Urgench can also be debated, but all other cities were well known in Rus' and fairly close religious, economic and political ties were maintained with them. And it was to these cities that the “glory” of the victory over the Tatars came, bringing hopes of liberation from the “yoke of the Ishmaelites.” These ideas were especially relevant at the end of the 15th century, when Moscow became the “third and last Rome”, and from 1462, tribute payments to the Horde, the end of which was just around the corner, stopped.

Thus, this observation allows us to date the creation of “Zadonshchina” to the 20-60s. XV century (given the appeal to the “heroic past”, most likely closer to the end of this period), and the design of its second edition took place after 1475. This is also consistent with the presence in his text of a deliberately unreliable episode with “Novgorod help”, which is absent from the K-B list.

However, that's not all. It can be assumed with a reasonable degree of confidence that during this period at least two editions of the monument were created: the original and the abridged one. The reasoning of A.L. leads to this conclusion. Nikitina. In the text of "Zadonshchina" a certain "Zephaniah of Ryazan" is mentioned. His name is even included in the titles of two lists [K-B and C] as the author, and in the three best-preserved lists he is specifically commemorated by analogy with the commemoration of Boyan in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” A number of researchers, following A.A. Shakhmatov, he is considered the author of the hypothetical “Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev,” which allegedly was one of the two main sources in the creation of “Zadonshchina,” along with “Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” But isn’t this hypothesis “unnecessarily multiplying entities”? Another solution to the problem is possible.

Another mention of Zephaniah is in article 6888 (1380) of the Tver Chronicle:
In the summer of 6888. And this is the writing of Zephanius the Rezant, a Bryansk boyar, for the praise of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimir Andreevich: “Do you know, Russian sovereigns, Tsar Mamai came from [Trans]Volga, stood on the river in Voronezh, and “He didn’t order his whole ulus to plow the grain; but what I know is that he wants to go to Rus', and you, sirs, would send him to find if he’s standing here, where you told me about him.”

Next in the manuscript is the text crossed out with cinnabar:
By the same token, there is a narrowed place between the Don and the Dnieper, on the Kulikovo field, on the river on Nepryadva; but they laid down their heads for the Russian land and for the Christian faith. And we will go to our fatherland, to the land of Zaleska, to the glorious city of Moscow, and sit down in our great reign; I have earned myself honor and a glorious name. End".

The crossed out text corresponds to the end of "Zadonshchina" according to lists U and I-1, and the first fragment is borrowed, obviously, from the beginning of the archetypal text of "Zadonshchina", now known only from the abbreviated form of lists U and Zh. Let us quote it for comparison according to list U: " The great prince Dmitry Ivanovich with his brother prince Vladimer Andreevich and their governors were at a feast at Mikula Vasilyevich. We know, brother, from the fast Don, Tsar Mamai came to the Russian land , but is coming to us in the Zaleska land."

That. it can be assumed that the compiler of the Tver Chronicle had in his hands a more complete list of “Zadonshchina”, close to the list U, from which he borrowed the beginning and end, and then crossed out the last fragment, because After him, he included in the chronicle the Disseminated edition of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev.” From the surviving fragment it is clear what exactly Zephaniah the Rezanets wrote. This is a report about the arrival of Mamai, apparently transmitted through him by the Ryazan prince Oleg. The report, as you can see, is extremely accurate. In this regard, the reverence with which he is remembered in “Zadonshchina” is also understandable. The appearance of Zephaniah in the title of some lists as the author is explained by the editorial reduction of the scene of the feast and the news received at it, which was in the original, as a result of which the name of Zephaniah was moved to the title, because "scripture" was understood to refer to the entire text of a work.

Who was this Zephaniah? You can use the hypothesis of A.D. Sedelnikova [Where was “Zadonshchina” written? Slavia, IX. Praha. 1930] and V.F. Rzhigi [About Zephaniah of Ryazan. In the book: Stories about the Battle of Kulikovo. M. 1959], who identified him with Sophony Altykulachevich, a baptized native of the Horde, a boyar of the Ryazan prince Oleg Ivanovich, known from the text of the letter of grant to the Ryazan Olgov Monastery in the early 70s. XIV century. His report was received at a feast at Mikula Vasilievich Velyaminov - the son of the last Moscow thousand, married to the sister of Dmitry Donskoy's wife. At that time N.V. Velyaminov was a governor in Kolomna [Veselovsky, 31], on the border with the Ryazan principality, incl. his contacts with the Ryazan boyar should not come as a surprise. It is not clear why in the Tver Chronicle Zephaniah is called a “Bryansk boyar”, but perhaps this is the result of an inattentive abbreviation of the text...

THE TALE OF MAMAYEV'S MASSACRE

The legend is known in more than 150 copies, divided by L.A. Dmitriev into 8 editions, some of which are represented, in turn, by several editions. In general, as Dmitriev notes, the lists of the Legend are distinguished by a huge number of discrepancies. L.A. Dmitriev and M.A. Salmina convincingly substantiate the greatest proximity to the author’s text of the Main edition of the work, represented by 5 editions, of which the most important are O and U. Between them there are a number of minor discrepancies described in, in addition, in U a detailed description of the return of Russian troops from the Kulikovo field has been added, which represents a reverse description of their arrival there. The U also says that the decision to send the first “watchman” from Moscow was made at a feast at the voivode N.V. Velyaminova. Both editions O and U independently of each other go back to a common protograph, but U was edited according to the Chronicle edition of the Legend, as shown by B.M. Kloss in the textual commentary to the publication of the list U. The reference lists of the O and U editions based on paleographic characteristics date back to the 20-30s. XVI century [Kloss, 30].

In addition to the O and U editions, the Main Edition includes the Printed, Zabelinsky and Mikhailovsky editions. The printed edition is distinguished by a large number of secondary inserts from “Zadonshchina”. In Zabelinsky (XVII century), the title and beginning are borrowed from the Long Chronicle Tale, there is a large mechanical insertion from the Legend in the edition of the “Synopsis” (XVII century), in addition, there are a number of other inserted episodes and revisions that clearly reflect later conjectures, for example, a detailed listing of people who allegedly saw Grand Duke Dmitry during the battle. Mikhailovsky's version is distinguished by a consistent reduction of religious and rhetorical passages.

The chronicle edition goes back to the edition O of the Main edition [Salmina, 24]. It is known only as part of the third edition of the Vologda-Perm Chronicle (30s of the 16th century) and in the appendices to its other editions.

The Cyprian edition of the Tale is part of the Nikon Chronicle and was created especially for it by Metropolitan Daniel, or someone from his entourage between 1526-1530. It goes back to the version of the Main Edition. In this edition, the text of the Tale is consistently shortened and at the same time supplemented with information from the Long Chronicle Tale. A special feature of this edition is the highlighting of Metropolitan Cyprian in the events of that time, who was not actually in Moscow in 1380.

The widespread edition of the Legend is distinguished by the addition of new episodes and the expansion of existing ones due to all kinds of details. The most significant additions to the Distributed Edition are stories about the embassy of Zakhary Tyutchev and the help of the Novgorodians. It was created no later than the beginning of the 17th century, which dates back to the Tver collection in which it is included.

