Translated by Leonard A. Magnus

The Tale of the Armament of Igor (Slovo o polku Igoreve, c.1185) is the oldest and greatest monument of Russian secular literature — a lyric epic poem describing the failed campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversk against the Polovtsi (Cumans) of the southern steppes in 1185. Igor's army is defeated, Igor himself is captured, and the poem culminates in his escape and return. But the Slovo is not primarily a military narrative: it is an elegy for a divided Russia, a meditation on the cost of princely pride and disunity, and a summons to the Russian princes to unite against the steppe nomads who threaten the land. Its imagery — Boyan the bard who thinks in metaphors of hawks and wolves, the earth weeping for Igor, the wind speaking in the reeds — is among the most extraordinary in medieval literature.

The poem was rediscovered in 1795 from a single manuscript by Count Alexei Musin-Pushkin; that manuscript was destroyed in the Moscow fire of 1812, leaving only an 1800 printed edition and a copy made for Catherine the Great. The authenticity of the Slovo was debated throughout the nineteenth century — some scholars suspected it was an eighteenth-century forgery — but the consensus of modern scholarship accepts it as genuinely medieval. The debate itself testifies to the poem's power: it reads unlike anything else in Russian literature.

Leonard A. Magnus (1879–1924) was a British scholar of Russian and Slavic literature whose translation (1915) was among the first serious English renderings of the Slovo. The poem has been translated by Nabokov, by Vladimir Nabokoff in a scholarly edition, and by dozens of poets and scholars; no translation has satisfied everyone, because the original's condensed imagery and archaic grammar resist comfortable English equivalents.

Preface

This is the first English edition of this ancient Russian epic.

It is intended as a handbook to the increasing number of students of the Russian language, and to reveal to the general public one of the treasures of Russian medieval literature.

The editor has to express his gratitude to many friends without whose encouragement and advice it could never have appeared; and, in especial to Miss J. CURRIE who has drawn the map, as well as to Professor A. P. GOUDY for his illuminative suggestions.

L. A. M.

Contents

Frontispiece.

SCHEME OF TRANSLITERATION INTRODUCTION.

I. History of the Manuscript Page II. (1) The primitive geography of Russia (2) A summary of Russian history up to the Mongol conquest:

§1. The old tradition §2. The distribution of the Slavs vii.

§3. The Slav State vii.

§4. The Norse invasion viii §5. The Scandinavian Princes §6. Vladímir I.

xii.

§7. The land system xiv.

§8. Yarosláv I.

xvi.

§9. The Yarosláviči xvii.

§10. The four great princes §11. Vladímir II.

xxii.

§12. The success of Vladímir II xxii.

§13. The fall of Kíev and rise of Suzdal & Moscow xxiv.

§14. The historical references to Ígoŕ Svyatoslávič xxv.

(3) The Chronicle for the year 1185 translated in full xxvii.

III. The construction of the poem xxxv.

IV. The composition of the poem:

(a) the versification xxxix.

(b) the style and authorship xlii, V. The survivals of heathendom in the Poem xliv.

VI. The meaning of Boyán and Troyán xlvi.

VII. The grammar and language of the poem liii GENEALOGIES THE TEXT WITH TRANSLATION Part I Part II Part III NOTES AND GLOSSARY (alphabetically arranged) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Scheme of Transliteration

------ a [as in Italian].

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ye or e [e as in Italian] ------ ž [s in leisure].

------ и, і ------ as in Italian: but short.

------ y or ï.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ń) [ñ Spanish, or gn Italian].

------ o [always short].

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ś) [s in sibilant].

------ t’) [ty in don't-yer know].

------ u [as in Italian].

ф, θ ------ ------ kh [German ch].

------ ------ č [ch in Church] ------ š [sh in shall] ------ šč [like shch in fresh-cheese] ------ mute [when sounded in Old Russian = ə or e in German Rose ------ y [i in will] ------ [mute] ------ ĕ [ye in yes] ------ e [e in ell] ------ yu ['u' in 'use' but shorter]

Introduction: The History of the Manuscript

The history of the manuscript of the Slóvo has been often stated. In 1795 Count Musin-Puškin, a distinguished arcæologist, bought from the archimandrite of the Spaso-Yaroslávski monastery a bound volume of manuscripts, amongst which was the original of this text. In 1800 he published the editio princeps under the title of a 'A heroic song of the foray against the Pólovtsy of the hereditary Prince of Nóvgorod-Sěverski, Ígoŕ Svyatoslávič.' There were 1200 copies printed, a few of which survived the fire of Moscow in the year 1812 in which the original MS. and most of the printed copies perished.

Thus this printed book of 1800 was the only original, until Pekárski discovered a second modern copy amongst the papers of the Empress Catherine II, an account of which appears infra.

The editio princeps contains the text with a modern Russian translation, historical and other notes, an abstract of the action of the poem, and a preface giving the facts of the discovery. The text is printed as continuous prose, and there is a long list of errata at the end of the volume. The preface provides no sufficient detail as to the style, conditions or date of the lost original; nor to what extent, if any, the editors had adhered and followed it literally, or emended the orthography in conformity with the standards either of Russian or Church-Slavonic. From all accounts, Musin-Puškin was an ardent collector, but an indifferent critic; and, from contemporary evidence it has been gathered that only six of the learned men of the time ever had the opportunity of seeing this vanished MS.: amongst them Bantyš-Kamenski, A. F. Malinovski, A. I. Ermoláev, N. M. Karamzín, R. F. Tirnkovski and G. N. Boltin. † In the preface Musin-Puškin says:--"The original MS. is in very ancient handwriting. It belongs to the editor who, through his own endeavours and help received from experts in the Russian language has, in the course of some years brought this translation to the degree of clearness desired, and is now at the request of his friends publishing it to the world at large. But, in despite of all this, there remain some passages which are unintelligible; so, I beg my kindly readers to submit their suggestions to me. . . ."