All four described editions, with the exception of the Zabelinsky and Mikhailovsky editions of the Main Edition, which have come down to us in extremely late copies, can be dated back to the end of the 15th - 16th centuries. Precise dating of the origin of each edition and revision considered is practically impossible. The remaining four editions of the Legend were created in the 17th-19th centuries. and are not of direct interest [SKiKDR, 29, issue 2, vol. 2].

In the work of M.A. Salmina convincingly shows the textual dependence of the Main Edition of the Legend on the Long Chronicle of the Battle of Kulikovo, which was thus one of the main sources for its creation. Other sources were “Zadonshchina” [Dmitriev, 23] and the Life of Alexander Nevsky II of the second edition, which is part of the Sophia I Chronicle [Begunov, 22].

In the Legend there are a lot of names known only from this work, the number of which, moreover, suspiciously increases from earlier editions and lists to later ones; small appanage principalities that did not exist in 1380 are mentioned. The legend also contains a number of anachronisms: in all its editions (except for the Chronicle and Cyprian, which are part of the chronicles, where the name of the Lithuanian prince is mechanically corrected, which in some places contradicts the context), Mamai’s ally is not Jagiello, but Olgerd, who died in three years before the Battle of Kulikovo. This is a conscious literary device designed to enhance the drama of the narrative: the Olgerdovich brothers, who sided with the Moscow Grand Duke, went to a just cause against the will of their father, not their brother!). In the Main Edition, instead of Kolomna Bishop Gerasim Dmitry Ivanovich, Bishop Geronty, who occupied the Kolomna See from 1453 to 1473, blesses him for battle. Leaving Moscow, Dmitry Donskoy prays in front of the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, which, as is known, was transferred to Moscow only in 1395. It mentions the Konstantinovsky (Konstantinoleninsky) gates of the Moscow Kremlin, which back in 1476 were called Timofeevsky [Moscow Chronicle of the late 15th century , PSRL vol. 25; S.P. Bartenev. The Moscow Kremlin in the old days and now. M. 1912]. Etc. And so on.

All this convinces us that the work was originally created as a “historical novel”, and, although this is the most colorful and detailed story about the events of the Battle of Kulikovo, its details should be treated with extreme caution. Where could these names and details even come from in a work written a century after the event? Let us remember that the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries. - this is the heyday of the boyar “liberties”, which Ivan the Terrible would subsequently fight with varying success, a time of endless parochial disputes and claims, to justify which both official chronicles and discharge books, and their home-grown analogues (family trees) were used. In the latter, all sorts of legends, and even outright forgeries, flourished especially magnificently, often later migrating “over the years” to official documentation. The standard for such “historical evidence” can be considered the official legend about the origin of the ruling dynasty of the Moscow state from the brother of the Roman Emperor Augustus. Tracing how numerous episodic characters appear in various lists of the Legend, found among the ancestors of various noble families of the 15th-17th centuries, one involuntarily becomes convinced that their source was precisely these “home-grown” categories, and in other cases, perhaps, the oral wishes of customers specific lists.

The initial basis for the list of names in the Legend is clearly connected with the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, which is not surprising given the general reverence of its author for St. Sergius. B.M. Kloss notes in his work that the characters in the Legend are the ancestors of a number of princes, boyars and merchants, whose names are contained in the Trinity Parchment Synodik [RSL, Fond 304/III, No. 25]. The reality of the existence of these “ancestors”, as a rule, cannot be verified. However, despite all of the above, it should be noted that the information from the described sources may well contain reliable historical evidence preserved by “ancestral memory”, incl. However, they should not be denied indiscriminately.

Thus, we can conclude that the author’s text of the Legend was created somewhere in the last quarter of the 15th - early 16th centuries. This dating can be clarified. In the article by B.M. Kloss substantiates the hypothesis that the Legend was written by Bishop Mitrofan of Kolomna in 1513-1518. His arguments are based, in fact, on the principle of “who benefits from this.” The weakness of the construction is the initial postulate that the author of the monument should be sought among famous book people of the early 16th century. The accuracy of the dating is justified by the raid of the Crimean Tatars in 1512 and the annexation of the Ryazan principality to Moscow around the same time, which supposedly explains the anti-Ryazan orientation of the work (it could have been “borrowed” from the Long Chronicle). The textual observations of B.M. deserve more attention. Kloss on the use in compiling the Tale of selections of “stories” extracted from the text of the protographs of the Museum Chronicler and the Vologda-Perm Chronicle, which make it possible to explain a number of factual errors in the Tale and date its compilation no earlier than the beginning of the 16th century. What B.M. points out also leads to the same conclusion. Kloss's glorification of the Saburov family in the text of the Legend (words of Prince Vladimir Andreevich in version O: “Brothers and friends, Russian sons, if anyone finds my brother alive, you will truly be the right one with us.”. Fyodor Sabur and Grigory Khlopishchev find Grand Duke Dmitry, after which Fyodor Sabur alone goes to Prince Vladimir Andreevich with the good news), allowing the composition of the Legend to be attributed to the period between the marriage of Vasily III to Solomonia Saburova in 1505 and their divorce in 1525. This the argument, although weak in itself, fits well with the other dating factors, which together appear quite convincing.

Thus, the Legend should be dated to the first quarter of the 16th century. In the future, I will use the text of the Main Edition of the Legend according to the NLR reference list Q.IV.22 (Published in). Readings of other editions and editions available to me will be involved as necessary.

THE LIFE OF SERGIUS OF RADONEZH

The life of Sergius of Radonezh has been almost exhaustively studied by B.M. Klossom. The original text of Epiphanius the Wise (1418-19) has not reached us. A large fragment of it (starting from the “Preface” to the chapter “On the thinness of the Sergiev port and about a certain villager”) was preserved as part of the Long Edition of the first third of the 16th century. and published by Kloss. However, there is no complete certainty that the author’s text in it was not distorted by later editors. However, this text does not contain the episode that interests us.

From the 15th century Several so-called Pachomius' editions, the number of which has not been definitively established, compiled by Pachomius Logothetes, who repeatedly revised the text of Epiphanius' Life, both adapting it for liturgical needs and adapting to the tastes and wishes of various customers. B.M. Kloss identifies five editions created successively during the years 1438-1459. There are also compilation editions based on several Pachomievs. The second Pachomius edition was the direct source of the Life of Sergius of Radonezh, placed in the Nikon Chronicle. It is in the Nikon Chronicle, compiled in the 20s of the 16th century. Metropolitan Daniel [B.M. Kloss. Nikonovsky arch and Russian chronicles of the 16th-17th centuries. M. 1980; Its original has been preserved - the so-called. Obolensky's list], for the first time there appears a mention of Sergius sending Peresvet and Oslyabi to the Battle of Kulikovo, apparently borrowed from “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev,” also included in the chronicle. This is not mentioned in the Pachomiev editions of the 15th century.