Since that date there has been a deluge of editions and criticisms, as a glance at the bibliography will show. Evidently Musin-Puškin underrated the interest of his casual purchase.

It appears from the criticisms of Bareov and Tikhonrávov, as well as from contemporary statements, that the lost MS. was in a sixteenth century hand unpunctuated and with the words undivided, and Barsov impugns the handwriting of Musin-Puškin as a contributory cause of error.

For some years controversy raged on the genuineness of the poem; but the drift of opinion confirmed authenticity. This poem was flashed on the world very soon after MacPherson had roused all the scepticism of London with his Ossian; but the historical exactitude of the Slóvo, the fact that it had been vouched by a few but notable and responsible persons soon allayed the doubts.

No other ancient copy has been traced. Petrúševi very plausibly opines that the reason of the rarity is that the author was a layman with a strong inclination towards Pagan superstitions--as is plain from the constant references of Slavonic deities--and that, for this reason, the poem was anathematized by the Church, which in medieval Russia, even more than in the rest of Europe was the sole custodian of written records and the art of writing. "Двоевѣрье" or double faith lingered on throughout the hastily converted immensities of the Russian Continent for a very long time; and certainly this poeth betrays no religious horror of the gods of olden time.

The poem must have been written and completed after 1185 and before 1187; and probably suffered in various transcriptions leading up to the XVI century original, which fell into Musin-Puškin's hands. Indeed I suspect that this lost text must have been in two hands; otherwise I cannot explain the variants in the terminations омъ омь етъ еть etc., the relative clarity of some parts and the utter corruption of others, e.g. the passages referring to Svyatopólk and Tugorkán, the digression on Vséslav of Polotsk; a cursory glance at my emended text will reveal how the corrections abound at certain points and cease at others. Other indications of this are slighter; e.g. Vladlmir is spelled in modern Russian style with -mir towards the end, in older fashion -mer in the beginning: and again the modern Russian genitives in аго and dative plurals in амъ occur at the end, but not in the beginning; and this suppositious second copyist seems to have been the more careless of the two.

However, in 1864, Pekárski, whilst burrowing among the private archives of Catherine II, lighted on six folios of manuscript, consisting of chronological and historical notes, many of them in autograph. The Empress was a keen student of medieval Russia, and, as appears from the autobiography of Musin-Puškin, very much interested in his collections of original records. She graciously allowed the Count to lend her some of his treasures, and, in return gave him access to papers in her own cabinet, asking him to elucidate manuscripts she found hard to decipher.

It follows that he must have been her chief informant on ancient Russian history: a fact confirmed by the discovery of a second copy of the Slóvo from the lost eriginal, together with a special abstract of its contents, special notes, and a new manuscript translation into modern Russian for her use, She evidently conned this with great attention, as some of her pencil notes on the margins go to prove. This text is known as the Архивный списокъ the Archive copy, and is designated "E" [Екатерининцкій] in this edition, the printed text of 1800 being called П [Мусинъ-Пушкинъ]. In the same folio the Empress inserted in her own hand a number of genealogies of the princes of Kíev.

The variants in these two copies are important and significant. First,the vocalization of E is generally more in accordance with Russian than Church Slav usage; in the second place, in a number of corrupt passages, E supplies a better reading; in fact I take it that in E we are spared the additional mistakes of the printing house, and I have adopted it as the original in this book, incorporating the corrected readings of E. in Simoni's edition of it (1890). The explanatory documents--the translation, commentary etc.--also differ very slightly. Thus Yaroslávna is made out to be the wife of Vladímir Ígoŕevič, instead of Ígoŕ's; the abstract is shorter and more concise; the grammatical forms especially in regard to the rather indiscriminate use of terminal ъ and ь regular, though still pointing to an original confusion in the lost MS. The numerals in E. are marked with the modern Arabic symbols, not with the old Slav letters with numerical values, a difference of some considerable critical value in one passage at least, where E. reads Зояни for Трояни; this possibly proving some connection between the incomprehensible word Троянъ and the numeral 3, confused with the Russian letter З. In other cases, where words occur, probably derived from Eastern sources, already unintelligible to the sixteenth century copyist [e.g. Карнаижля, дивица] E. gives us a better, if more difficult reading; probably leaving the original as it stood, uninterpreted.

Obviously, in all these uncertainties and this hopeless field of conjecture, it would be ridiculous to attempt to fix on an author. But, as stated in the historical section of this Introduction, the date of composition is fixed by the eclipse of the sun, by the reference to Yarosláv of Galicia as alive, and by the appeal for help to contemporary princes, and must have been in 1185 and 1186; in the latter year the jubilant conclusion celebrating Ígoŕ's escape (uncontemplated in the first two parts of the poem) was added to the first draft.

Furthermore, the author must have been an eye-witness; for,his account of the battle confirms and corroborates the tales of the Chronicles, supplying other detail; he had strong sympathies with the faction of the Ólgoviči and the independent house of Polotsk, and shows little kindliness towards the branch of the ruling family of whom Vladímir II was the greatest and the best. Lastly, the author has a strong and markedly individual style, avoiding exaggeration and grotesque figures [such as are found in the folk-tales, e,g. as extraordinary magic, many headed monsters etc.]; and is also free from the loose and inchoate profuseness of the Ballads, with their rather sploshy and irregular metre.

Lastly, to hazard a guess, the headings in the Ipatíevski Chronicle for the years succeeding the events of 1185, often fall into a poetical style, not altogether dissimilar; and as the writer of the Slóvo shows accurate acquaintance with the records of the past and often repeats almost verbatim the expressions used in these Chronicles, it is not improbable that he may have been associated with the production of them.

This Introduction is intended to generalize and collect impressions, for the proof of which the reader may be referred to the notes on the text, where instances of such echoes of the Chronicles, and the reading of MSS, will be found set out at length.

But, it is very unfortunate that the original authority for this poem is so deficient and faulty.

Introduction: The Geography of Russia

It would he useful to set out seriatim a few elementary geographical facts before attempting to enter on an abstract of Russian history to illustrate the references in the Slóvo.

Russia in Europe now comprises 1,997,000 square miles, a territory just less than seventeen times that of the United Kingdom. But medieval Russia, i.e. the country effectively occopied and nationalized, roughly comprized only the present Governments of Volhynia, Kíev, Černígov, Smolénsk, with outposts in Minsk and Vitebsk; farther North, Nóvgorod had established a free domain, which had little or no share in the current of Russian history, until it was merged in the Moscovite Empire by Iván III in the year 1478. Moscow and Northern Russia were only gradually colonized from the South in the course of the XII and XIII centuries.

On a rough calculation this essential Russia occupied no less an area than 90257 square miles, an expanse of not very much smaller than that of the entirety of the British islands.

Russia is a country of great waterways,:none of which empty into any of the great seas. The Dnĕstr flows through Poland and Galicia into the Black Sea at Odessa, the Dnĕpr, with its numerous affluents flows through central Russia, and reaches the same land-locked sea at Kherson; the Don and the Volga are still farther East, and the latter finds its outlet in that huge salt-water lake, the Caspian.

Medieval Russia only benefited by the Dněpr, which formed the great commercial road between the Baltic and the Black Sea.

But the homeland of Russian civilization suffered under great disadvantages. The immense flat stretch of North-Eastern Europe has no great mountains nor any natural frontiers, and medieval Russia in particular was an undefined land, open to aggression from all sides, On the South she was cut off from the Black Sea and the estuary of the Dněpr at Čerkásy, † one hundred miles south of Pereyáslavl’.

From Čerkásy the Russian frontier ran more or less parallel with the coast of the Black Sea, and the land to the South was occupied by hostile nomads, To the East the rivers Sulá and Seĭm formed another shifting boundary; and the Turanian tribes held undisputed, sway up to the farthest North, to the shores of the White Sea.

On the West, there was an uncertain line of demarcation in what is now Austrian Galicia and Eastern Poland, a region always contested for by the Roman Catholic Poles against the Orthodox Russians.

On the North, the Lithuanians and Esths, and other savage races, which had not yet attained to civic life, barred the way to the Baltic; when they were conquered, it was by the German knights of Brandenburg.

Thus the Russians, in addition to being an inland state, had none of the security of a frontier formed by mountain-ranges (such as the Carpathians, which sheltered the Hungarians, nor that of one formed by one of the great rivers.

This indefensible position was held by the Russians of Kíev, who bore all the brunt of the Turanian assaults in the confused migrations of the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries. Their realm, minute as it is in comparison with modern Russia, was a vast field to defend. These geographical factors are of the utmost importance, if the division and anarchy of Russian history is to be understood, and, to a certain extent, condoned. Thus, taking distances as the crow flies, from Nóvgorod to Pskov is two hundred miles, from Pskov to Polotsk, (the fief of the Kriviči and an independent branch of the reigning family)--300 miles, from Černígov to Minsk 325, from Černígov to Kíev (the two capitals of medieval Russia) one hundred miles, from Kíev to Pereyáslavl’ 75, from the junction of the rivers Donéts and Don to Kíev 500, and from Vladímir Suzdalski, (the first capital of the Northern branch of the family who were to gain sovereignty over all Russia) 600 miles.

This tedious list of figures might be prolonged: but they must be emphasized: otherwise the abuses of the medieval Russian polity will remain inexplicable on any theory of human folly. These great flaws, were the incessant subdivision of territory amongst the sons of the reigning house; the retention of lateral descendibility instead of lineal [отчины, дѣдины], with all of its attendant risks civil war, disputed rights and the temptaion to establish independent domains: it was because the rights of minors could not be effectually guarded, because children could not undertake the heavy military duties that so very swiftly wore out the warlike generations of the Russians.

One or two really great rulers succeeded in the frightful task of establishing central authority and maintaining these vague and shifting boundaries.