Here are the texts of the episode that interests us, which I will use in the future:

First Pachomius edition (circa 1438):

Once upon a time, the great prince came to the monastery to the Monk Sergius and said to him: “Father, great sadness will hold me: I heard that Mamai is moving up the entire Horde and is going to the Russian land, although he will destroy the churches, Christ will redeem them with His blood. In the same way, Holy Father, pray to God that this sadness is common to all Christians.” The monks answered: “Go against them and defeat God, who helps you, and return to your health with your warriors, just not be cowardly.” The prince answered: “If God helps me with your prayers, then when I come, I will build a church in the name of our Most Pure Lady Theotokos of the Holy Dormition, and I will establish a monastery of common life.” It was heard that Mamai was coming from the Tatars with great force. The prince, gathering his voice, went out against them. And according to the prophecy of St. Sergius, the Tatars were driven away and returned to health with their troops. And this is the prayer of Saint Sergius to find a place like this, and to create a church. And so, having found a place like this, she called the great prince and founded the church, and soon built a church in the name of the Most Pure One on Dubenka and established a community of life. Set up one abbot from your disciples in that monastery, and then return to his own monastery.

Third Pachomius edition (circa 1442):

About the victory of Grand Duke Dmitry against the godless Hagaryans

At a certain time, forgiving God for our sins, it was heard that from the Ordinsky Prince Momai, he raised up a great force, the entire Horde, and went to the Russian land, and all the people were in great fear. The great prince Dmitry, then holding the scepter of the Moscow land, therefore came to the venerable father Sergius at the monastery, asking for blessings and prayers from him, and if he would command him to drink against the filthy, knowing that her husband was virtuous and holy and honored with the gift of insight. The saints bless him, saying: “It is fitting for you, our Orthodox Tsar, to quickly depart from the filthy ones with courage, helping you to God, defeat the godless and return to your fatherland.” The great departed in battle, speaking to the elder: “If, father, God help us with your prayers, I want to build a monastery in the name of the Most Pure Mother of God and create a common life.” And behold, go away. And so he quickly gathered his troops and set out against the Hagarians. And you will see the great power of the godless, and you will be afraid. And so at that time a greyhound came to you, carrying a message from Saint Sergius to his face: “O great king, do not let your hearts be afraid of the godless multitude, for there is no strength in them; all will be overcome by the power of Christ, and yet he is with you.” And the great ones in victory with all the army heard this, came to the great fear, quickly went against the filthy ones, and said this word: “Great and mighty God, who created heaven and earth, be our helper against those who resist Your holy name.” And so he quickly gave way, and the battle was great and great, and many bodies fell. And for a long time they fought, I helped God, the worthy Grand Duke Dmitry, who was strong in battle, and thus, of course, defeated the filthy ones and betrayed him to destruction. Having seen the opposition of God-allowed anger on oneself and God's allowance, he began to run away. The great ones, in praise, persecuted the fierce ones a lot, killing them, from them many countless beatings occurred, and they escaped from many ulcers, and killed others alive. And the sight was wondrous and filled with wonder: even as before the shining weapons, then everything was bloodied with the blood of foreigners, and all Orthodoxy rejoiced, the image of our victory. And the prophetic word was fulfilled: one woman will make a thousand, but two will move the darkness. The saints, as if they were perspicacious and had the gift, knowing everything that happened then, their disciples strive unceasingly to pray for the army of the Orthodox, even though they had a place far away and walked many days during the day, but as if in vain before them, even from his disciples many men did wonders, Having foresight, having the gift, you were granted this glorious vision, just as you had fled to the end of the abomination. And so at that time the venerable husband of Sergius, who had been victorious and brave in his name against the godless, confessed everything in a row to all his disciples and those who were murdered by Christ by name, blessed everyone and made a prayer for them to the Lord. The brothers heard this from the saint and marveled greatly at the grace given to His saints, and rejoiced with great joy about the former victory over the filthy. Brave stories are worthy of the victorious great Tsar of Russia Dmitry, who took a bright victory over the fierce barbarians, returned to his fatherland with great joy, singing the victorious, beautiful songs of the Lord, who glorified those who suffered in His name. And so he came victoriously to Father Sergius, who was wonderful among the saints, giving him grace for the good counsel, for the miracles that happened from him, and thus together glorifying the omnipotent God, and giving great alms to the saint.

About monasteries like those on Dubenka

And he fulfilled the hedgehog seven by one, together with his promise with the blessed one, and when he found a place to build a monastery, and so he found a place named the river Dubenka, and that church was built, consecrated in the name of the Most Pure Mother of God of Her venerable Dormition, and entrusted to the flock of the saints alone from her disciples to the virtuous husband Sava, and a common life was quickly established. And so a multitude of brethren gathered together in a short time, and the monastery in the monasteries became very red, useful to the monastic life and to the donina.

Let's summarize briefly.

At the very beginning of the 15th century. the events of the Battle of Kulikovo were reflected in the Brief Tale of the Trinity Chronicle and in the Long Chronicle created on its basis. The episode of Dmitry Donskoy's supposed visit to Sergius of Radonezh before the battle was most likely already contained in the latter's Life, written by Epiphanius the Wise. It came to us as part of the Pachomiev editions of the Life, compiled in the first half of the 15th century. In the second half of the same century, a poetic work about the Battle of Kulikovo was compiled, shortly after which it was rather ineptly abbreviated - “Zadonshchina”. It was partially reworked after 1475. This work was written in the spirit of the state ideology of that time. Finally, in the first quarter of the 16th century. the most detailed and plot-captivating narrative about the Battle of Kulikovo is being created - “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev.” Originally created as a “historical novel,” it requires the most careful approach to the information it contains. This work subsequently turned out to be the most popular. During the XVI-XIX centuries. Several editions of it were created, gradually acquiring more and more fantastic details (see, ,).

The historical events of 1380 were reflected in oral folklore

And Epiphanius the Wise.

Promoting the flourishing of the creativity of Theophanes the Greek, Andrei Rublev

An important role in the development of literature and art,

The victory over Mamai significantly strengthened

It's only a matter of time.

The question of the final overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke was

Grand Duke. After the victory on the Kulikovo field

Only centralized power can unite these forces

The Russian people have the strength to decisively fight the enemy, and

A crushing blow to the Golden Horde. The victory showed that

With his banners he inflicted almost all of North-Eastern Rus'

In 1380, Moscow Prince Dmitry Ivanovich rallied under

Population.

The Tatar yoke increasingly took hold of the minds of broad layers

The greatness of Rus'. The idea of fighting against the hated Mongol-

Vladimir was considered a symbol of former independence, glory and

Chronicles. Both in folklore and in literature Kyiv times

Chronicle vaults turn to the traditions of Kyiv

Centralized state. Emerging Moscow

The theme of literature becomes the theme of becoming

Contributed to the development of national culture. Basic

Formation of the Russian centralized state

Moscow.

Due to political rise

The origin of Moscow literature was

Centuries have become Moscow princes.

Princes almost continuously throughout

The Great Reign of Vladimir, and the great

In 1328, Kalita achieved a label in the Horde for

Politicians.