The Russians themselves at this time called themselves collectively Руць. It was a word with an import like that of Ἑλλάς of old; an honorific, rather than a territorial designation; wherever the Russian went was Руць; he built cities, established the Christian worship; and, segregated from contact with the West by his position and parted from the decaying Eastern Empire, (to which he owed his civilization) by barbarian marauders who beset the lines of communication by land, (whilst he had no access by sea), he upheld his culture and spread it abroad, colonized and permeated the Finnish territories to the North and the Turanian to the South, and everywhere carried his country with hire.

That he had great lacks and faults, is very evident, The Russian had no genius for organization; stupendous as the work was, the later princes showed no power of adaptation. Their separatist tendencies betrayed them into every dishonourable course, alliance with the savage tent-dwellers who were shaking the foundations of their state, treachery amongst themselves, unwillingness to co-operate. All through Russian history down to the final defeat by the Tatars in the year 1224, it was only the house that happened to hold the throne at Kíev that fought against the myriad foes from beyond the steppes; and, when the Tatars were established for their two hundred years of rule, subjugation brought the most disgusting servility and meanness in its train.

The Slóvo was written only some fifty years before the great disaster of 1224; it is literally and narrowly historical; and it portrays the merits of the Russians, to whom it fell to beat off the Asiatic invaders of Europe, their high ideal, as well as their lapses from it.

This history must now be reviewed in brief outline.

Introduction: The Old Tradition

The old Russian Chroniclers from whose copious accounts this abstract has partly been drawn, in right medieval fashion start their tale from the Flood. A few chapters leads them on to the legendary beginnings of Russia, and a version of the first migrations of the Slavs. Originally, so says Nestor, the Slavs dwelt on the Danube in the country of the Hungarians and Bolgars and took their national nomenclatures from the rivers by which they settled; such were the Moravians and the Polc áne from the Morava and the Polota, (an affluent of the. Dviná). ' The progenitors of the Slavs were three brothers, Kyĭ, Šček and Khoriv and their sister Lybed †, the eponymous founders of the Polyáne of Kíev, the Čechs and Croatians.

They lived in anarchy without rulers; so they sent an embassy to the Varangians (the Northmen who were then sweeping all of Europe down to Constantinople) in the year 848 in these terms:--"Our country is good and large and fruitful, but there is no good governance in it, because we have no elders; so come and be our princes in our land and rule over us."

Such is the traditional story.

Introduction: The Distribution of the Slavs

The Slavs in the tenth century were organized in clans or tribes [племена]; of these the Полояне settled on the middle of the Dnĕpr, the Древляне in the forests watered by the Southern affluents of the Prípet’; to the West of these last-named on the river Bug the Сѣверяне or Дулѣбы opposite to the Поляне on the Eastern bank of the Dněpr the Сѣверяне on the Desna and the Sulá; on the Sož (a tributary of the Dnĕpr) the Радимичи and to the East of the Радимичи on the upper Oka the Вятичи. The Кривичи settled in the plain where the Dněpr, the Western Dviná and the Volga meet; and South-West of these last, in the marshy wooded country on the Western Dviná and Prípet; the Дреговичи, to the North of the Дреговичи on the Western Dviná a branch of the Кривичи viz. the Полочане; and lastly on the river Volkov by Lake Ilmen the Словѣне of Nóvgorod.

The Полине formed the basis of the subsequent principality of Kíev: the Древляне of that of Pereyáslavl’: the Дулѣбы formed the principality of Volhynia: the name of the Сѣверяне was perpetuated its the city Nóvgorod Sĕversky; the Вятичи formed the independent state of Vyátka, whilst the Полочане under the house of Polotsk were also to establish themselves as separate entity. The Slavs at Nóvgorod realized the great mercantile state, whose history was to be so different from that of the rest of Russia, a free Hanseatic community only suppressed by the Moscovite rulers in 1478.

Introduction: The Slav State

But, as yet, there was no unitary state, only a mass of Slav tribes roving within ill-defined bounds. Those in the South paid tribute to the Khozars, a race of Turkish origin, but unlike the barbarous Asiatic hordes who had preceded them and were to follow on their trail. The Khozars very soon abandoned nomadic habits, whereas the last invaders, the Mongols, during their sway of two hundred years never attained to this much of civilization, nor ever took to building cities.

In the VIII century under the influence of Jewish and Arabic immigrants the dynasty of the Kagans, (the despots of the Khozars) became converts to Judaism. The Khozar capital, called Itil, was on the lower Volga, and grew into commercial importance.

This subjection of the Slavs to the Khozars was not altogether disadvantageous; the road was open far exchange between the Caspian and the Black Sea, the Dněpr and the Volkhov with the Volga.

This transitory Empire of the Khozars enabled cities to spring up in Slav Russia; such as Kíev, Černígov, Smolénsk, Lyúbeč and Nóvgorod. The principal and all-important commercial highway was from Lake Ilmen, the Dněpr, the tributaries of which linked up this Eastern Empire with the waters of the Dněstr and the Vistula. This waterway from the Dnĕpr to the Black Sea is what the old Russian Chronicles call the "road from the Varangians to the Greeks."

However, towards the beginning of the ninth century this empire was decaying, and the Vikings of Scandinavia were making their appearance. A new epoch begins, and Russia, under Northern pressure, is to emerge as a nation.

Introduction: The Norse Invasion

The cataclasmic eruption from Scandinavia, which remodelled so much of Europe from England to Sicily, transformed the face of the Russian land. As in England, in France, in Italy and in the Eastern Empire these alien elements were quickly absorbed into the native population; they were few, but they established dynasties. In Western Europe the Northmen founded chivalry; they came as buccaneers, and stayed to virilise and enrich.