Turns the khan into an obedient instrument of his

Side with the head of the Russian Church - the Metropolitan and

Mikhail Tversky. He attracts to his

Kalita, gaining the upper hand over his opponent

Vladimirskoe, Ivan Danilovich, nicknamed

Tver princes for the great reign

Daniel enter into a political struggle with

The Principality of Moscow almost doubled. sons

Son of Alexander Nevsky, increased the territory

Daniil Alexandrovich (1276-1303) - younger

Vladimir-Suzdal land. Moscow Prince

Influx of refugees from the south-eastern outskirts

Elevation. By the end of the 13th century. goes to Moscow

Foreigners, contributes to its revival and

Protected by forests and swamps from raids

Mesopotamia at the crossroads of trade routes,

Cities located in the Volga-Oka basin

creativity and in various works of literature: chronicles

stories,<Задонщине>, <Сказании о Мамаевом побоище>, <Слове

about the life and death of Dmitry Ivanovich>.

<Побоище великого князя Дмитрия Ивановича на Дону с

Mamaem> was created, obviously, hot on the heels of events. IN

it not only sets out the basic facts: the gathering of enemy forces and

The Horde has arrived Prince Mamai with like-minded people, and with all the other princes of the Horde, and with all the forces of the Tatars and Polovtsians, having also hired troops of Besermen, Armenians, Fryags, Cherkasovs, and Yasovs, and Burtasians! Also gathered with Mamai, the Lithuanian prince Jagiello Olgerdovich with all the forces of Lithuania and Poland, and with them at the same time Oleg Ivanovich, the prince of Ryazan, also gathered with Mamai, like-minded and unanimous with him. With all these accomplices, Mamai went against Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich. But the philanthropic God wanted to save and liberate the Christian race through the prayers of his Most Pure Mother from the enslavement of the Ishmaelites, from the filthy Mamai, and from the gathering of the wicked Jogaila, and from the eloquent and insignificant Oleg of Ryazan, who did not observe his Christian faith. And he, the fiend of hell and the viper, will have judgment on the great day of the Lord!

The damned Mamai became proud, imagining himself to be a king, began to weave an evil conspiracy, to convene his filthy temnik-princes and told them: “Let's go against the Russian prince and the whole Russian land, as it was under Batu. We will destroy Christianity, and we will burn the churches of God, and we will shed Christian blood, and we will destroy their laws.” And this is because the wicked man was fiercely angry because of his friends and favorites, because of the princes killed on the Vozha River. And he began to frantically and hastily gather his strength, moving in rage and in great strength, wanting to capture Christians. And then all the Tatar tribes moved.

And Mamai began to send to Lithuania, to the wicked Jagiel, and to the cunning hundred-dollar merchant, devil's accomplice, separated from the Son of God, darkened by the darkness of sin and not wanting to understand - Oleg Ryazansky, the helper of the Besermen, the lying son, as Christ said: “They came out from us and rose up against us.” And the old villain Mamai concluded a dishonest agreement with the filthy Lithuania and the murderer Oleg: they would gather at the Oka River on Semenov’s day for the noble prince.

Prince Dmitry, having heard that a bad time had come, that all the kingdoms that create lawlessness were coming against him, and, saying: “The power is still in our hands,” went to the cathedral church of the Mother of God, Theotokos, and, shedding tears, said: “Lord , you are omnipotent, omnipotent and firm in battles, truly you are the king of glory, who created heaven and earth - have mercy on us through the prayers of the Most Holy Mother, do not leave us when we despair! You are our God, and we are your people, stretch out your hand from above and have mercy on us, disgrace our enemies and blunt their weapons! Mighty are you, O Lord, and who can oppose you? Remember, Lord, your mercy, which from time immemorial you have shown to the Christian race!”<…>

And, having united with all the Russian princes and with all his forces, he soon set out against them from Moscow to defend his fatherland...<…>

At that time, Mamai stood behind the Don, with his entire kingdom, raging, and arrogant, and angry, and stood for three weeks. Another message came to Prince Dmitry: they told him that Mamaev’s army had gathered beyond the Don and was standing in the field, waiting for Jogaila and the Lithuanians to come to their aid, so that when they united, they would win a victory together. And Mamai sent to Prince Dmitry to ask for tribute not according to his agreement, but as it was under Tsar Janibek. The Christ-loving prince, not wanting bloodshed, wanted to pay him a tribute feasible for Christians and according to his agreement, as was established with him. He didn’t want to either arrogant waiting for his wicked Lithuanian accomplice.<…>

And, having prayed, he went to the Most Pure One and to Bishop Gerasim and said to him: “Bless me, father, to go against this accursed raw-eater Mamai, and the wicked Jagiel, and our traitor Oleg, who has retreated from the light into darkness.” And Bishop Gerasim blessed the prince and all his soldiers to go against the wicked Hagarians.<…>

The great prince approached the Don River two days before the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God. And then a letter came with a blessing from the Venerable Abbot Sergius, from the holy elder; in it his blessing is written - to fight the Tatars: “So that you, sir, go like this, and God and the Holy Mother of God will help you.”<…>

Mamai, having heard about the prince’s coming to the Don and seeing his warriors killed, became furious, and his mind became clouded, and he became inflamed with fierce rage, and swelled up, like some asp breathing anger, and said: “Let us move, my dark powers, and rulers, and princes! Let’s go, let’s stand at the Don against Prince Dmitry, until our ally Jagiello arrives with his forces.”

The prince, having heard Mamai's boast, said: “Lord, you did not order us to enter someone else’s territory, but I, Lord, did not enter. This same, Lord, accursed Mamai, who came like a snake to a nest, an unclean raw-eater, has dared to embrace Christianity, and wants to shed my blood, and desecrate the whole earth, and destroy the holy churches of God.” And he said: “What is Mamaev’s great rage? It’s as if some echidna has come, squirting, from some desert and wants to devour us! Do not betray me, Lord, to this raw-eating Mamai, show me the greatness of your deity, Lord! Where is the host of angels, where is the cherubic presence, where is the service of the six-winged seraphim? All creation trembles before you, the heavenly powers worship you! You created the sun and the moon and decorated the earth with all its beauties! Show, O God, your greatness even now.”<…>

The next morning, early on Saturday, on the eighth day of September, on the very feast of the Mother of God, at the time of sunrise, there was great darkness throughout the whole earth, and it was foggy that morning until the third hour. And the Lord commanded the darkness to retreat, and granted the coming of the light. The great prince gathered his great regiments, and all his Russian princes prepared their regiments, and his great commanders dressed in local clothes. And the gates of death dissolved, great fear and horror gripped the people gathered from afar, from the east and west. They went beyond the Don, to the far ends of the earth, and soon crossed the Don in anger and rage, and so swiftly that the foundation of the earth shook with great force. The prince, who came beyond the Don into a clear field, into the Mamaev land, at the mouth of the Nepryadva, was led by the Lord God alone, and God did not turn away from him. Oh, strong and firm boldness of courage! Oh, how I was not afraid, how I was not troubled in spirit when I saw such a multitude of warriors! After all, three lands, three armies rose against him: the first was Tatar, the second was Lithuanian, the third was Ryazan. However, he was not afraid of them all, was not afraid, but, armed with faith in God, strengthened by the power of the holy cross and protected by the prayers of the Holy Mother of God, he prayed to God, saying: “Help me, Lord my God, save me with your mercy, you see how the the number of my enemies. Lord, why have those who harass me multiplied? Many have risen up against me, many are fighting against me, many are pursuing me, tormenting me, all nations have surrounded me, but in the name of the Lord I have resisted them.”

And at the sixth hour of the day the filthy Ishmaelites appeared in the field - and the field was open and vast. And then the Tatar regiments lined up against the Christians, and the regiments met. And seeing each other, great forces moved, and the earth hummed, the mountains and hills shook from countless warriors. And they drew weapons - two-edged in their hands. And the eagles flocked, as it is written, “where there are corpses, there the eagles will gather.” At the appointed hour, the Russian and Tatar guard regiments first began to arrive. The great prince himself was the first to attack in the guard regiments the filthy king Telak, called the incarnate devil Mamaia. However, soon after that the prince left for the great regiment. And then the great army of Mamaev moved, all the Tatar forces. And on our side, the Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich with all the Russian princes, having prepared regiments, went against the filthy Polovtsians with all his army. And, looking up to heaven with prayer and filled with sorrow, he said in the words of the psalm: “Brothers, God is our refuge and strength.” And immediately both great forces came together for many hours, and covered the regiments of the field for ten miles - such was the multitude of warriors. And there was a fierce and great slaughter, and a fierce battle, and a terrible roar; Since the creation of the world there has not been such a battle among the Russian great princes as during this great prince of all Rus'.<…>

And after this, at nine o’clock in the afternoon, the Lord looked with merciful eyes on all the Russian princes and on the courageous commanders, and on all the Christians who dared to stand up for Christianity and were not afraid, as befits glorious warriors. The pious saw at the ninth hour how the angels, fighting, helped the Christians, and the holy martyrs' regiment, and the warrior George, and the glorious Dmitry, and the great princes of the same name - Boris and Gleb.<…>And Mamai, trembling in fear and groaning loudly, exclaimed: “Great is the Christian God and great is his power! Brothers Ishmaelites, lawless Hagarites, flee not by the ready roads!” And he himself, turning back, quickly ran to his Horde. And, hearing about this, his dark princes and rulers also ran. Seeing this, the other foreigners, persecuted by the wrath of God and overcome with fear, took flight, young and old. The Christians, seeing that the Tatars and Mamai were running, chased after them, beating and chopping up the filthy ones without mercy, for God, with invisible power, terrified the Tatar regiments, and, defeated, they fled.<…>

It is because of our sins that foreigners come to fight against us, so that we will renounce our sins: from brotherly hatred, and from the love of money, and from unjust judgment, and from violence. But God, the lover of mankind, is merciful, he is not completely angry with us, and he does not forever remember evil. <…>

Prince Dmitry with his brother Vladimir, and with the Russian princes, and with the governors, and with the other boyars, and with all the remaining soldiers, standing that night at the filthy feasts, on the Tatar bones, wiped their sweat and, having rested from their labors, He offered great thanks to God, who granted such a victory over the filthy, who delivered his servant from the fierce weapon: “You, Lord, remembered your mercy, you delivered us, Lord, from these raw materials, from the filthy Mamai<…>" And many Russian princes and governors glorified the Most Pure Mother of God, Theotokos, with praiseworthy praises. And the Christ-loving prince also praised his squad, which fought hard against the foreigners, and steadfastly defended itself, and was valiantly courageous, and dared, by the will of God, to stand up for the Christian faith.<…>

Then Mamai ran away with a few and came to his land with a small squad. And, seeing that he was defeated, and put to flight, and disgraced, and desecrated, he again became inflamed with anger and gathered his remaining forces to attack Rus' again. When he had decided so, news came to him that a certain king Tokhtamysh is coming towards him from the east from the Blue Horde. Mamai, who had prepared an army against us, went against him with that army ready. And they met on Kalki, and they had a battle. And King Tokhtamysh defeated Mamai and drove him away. The Mamai princes, dismounting from their horses, beat King Tokhtamysh with their foreheads, and took an oath to him according to their faith, and took his side, and left Mamai disgraced; Mamai, seeing this, hastily fled with his like-minded people. King Tokhtamysh sent his soldiers in pursuit of him. And Mamai, driven by them and fleeing from Tokhtamysh’s pursuers, ran to the outskirts of the city of Kafa. And he entered into negotiations with the Kathinians, persuading with them about his safety, so that they would accept him under protection until he got rid of all his pursuers. And they allowed him. And Mamai came to Kafa with a lot of property, gold and silver. The Kafinians, after consulting, decided to deceive Mamai, and then he was killed by them. And so came the end of Mamai.

And Tsar Tokhtamysh himself went and took possession of the Mamaev Horde, and captured his wives, and his treasury, and the entire ulus, and distributed the wealth of Mamaev to his squad. And from there he sent his envoys to Prince Dmitry and to all the Russian princes, announcing his arrival and how he reigned and how Mamai defeated his opponent and their enemy, and he sat down in the kingdom of the Volga. The Russian princes released his ambassador with honor and with gifts, and that winter and that spring each sent their Kilicians with them to the Horde to the Tsar with large gifts.

1. What is the image of the Tatars in the chronicle?

2. What is the image of Mamai in the chronicles?

3. What is the image of Russian princes in the chronicles?

4. How are the reasons for the Battle of Kulikovo described in the chronicle?

5. Why do the Russian princes manage to win on the Kulikovo Field, according to the chronicle?

6. How does the image of Mamai in the chronicle differ from the image of Tokhtamysh? What causes this difference? Pay attention to which title the chronicler uses to refer to Mamai and which to Tokhtamysh.

7. What is the relationship between Dmitry Donskoy and Tokhtamysh, according to the chronicle? What does this mean?

The main negative character in the chronicle story is Mamai, who actively acts, experiences various emotions, and makes decisions. Several times the chronicler points out his devilish nature. The arrogance and pride of Mamai are emphasized, his desire to take the place of the king, to which he had no legal rights (Mamai did not belong to the Genghisid family and could not be a khan), the desire to be like the “legitimate” kings Batu (to conquer Rus', like Batu) and Dzhanibek (asks for tribute, as under Janibek). The illegality of Mamai's power is also confirmed by the fact that he violates his own agreement with Dmitry on the payment of a reduced tribute. Thus, Mamai appears before us as a “lawless” usurper.

The chronicler names both Mamai’s personal motives and the desire to “destroy Christianity” as the reasons for Mamai’s campaign against Rus'.

In this chronicle story, the traditional theme of punishment for sins also arises. However, it takes on a new meaning: without saying anything about the correction of sins, the chronicler writes about the mercy of God. According to V.N. Rudakov, “it was precisely this approach that contained the ideas of the era about the essence of the “spiritual situation” in Rus': Russian society is no longer perceived by the scribe as mired in sins. However, at the same time, the chronicler does not yet dare to talk about correction, cleansing the Russian people from their inherent “lawlessness.” As a kind of compromise, the author of the Tale proposes an idea that explains the reasons for the completion of the “punishment of the Lord” by the mercy of God.”

In the description of the actions of the Russian princes, the main theme is the defense of Christianity and the intercession of God.