In Russia it might be said that they came with a sword in the right hand and the merchants' scales in the left. The incursions began in the ninth century; the Northmen hired out their military services to the market cities on the Dněpr which the Kagans (probably pressed in the rear by the Pečenegs (Πετζανικῖται) could no longer protect. Out of these cities the Northmen carved principalities for themselves. They came as armed merchants.

In this part of the Continent they were called Vaerings; in Russian Варягъ in Greek Βάραγγοι. As the Varangian guards of Constantinople, they afterwards became the mainstay of the state.

In the early chronicles of Russia, all of their names are still pure Scandinavian: Thorvardr Труворъ, Hrörekr Рюрикъ, Helgi Олегъ, Ingvar Ингварь or Игорь, Höskuldr Оскольдъ, Dyri Диръ, Sikniutr Синеусъ, Rognvaldr Рогволодъ, etc. In Slav Russia, where the land was fat, but there was no good governance, these princes invaders became the kings, konungar, or in the Slav form князи. The land which until then had no name was then called Russia, Русь after the word Rus, with which the Finns (who then peopled all central Russia) formerly designated the Scandinavians, and to this day designate the Swedes.

In establishing their own sovereignty, these new rulers released Russia from subservience to the Asiatic Khozars. Their descendants were to have the ceaseless task of beating off the successive swarms from Turania.

Introduction: The Scandinavian Princes

Russian history proper, i.e. the history of the state bearing this name, with a dynasty enthroned at Kíev, begins with the three brothers Rurix, Truvor and Sineus, or in Norse, Hrörekr, Thorvardr and Sikniutr. Probably Rurik only followed in the wake of other Norse precessors; but in the year 862 he invaded Russia, occupied Nóvgorod, and sailed down the rivers to Kíev. He retained Nóvgorod for himself, assigning to Sineus Bělo Ozëro, and to Truvor Izborsk. On their death these military outposts reverted to Rurik.

Throughout medieval Russian history there is the same eagerness displayed to gain possession of Kíev. Kíev was the natural mart for the trade of the Volkhov and the Western Dviná; and the master of Kíev had the control of Russian trade. All the other cities depended economically on the good will of Kíev, which soon grew into a rich town with very numerous churches and eight markets. It was the wealth of Kíev that enabled the successors of Rurik to maintain the struggle against the hordes of Asia for three hundred years, despite disaffection within and disturbance without.

Kíev was left in the possession of Askold and Dir, whilst Rurik consolidated his power in the North. Rurik died in the year 879, leaving one son Ígoŕ, a minor, for whom Olég acted as regent.

Olég was the real founder of the Russian state. In 882 he enticed his kinsmen Askold and Dir out of Kíev (which they had released from the Khozar yoke) by means of a treacherous invitation to join him on a trading expedition to Constantinople, and took the opportunity to rid himself of these rivals. He hastened to make Kíev his capital. During his long regency (879-912) Olég subdued the whole of Slav Russia, took Smolénsk and reduced the Drevlyáne, Sěveryáne and Rádimiči to subjection.

He also created for Russia its first international standing as an independent state, in 911 concluding the first commercial treaty with the Greeks, as the outcome of a raid on Constantinople in which the Russian, ships sailed into the harbour and ravaged the environs.

This treaty, of which the text has come down in the Russian Chronicles, is of prime importance. It was drafted in Greek and Russian,-- which proved successful, in the course of which he had established a fortress at Pereyáslavets on the Danube (probably near Marcianople and below Silistria), Svyatosláv decided on pulling these chestnuts out of the fire for himself and Russia; and thus, when their ally was becoming obnoxious, Constantinople suborned the Pečneg allies of the Russians to rise, and attack Kíev and seize the rapids of the lower Dněpr, so cutting off the trade-route to the Black Sea. Svyatosláv, who had been defeated this time at Dristr (or Silistria) hurried back to face the new enemy, but on his way back was beaten and slain. His had was cut off and his skull used by the savage Pečenegs as a drinking-vessel.

But the death of this heroic figure passed almost unnoticed in Russia, which had during all of the reign been left to itself, whilst the monarch was away on his remote schemes of conquest.

Svyatosláv left three sons, Yaropólk and Olég, legitimate by a Scandinavian mother, and a third son, illegitimate, Vladímir, by a Slav serf Malúša. They were all three under age, and the first partition was made to provide them all with territory, Yaropólk the eldest being assigned the capital, Kíev, Olég the region of the Drevlyáne (the land watered by the Pripet’ and neighbouring streams) and Vladímir the North with the capital city of Nóvgorod. Civil war soon ensued; and Vladímir, who, under the tutorship of his maternal uncle, Dobrýnya, had been partly educated in Scandinavia, and had thence brought with him a fresh batch of Pagan Norsemen, in 980 assassinated Yaropólk, who had already dispossessed and killed Olég in 977.

A new epoch may he said to begin with the accession of Vladímir I. The period of expansion and consolidation was over; the Scandinavian ascendancy was at the end; Russia was to become Christian and Slavonic.