At the end of the story, Tokhtamysh appears, whom the chronicler, unlike “Prince” Mamai, calls “king,” that is, he recognizes the legitimacy of his power. Mamai turns out to be a common enemy for Dmitry Ivanovich and Tokhtamysh. The relationship between Dmitry and Tokhtamysh is described in an extremely respectful and correct manner: Tokhtamysh notifies Dmitry of his arrival, and Dmitry sends his ambassadors back with gifts.

Thus, the chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo has a lot of new features in describing the relations between Russians and Tatars, but even at this time the idea of the “legitimacy” of the power of the “real” tsar remains.

Related information.

The Battle of Kulikovo excited not only contemporaries, but also interested Russian people for a long time even after 1380. It is not surprising, therefore, that several literary monuments created at different times are dedicated to the Mamaev massacre. All these works are different in character and style. The poetic “Zadonshchina”, the factual initial short chronicle story and the sharply journalistic lengthy chronicle story, filled with military heroics, echoes of folklore, covering in detail all the events “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” - this is the composition of the monuments of the Kulikovo cycle.

"Zadonshchina". One of the very first works glorifying the battle on the Kulikovo Field, “Zadonshchina” was already mentioned above in connection with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (see pp. 77–78). This monument is remarkable not only because it is indisputable evidence of the antiquity and authenticity of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” not only because it is dedicated to such a significant event in the history of Rus', but also because of its own literary significance.

The exact time of creation of “Zadonshchina” is unknown. We adhere to the point of view on this issue most clearly formulated by V.F. Rzhiga. The researcher, calling “Zadonshchina” “The Word of Zephanius of Ryazan,” wrote: “To understand the Word of Zephanius of Ryazan, it is also important to clarify the time of its creation. Literary scholars who dealt with this question, for the most part, answered it approximately, attributing the Word of Zephaniah either to the beginning of the 15th century, or to the end of the 14th century. Only relatively recently was attention drawn to the fact that the monument mentions Tornava, i.e. Tarnovo, the capital of the Bulgarian kingdom, and since Turkish troops took Tarnovo in 1393, it was concluded that the Word of Zephaniah of Ryazan was created before 1393 d. In order to clarify this position, the indication in the Word of Zephaniah was also used that 160 years had passed from the time of the battle on the Kalka River to the Massacre of Mamaev. If we interpret this chronological indication as related to the dating of the work, then it turns out that the Word of Zephaniah was written in 1384. Whether this is true or not is difficult to say. It must, however, be recognized that attempts to date the monument to a time closer to 1380 seem quite appropriate. They correspond to the clearly emotional character that the Word of Zephaniah has from beginning to end. In this regard, there is reason to believe that the Word of Zephaniah appeared immediately after the Battle of Kulikovo, perhaps in the same 1380 or the next.”

M. A. Salmina, who compared “Zadonshchina” with the chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo, came to the conclusion that the author of “Zadonshchina” used the text of a lengthy chronicle story, the origin of which she dates back to the 40s. XV century (for more details on this, see below, p. 197). Consequently, according to Salmina, “Zadonshchina” could not have arisen before the end of the 40s. XV century The arguments given by M. A. Salmina in favor of the textual dependence of “Zadonshchina” on the lengthy chronicle story are unconvincing. Moreover, a textual comparative analysis of “Zadonshchina” and the chronicle story, taking into account the indisputable dependence of “Zadonshchina” on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” gives grounds to assert that the chronicle story in the form in which it was read in the code of 1408 experienced influenced by “Zadonshchina”.

Thus, a comparison of “Zadonshchina” with the chronicle story about the Massacre of Mamayev only confirms the correctness of the point of view according to which “Zadonshchina” is a direct response to the Battle of Kulikovo.

“Zadonshchina” has come down to us in 6 lists, behind which short symbols are firmly established, often used in scientific literature: 1) U, mid-17th century. (also designated as Undolsky's list - GBL, Undolsky's collection, No. 632); 2) I-1, late 16th - early 17th centuries. (also designated as Historical First - State Historical Museum, collection Muzeiskoe, No. 2060); 3) I-2, late 15th - early 16th centuries. (also designated as the Historical Second - State Historical Museum, collection Muzeiskoye, No. 3045; a text fragment without beginning and end); 4) F, second half of the 17th century. (BAN, No. 1.4.1.; short excerpt - the very beginning of the work); 5) K-B, 1470s. (also designated as Kirillo-Belozersky or Efrosinovsky - GPB, collection of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, No. 9/1086); 6) C, XVII century. (also designated as Synodal - State Historical Museum, collection Synodal, No. 790). The name “Zadonshchina” appears only in the title of the K-B list and belongs to the author of this list Efrosyn (about Efrosyn and his book-writing activity, see below, p. 192); in other lists the monument is called “The Word” about the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Prince Vladimir Andreevich or “Praise” to these princes. In all lists, the text is greatly distorted and full of errors; the K-B list is a reduction and reworking of the original text made by Efrosyn. The poor preservation of the text of “Zadonshchina” in surviving copies forces us to use the reconstructed text of the work.

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

“Zadonshchina” is entirely based on the text of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - there is a repetition of entire passages from the “Tale”, and the same characteristics, and similar poetic devices. But “Zadonshchina” does not just rewrite, it reinterprets the “Word” in its own way. The appeal of the author of “Zadonshchina” to “The Lay” is of a creative nature: “The author of “Zadonshchina” did not mean the unconscious use of the artistic treasures of the greatest work of ancient Russian literature - “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, not a simple imitation of its style (as is usually believed) , but a completely conscious comparison of events of the past and present, the events depicted in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” with the events of contemporary reality. Both are symbolically opposed in “Zadonshchina.” With this comparison, the author of “Zadonshchina” made it clear that disagreement in the actions of the princes (as was the case in “The Tale”) leads to defeat, while the unification of everyone to fight the enemy is the key to victory. In this regard, it is significant that “Zadonshchina” says nothing about Mamai’s allies Oleg Ryazansky and Jogaila of Lithuania. And at the same time, about the Novgorodians (who, apparently, did not take part in the Battle of Kulikovo), the author of “Zadonshchina” writes that they, having learned too late about Mamai’s campaign and no longer hoping to be in time “for assistance” to the Grand Duke, nevertheless less “like eagles flew down” and left Novgorod “on assistance” (p. 382) to the Moscow prince. The author of “Zadonshchina,” contrary to historical truth, sought to show the complete unity of all Russian lands in the fight against Mamai.

A comparison of the past with the present, the events described in the Lay with the events of 1380, occurs from the very beginning and throughout the entire text. Already in the introduction this comparison is clearly expressed and has a deep meaning. The author of “Zadonshchina” traces the beginning of the troubles of the Russian land with the ill-fated battle on Kayal and the battle on Kalka: “... the filthy Tatars, Busormans... on the river on Kayal they defeated the Afet family (i.e. Russians - L.D.). And from then on, the Russian land sat sadly, and from the Kalat army to the Mamaev battle, it was covered with tightness and sadness” (p. 380). From the moment of the Mamaev massacre, a turning point came in the fate of the Russian land: “Let us descend, brothers and friends and sons of the Russians, let us compose word for word, rejoice the Russian land and cast sorrow upon the eastern country” (p. 380). And we can trace such comparison and contrast throughout the text. Let's give just one example. When Dmitry sets out on a campaign, “the sun shines clearly for him and tells him the way” (p. 386). Let us recall that in the “Tale” Igor’s army comes out at the moment of a solar eclipse (“Then Igor looked at the bright sun and saw that all his howls were covered with darkness”). In the story “Zadonshchina” about the movement of Mamai’s forces to the Kulikovo field, a picture of ominous natural phenomena is given: “And already their misfortunes are shepherded by birds winging, flying under the clouds, crows often playing, and Galicians speaking their speeches, eagles slurping, and wolves howling menacingly, and foxes break bones” (p. 386). In the Lay this passage is correlated with the march of Russian forces.

In “Zadonshchina”, in comparison with “The Lay”, images of church poetics are more often used (“for the land, for the Russian and for the peasant faith”, “stepping into your golden stirrup, and taking your sword in your right hand, and praying to God and the Most Pure his mother”, etc.). The author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” turned to the means of oral folk poetics and processed them creatively, creating his own original poetic images based on folklore material. The author of “Zadonshchina” simplifies many of these images, his poetic means, going back to the poetics of oral creativity, are closer to their prototypes, a number of original epithets of “Zadonshchina” in comparison with “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” are clearly of a folk-oral nature (typical of the epic style the phrase “such is the word”, “fast Don”, “damp earth” and some others).

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

In the lists of “Zadonshchina” K-B and C in the title the author of the work is named Sophony of Ryazan, about whom we know nothing. The name Zephaniah is mentioned in the text of “Zadonshchina” itself, and here the author of “Zadonshchina” speaks of Zephaniah as a different person in relation to him: “I will remember Zephanius the cutter” (list U), “And here we will remember Sophon the cutter” ( list C). In addition, in a number of lists of the Main Edition of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev,” Zephanius is named in the title as the author of the “Tale.” All this gave reason to R.P. Dmitrieva to suggest that Sophony, contrary to generally accepted opinion, was not the author of “Zadonshchina”. R.P. Dmitrieva believes that Sophony is the author of a poetic work about the Battle of Kulikovo that has not reached us, to which both the author of “Zadonshchina” and the author of “The Tale” independently addressed each other. The possibility of the existence of another, not preserved, poetic monument about the Battle of Kulikovo, as Academician A. A. Shakhmatov believed, follows from the nature of the textual relationships of the extant works of the Kulikovo cycle. A. A. Shakhmatov called this hypothetical text “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev.”

In addition to its literary merits, in addition to the emotional meaning inherent in this work, “Zadonshchina” is remarkable as a reflection of the advanced political idea of its time: Moscow should be at the head of all Russian lands, and the unity of Russian princes under the authority of the Moscow Grand Duke serves as the key to the liberation of the Russian land from Mongol-Tatar rule.

Chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo. The chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo has reached us in two forms: short and lengthy. The short chronicle story is part of the chronicles that originate from the chronicle code of Cyprian of 1408 (Trinity Chronicle). The lengthy chronicle story in its earliest form is represented by the Novgorod Fourth and Sofia First Chronicles, i.e., it should have been in the protograph of these chronicles; in the code of 1448, M. A. Salmina convincingly showed that the original short form of the chronicle story.

The short chronicle story, compiled, according to M. A. Salmina, by the compiler of the 1408 code, reports on the cruelty and bloodiness of the battle, which lasted the whole day, lists the names of the killed princes and governors, and tells about the fate of Mamai. The author of a lengthy chronicle story, taking a short one as a basis, significantly expanded it (perhaps using for this purpose “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” or some other sources), inserted into his text harsh denunciations of Oleg Ryazansky. (For more information about this chronicle story, see the next chapter, p. 197).

The Legend of Mamaev's Massacre. The most detailed description of the events of the Battle of Kulikovo has been preserved for us by “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” - the main monument of the Kulikovo cycle. This work was extremely popular among ancient Russian readers. The legend was rewritten and revised many times and has come to us in eight editions and a large number of variants. The popularity of the monument among the medieval reader as “someone’s” work is evidenced by the large number of front copies (illustrated with miniatures) of it.

The exact time of creation of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” is unknown. There are anachronisms and errors in the text of the Legend (we will dwell on some of them in more detail below). They are usually explained by the late origin of the monument. This is a deep misconception. Some of these “mistakes” are so obvious that they could not have taken place in a detailed narrative about a historical event if the author had not pursued some specific goal. And, as we will see later, the deliberate replacement of one name with another made sense only if the story was compiled at a time not too distant from the events described in it. Anachronisms and “mistakes” of the Legend are explained by the journalistic orientation of the work.

Recently, the question of dating the Legend has attracted a lot of attention. Yu. K. Begunov dates the creation of the Legend to the period between the middle and end of the 15th century, I. B. Grekov - to the 90s. XIV century, V. S. Mingalev - by the 30–40s. XVI century, M.A. Salmina - to the period from the 40s. XV century until the beginning of the 16th century. This question is very hypothetical and cannot be considered resolved. We consider it most likely to date the origin of the Legend to the first quarter of the 15th century. Particular interest in the Battle of Kulikovo at this time can be explained by the newly aggravated relations with the Horde, and in particular by the invasion of Edigei into Rus' in 1408. The invasion of Edigei, the success of which was explained by the lack of cohesion and unanimity of the Russian princes, awakens the idea of the need to restore unity under the leadership of the Grand Duke Moscow to fight the external enemy. This idea is the main one in the Legend.

The main character of the Legend is Dmitry Donskoy. The legend is not only a story about the Battle of Kulikovo, but also a work dedicated to the praise of the Grand Duke of Moscow. The author portrays Dmitry as a wise and courageous commander, emphasizing his military valor and courage. All other characters are grouped around Dmitry Donskoy. Dmitry is the eldest among the Russian princes, all of them are his faithful vassals, his younger brothers. The relationship between senior and junior princes, which seems ideal to the author and which all Russian princes should follow, is shown in the monument using the example of the relationship between Dmitry Ivanovich and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky. Vladimir Andreevich is portrayed everywhere as a faithful vassal of the Grand Duke of Moscow, unquestioningly carrying out all his commands. Such an emphasis on the devotion and love of the Prince of Serpukhov to the Prince of Moscow clearly illustrated the vassal devotion of the younger prince to the elder prince.

In the Legend, Dmitry Ivanovich’s campaign is blessed by Metropolitan Cyprian, who in fact in 1380 was not even within the borders of Rus', and due to the “mess up” at the metropolis (see earlier) there was no metropolitan in Moscow at that time. This, of course, is not a mistake by the author of the Tale, but a literary and journalistic device. The author of the Legend, who set as his goal in the person of Dmitry Donskoy to show the ideal image of the Grand Duke of Moscow, it was necessary to present him as supporting a strong alliance with the Metropolitan. For journalistic reasons, the author could have included Metropolitan Cyprian among the characters, although this contradicted historical reality (formally Cyprian was at that time the Metropolitan of All Rus').