Introduction: Vladímir I

Vladímir was the first prince of Russia, by birth partly of Slav blood. He owed his accesssion to the throne at Kíev to Norsemen; possibly it was facilitated by the distrust aroused by his brother Yaropólk's leanings towards Christianity. At any rate Vladímir, who was to be sainted as the Constantine of Russia, commenced his reign by re-instating Paganism with all the zeal of the proselytizer. He set up idols on a hill in Kíev, facing the Palace, to Perun the god of thunder, to Khors the Sungod, to Dažbog the god of the sky, to Stríbog, the god of the winds, Sěmorgl and Mokoš; and he offered human sacrifice. It may he remarked that of these deities next to nothing is known save their names as recited in this list; that it is improbable that the Slavs, who were nature-worshippers, had ever set up statues to their gods; and, lastly, that human immolations had never taken place in Russia,--unless the account in Euripides of the Tauric Artemis can be cited in this connection.

Whether this sudden State establishment of heathendom would have accomplished its end may be doubted; for Russia was by now permeated with Christian doctrine. But the last flicker of Pagandom in Russia was very vigorous, for it was the act of a strong and self-willed ruler.

This happened in the year 980. Eight years elapsed, and the politic ruler found occasion to reverse the direction of this religious zeal. He had been to Constantinople, and wished to ally himself to the Empire by marrying Anna, the Emperor's sister. Also, his Varangians from Scandinavia, through whom he had gained single sovereignty, were becoming oppressive to their master; and Vladímir was glad to dismiss them to the service of his Byzantine ally, recommending him to relegate these unruly champions to the provinces, and safeguard himself against their superfluous energies. This act marks the end of Scandinavian government in Russia.

As early as the year 866 a bishop had been appointed for Kíev and a church built for him; before that date, Saints Cyril and Method, the apostles of Russia, had worked amongst the Western Slavs and in the Tauric Chersonnese, for the purpose of evangelization inventing the Cyrillic alphabet (as Ulfilas had done for the Goths): further, the conversion of Olga in 945 must have been propagative.

The price of Anna was the baptism of her intended husband; the political advantage of favouring the powerful Pagan party at Kíev had now ceased.

In 988 Vladímir ordered the conversion of Russia, cast his idols down with a contumely only comparable to their peremptory erection; thus, he tied Perun to the tail of a horse, had him flagellated and drowned in the Dněpr, seeing that he was safely carried beyond the rapids on that stream. The Chronicles add a pleasing legend that Vladímir assembled a council of Boyárs, and examined into the desirabilities of the German--i.e. the Roman--, the Jewish--i.e. the practices of the Khozars,--and the Greek profession. Only in the Greek faith was the supreme beauty to be found.

The citizens were baptized in droves on pain of the royal displeasure. Vladímir acquired Kórsun, the capital of the Chersonesse (or Crimea) which he had been besieging and also, as security for this important conquest, (by means of which he could protect his Black Sea commerce) the hand of the Greek princess.

Henceforth Russia was Holy Russia; her Christianity conferred on her perennial struggle against the Pagan nomads the fervour of a crusade. In her isolation the new faith lent her strength, endurance and purpose.

The baptism of Russia and the expulsion of the Varangians are the two epoch-making events of Vladímir's reign.

In the year 993 Vladímir was engaged in a frontier foray against the Croatians, and on his return had to encounter the Pečenegs not far from the river Sulá; he defeated them at Trubež near Pereyáslavl’. This battle was decided, according to the Chronicle, by single combat between a Pečeneg Goliath and a Russian David. The Polovsk peril was very imminent, for Vladímir thought fit to construct a network of fortresses on the Dněpr and its affluents.

Vladímir, in the popular ballads of Russia, became the Charlemagne at whose court the heroes met and the Tatar Pagan foes were invariably overcome.

Amongst his military feats may be mentioned the reunion of Polotsk with Russia, which had become independent under one Rógvolod; and his war with Poland, as a result of which he retained Galicia for Russia.

After his conversion he founded many churches and an ecclesiastical college at Kíev and showed great piety, which combined with uxoriousness on a very lavish scale, The North of Russia he had little leisure to watch; and Paganism maintained itself much longer there, corresponding with the political severance which distance made unavoidable and time was to confirm.

He died in the year 1015, leaving eleven sons, by various connections; the twelfth, Svyatopolk I was his brother Yaropólk's son; Vladímir married Yaropóik's widow.

He partitioned out principalities to his sons; these grants were called удѣлы, (uděly).

Introduction: The Land System

In the feudal age the only form of capital was land. In those smaller Western European countries which had been conquered by Teuton tribes and administered by traditions of Roman law, the tenure of land was soon organized on a system of defined services, and was always lineally descendible. The only variance between different countries was the effective power and the rights of the sovereign, who was in theory the supreme and ultimate owner of all the land.

None of these antecedents obtained in Russia. The Norsemen had descended on Russia spasmodically, gradually, rather more like the Saxons who overwhelmed Celtic Britain and had already acquired vested interests, before any unitary state arose.

Secondly, the victorious princes rewarded their faithful followers with principalities, with an eye to the defensive value of such holdings and the fitness of the individual for the post. The grants were personal; they were not descendable to the sons, who might he minors or otherwise incompetent or undesirable. These gants were called удѣлы.

On the death of such territorial prince, the post, with its responsibilities generally passed to his next brother; a course of lateral succession, by which the throne of Kíev also devolved.

The natural outcome of this system was civil strife and a great mortality in brothers. Russia, which in the first place was too vast to hold together, showed a tendency (that increased with the prolific families of these princes) to shale off, so to speak, into factions which were ever subdividing themselves. As each fragment broke off, it became a private estate and heritable; an удѣлъ which had been held by a father was called an отчина and in the second generation a дѣдина [отецъ, father; дѣдъ grandfather]. In such minor principalities, the course of descent was lateral as for Russia in general, with the all important distinctions, that the descendants of the particular brother received their father's estates.

Thus at the death of Svyatosláv I, the three удѣлы were Nóvgorod, the Drevlyán country, and Kíev; on Vladímir's death, Izyasláv held Polotsk (which was independent from this date onwards), Svyatosláv had Turóv; Yarosláv had Nóvgorod; Borís Rostóv; and so on.

Later on, when Černígov became the отчина of the Ólgoviči, similar descendible tenures arose inside this principality such as Nóvgorod Sěverski: similarly, too, in every other part of Russia. There was no notion of fealty or allegiance; the grand prince of Kíev was merely primus inter pares; all отчины and дѣдины were held as allods.

Very much later, in the centralized state of Great Russia (with its capital at Moscow), a feudal system of land held by military tenure came into existence; such grants were called помѣцтье.

The primitive удѣлы, being personal grants for the defence of certain outposts, presupposed the indivisibility of Russia, and generally went in rotation, the eldest brother being assigned the central position of Kíev, the next one that of Černígov; and as each post became vacated these officers of state, as they may be considered, were all in turn promoted.

A regular scheme of lateral succession was adumbrated by the will of Yarosláv I, when Russia was partitioned amongst his five sons in the following order, Kíev, Černígov, Pereyáslavl’, Smolénsk and Vladímir Volynsk.

This provisional arrangement, with all its inconveniences and jealousies, secured some little method in Russia and came to be regarded as something like a fundamental law.

If a brother predeceased the holder of the throne at Kíev, his descendants had no claim to any part of his удѣлъ which, so to speak, escheated to the next brother. These landless princes were called изгои, and their just claims for compensation were a fruitful source of civil war.

Thus, the absence of a central monarch and feudal overlord, the perpetuation of lateral succession, the constant creation of landless pretenders were all causes predisposing to anarchy and the effacement of a common patriotism: for the owners of descendible estates were concerned for themselves: and the удѣльные киязи were too insecure. After the death of Yarosláv I, Russia steadily declined from unity and efficiency.

Introduction: Yarosláv I.

Vladímir I left twelve sons surviving. The immediate business was to thin their ranks.

Svyatopólk oí Turov (a town on the Pripet’ about 150 miles from Kíev) at once proclaimed himself grand prince and despatched his brothers Borís of Rostóv and Glěb of Múrom and Svyatosláv, prince among the Drevlyáne.

Svyatopólk bears a very bad name in the annals of Russia, for bloodthirstiness and tyranny. In the Zadónščina (the Moscovite plagiarism on the Slóvo) he is constantly mentioned as the prototype of an evil prince.

Svyatopólk was married to a Polish princess and had already revolted against his father. Yarosláv with the Norsemen of Nóvgorod marched to Kíev and expelled Svyatopólk, who recovered Kíev soon after with the aid of Polish troops. This foreign occupation rendered him even more detested, and soon after their departure, he was beaten by Yarosláv in 1019 and died on his way to Poland.

The reign of Yarosláv the Wise [Мудрый] lasted until 1054; up to 1036 Mstíslav of Tmutarakáń obliged him to adhere to a partition of Russia; from 1036-1054 Russia was for the last time a unitary state.

Yarosláv's enduring reputation rests on his fortification of the boundaries by building cities and on his codification of Russian law [Русская Правда], the erection of cathedrals (e.g. Saint Sophia at Nóvgorod); generally speaking on his work as a consolidator.

In 1020 he defeated Svyatopólk with great carnage on the Alta [or Льта]; an event worth marking as the first time when a Russian prince appeared in the field leading the Pečenegs, nomad enemies against the Prince of Kíev. Polotsk became the permanent possession or the house of Izyasláv; this marked the first definitive scission.

In 1022 Mstíslav of Tmutarakáń defeated the Kasog chieftain Redélya in single combat, (a heroic episode for which see line 19 of the text, and the note on it).

Yarosláv tried to provide against the anarchy of the partitions by decreeing in his will the division stated in the previous section. It was a vain attempt.

His death marks the passing of Russia's unity. In that same year, too, a more formidable foe began to assail the borders of Russia; the Pólovtsy under their leader Bolus or Blus. The Pečenegs were now conquered, but by a more energetic Turanian race that harassed Russia, until the Mongols in 1224 subdued them and the Russians alike.

Introduction: The Yarosláviči

Yarosláv I may have hoped that this written instructions would prevent a recrudescence of the dynastic struggles, in which he had been victorious. But the immense territory from Nóvgorod to Kíev was too vast for one hand to govern; and, if it were subdivided, there was no means of enforcing proper subordination. The story, down to 1224 is one of continuous disintegration, at the best abated for a while by some great prince.

The reign of Izyasláv I was marked by internal dissension and incursions from without. He was an unpopular ruler, but during he first years of his reign the pressure of the Polovsk invasion curbed the brotherly factions.

In 1054 or 1055 the Pólovtsy under Bolus [or Blus or Bus] made a first appearance on the marches of Russia, and Vsévolod of Pereyáslavl’, the third brother, bought them off [створи миръ]; "and they returned again whence they had come."