Mamai, the enemy of the Russian land, is portrayed by the author of the Legend in sharply negative tones. He is the complete opposite of Dmitry Donskoy: all of Dmitry’s actions are guided by God, everything that Mamai does is from the devil. The principle of “abstract psychologism” in this case manifests itself very clearly. The Tatars are also directly opposed to Russian warriors. The Russian army is characterized as a bright, morally high force, the Tatar army - as a dark, cruel, sharply negative force. Even death is completely different for both. For the Russians this is glory and salvation for eternal life, for the Tatars it is endless destruction: “Many people become sad because of both, seeing death before their eyes. Having begun to defile the Polovtsians, they were darkened with much grief over the destruction of their lives, before the wicked died, and their memory perished with a noise. But people who are orthodox are more than prosperous, rejoicing, longing for this fulfilled promise, for beautiful crowns, about which the Venerable Abbot Sergius told the Grand Duke.”

The Lithuanian ally of Mamai in the Legend is named Prince Olgerd. In fact, during the events of the Battle of Kulikovo, an alliance with Mamai was concluded by Olgerd’s son Jagiello, and Olgerd had already died by this time. As in the case of Cyprian, this is not a mistake, but a conscious literary and journalistic device. For Russian people of the late XIV - early XV centuries, and especially for Muscovites, the name of Olgerd was associated with memories of his campaigns against the Principality of Moscow; he was an insidious and dangerous enemy of Rus', whose military cunning was reported in the chronicle obituary article about his death. Therefore, they could call Olgerd an ally of Mamai instead of Jogaila only at a time when this name was still well remembered as the name of a dangerous enemy of Moscow. At a later time, such a change of names did not make any sense. It is no coincidence, therefore, that already in the early period of the literary history of the monument, in some editions of the Legend, the name of Olgerd was replaced, in accordance with historical truth, by the name of Jogaila. By calling Mamai Olgerd an ally, the author of the Legend thereby strengthened both the journalistic and artistic sound of his work: the most insidious and dangerous enemies opposed Moscow, but they too were defeated. The replacement of the name of the Lithuanian prince also had another connotation: the princes Andrei and Dmitry Olgerdovich, the children of Olgerd, were in alliance with Dmitry. Due to the fact that Olgerd appeared in the Tale, it turned out that even his own children opposed him, which also enhanced the journalistic and plot sharpness of the work.

The heroic nature of the event depicted in the Legend led the author to turn to oral traditions about the Massacre of Mamaev, to epic stories about this event. Most likely, the episode of single combat before the start of the general battle of the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of Peresvet with the Tatar hero goes back to oral traditions. The epic basis is felt in the story about the “test of omens” by Dmitry Volynets - the experienced commander Dmitry Volynets and the Grand Duke, on the night before the battle, go into the field between Russian and Tatar troops, and Volynets hears how the earth is crying “in two” - about the Tatar and Russian warriors: there will be many killed, but the Russians will still prevail. Oral tradition probably underlies the message of the Legend that before the battle Dmitry put princely armor on his beloved governor Mikhail Brenka, and he himself, in the clothes of a simple warrior with an iron club, was the first to rush into battle. The influence of oral folk poetry on the Legend is revealed in the author’s use of certain visual means, which go back to the techniques of oral folk art. Russian warriors are compared to falcons and gyrfalcons, Russians beat their enemies “like a forest, like a scythe of grass.” The cry of Grand Duchess Evdokia after saying goodbye to the prince, who was leaving Moscow to fight the Tatars, can be regarded as a reflection of folklore influence. Although the author gives this lament in the form of a prayer, one can still note in it a reflection of the elements of folk lamentation. The descriptions of the Russian army are imbued with poetry (“The armor of the Russian sons, like water swaying in all the winds. The golden Sholoms on their heads, like the dawn of the morning in buckets of light, the yalovtsi of their Sholoms, like a fiery flame plowing,” pp. 62–63) , the pictures of nature are vivid, some of the author’s remarks are deeply emotional and not devoid of life-like truthfulness. Talking, for example, about the farewell of soldiers leaving Moscow for battle with their wives, the author writes that the wives “were unable to utter a word in tears and exclamations from the heart,” and adds that “the great prince himself could hardly help himself from tears, without giving I want to make the people cry” (p. 54).

“The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” was of interest to readers simply because it described in detail all the circumstances of the Battle of Kulikovo. Some of them were of a legendary-epic nature, some are a reflection of actual facts not recorded in any other sources. However, this is not the only attractiveness of the work. Despite a significant touch of rhetoric, “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” has a pronounced plot character. Not only the event itself, but also the fates of individuals, the development of the twists and turns of the plot made readers worry and empathize with what was being described. And in a number of editions of the monument, the plot episodes become more complex and their number increases. All this made “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” not only a historical and journalistic narrative, but also a work that could captivate the reader with its plot and the nature of the development of this plot.

Battle of Kulikovo (briefly)

Battle of Kulikovo - brief description

Prince of Moscow (since 1359) Dmitry Donskoy, as well as Prince of Vladimir (since 1362) and Novgorod (since 1363) was born on October 12, 1350 in the family of Princess Alexandra and Ivan the Red. He received his nickname, the Don Prince, after a significant historical victory as a result of the Battle of Kulikovo, which took place in 1380.

The main reason for the Battle of Kulikovo researchers consider the growing influence of the Moscow Principality, as well as a sharp deterioration of relations with the Mongol Horde. But the formal reason for the outbreak of the military conflict is the refusal of the Prince of Moscow to increase the amount of tribute given to the Golden Horde.

Despite the high pace of development of the Moscow principality, Dmitry understood that he needed the support of the other appanage princes. It was for this reason that he sought (and received) a blessing from Sergius of Radonezh, whose images on icons can still be seen in most Russian churches today. But even despite this, neither Tver nor Ryazan responded to his call. And the Suzdal princes generally took the side of Mamai.

Both participants in the Battle of Kulikovo wanted to gather as large an army as possible. So Donskoy had at his disposal the soldiers of the Vladimir and Moscow principalities, as well as the soldiers of Andrei Olgerdovich. As modern history researchers have calculated, the total number of Donskoy soldiers reached one hundred thousand people (some historians do not agree with this opinion, insisting on the figure of fifty to seventy thousand). In turn, the Horde army consisted, according to researchers, from sixty to one hundred and fifty thousand soldiers (as well as the soldiers of the Lithuanian prince Jagiello). The main task of Dmitry Donskoy was to prevent the unification of all Mamai’s troops, which he succeeded in doing. In addition, in Mamaev’s army there were about four to five thousand Genoese, Yasses, mercenary Muslims and others.

As the surviving chronicles tell, the Battle of Kulikovo took place near the mouth of the Don and the Nepryadva River, the left bank of which, according to researchers, was covered with dense forest at that time. However, historians who conducted archaeological excavations did not find a single military weapon in these places, which calls into question the reliability of the chronicle information.

So, on September 7, Donskoy’s troops were lined up into combat regiments (the central one was commanded by Velyaminov, the right one was Andrei Olgerdovich, and the left one was Dmitry Bobrok-Volynsky). There is no exact information about the placement of the ambush regiment.

The result of this battle was the flight of Mamaev’s army. Dmitry Donskoy himself was knocked off his horse during the battle and was found only after the battle.