But the methods of an Ethelred the Unready are always ineffective; in 1061 the Pólovtsy for the first time invaded Russian soil; Vsévolod set out on the second of February of this year and was defeated. "This was the first disaster [зъло] from the Pagan and godless enemy. Their prince was Iskal [or Sokal]."

The danger was momentarily passed, and internal trouble began. Vséslav Bryánčislavič of Polotsk followed his father's example in 1021 and seized and sacked the wealthy city of Nóvgorod, which had been assigned by Yarosláv I to Izyasláv. Izyasláv with his son Svyatopólk, and his brother Vsévolod marched to Minsk and took bloody revenge, "slaying men and women, and seized the children as booty [дѣти вдаша на щиты] i.e. enslaved them."

Vséslav encountered them on the Nemíga, was beaten, and with his two sons treacherously imprisoned at Kíev. This battle was fought in deep snow and was very bloody; the Chronicles are concise and detailed at this period. No doubt, the political motive may have been jealousy of the independence of Polotsk.

In 1067 the Pólovtsy invaded Russia anew in great force and again defeated the three brothers Izyasláv, Svyatosláv and Vsévolod on the Alta [or Льта]. The citizens of Kíev demanded arms for self-defence; Izyasláv would not accede; they rose against him, acclaimed Vséslav as Grand-prince, a position he held for nine months, when he fled surreptitiously on hearing of Izyasláv's approach with Polish troops.

Svyatopólk Izyaslávič carried the war into Polotsk, which he captured for Kíev; Vséslav recovered his inheritance [дѣдина] in 1071 from Svyatopólk Izyaslávič.

In 1071 the Pólovtsy reappeared at Rostevets near Neyátin [or Нежатинъ;? the river Нея in the Government of Kostromá an affluent of the Unža in the former territory of the Meri].

Meanwhile Izyasláv was quarrelling with his brothers. In 1078 Oleg Svyatoslávič (after whom the house of the Ólgoviči was named) had to flee to Tmutarakáń, and Glěb, his brother, (whom the Chronicles eulogize as a merciful prince) was murdered.

Svyatosláv and Vsévolod had again expelled Izyasláv from Kíev in 1073; Svyatosláv died in 1076, after assuming the title of grand-prince of Kíev; from 1076 to 1078 Izyasláv with Polish troops held Kíev. Svyatopólk Izyaslávič had possessed himself of the lands of Glĕb Svyatoslávič.

This injustice had to be punished, but the method adopted was a terrible precedent.

In 1078 Olég Svyatoslávič and Borís Vyačeslávič headed the Pagan Pólovtsy against Russia, to recover their rights. Vsévolod sided with Izyasláv. At the battle of the Nežátin plain [Нежатина нива] Vsévolod and the Russians were defeated; Borís and Izyasláv were slain.

In the following year, another Svyatoslávič, Román led the Pólovtsy once more against Vsévolod to the Voïna near Pereyáslavl’. Vsévolod bribed the enemy off; and the nomads murdered Román.

The rift between Vsévolod Yaroslávič and the Svyatosláviči arose from the act of Vsévolod and Izyasláv after 1076; when, on the death of Svyatosláv of Černígov, they, in accord with the theory of the удѣлъ, declined to assign Černígov to the изгои, the Svyatosláviči, his sons. In 1097 at the synod of Lyúbeč, Černígov was constituted the independent отчина of this branch of the family.

But there was little good will between the Monomákhoviči, the descendants of Vladímir II and the Ólgoviči of Kíev. In this period Van Vyšátin, (who is very likely identical with Boyán of the Slóvo) is frequently mentioned as a councillor, especially in relation to the house of Polotsk. The years between Vladímir I and Vladímir II seem to be embraced in the expression старое время (the olden time), used with regard to Boyán throughout the poem.

The inglorious reign of Izyasláv I was marked by interminable civil war within, and the successful occupation by the Pólovtsy of the old realms of the Khozars and Pečenegs, so that Russia was now cut off from the waterways of the Don and the Volga, as well as from the lower stream of the Dnĕpr.

At the close of this reign, Izyasláv was succeeded, in accordance with the rule of lateral devolution in the eldest branch, by his brother Vsévolod I, who maintained his position mainly through bis son Vladímir. Vladímir Vsévolodovič, born in 1053, in 1067 was assigned the удѣлъ of Smolénsk, and served the princes of Kíev faithfully against Emperor Henry IV in 1075, and against Polotsk in 1077; and every year against the wild peoples of the steppes; his name inspired terror into the Pólovtsy. Vsévolod his father was a just and educated ruler of no great individuality. Through Vladímir's agency, David Ígorevič, the изгой was established in his father's seat as Vladímir Volýnsk. In 1087 Yaropólk Izyaslávič was murdered, one of the few whom the Chroniclers delight to honour.

In the year 1093 Vsévolod. I died. The Pólovtsy invaded Russia in force, and again routed the Russians at the battle of the Stúgna (near Trépol’). Rostíslav Vsévolodovič was drowned in this battle, (an incident on which, for some reason, the Chroniclers dwell).

One cause of defeat may have been divided councils; Vladímir wished for war, Svyatopólk Izyaslávič peace; and Svyatopólk followed the enemy up to be repulsed anew on the Želan.

On Vsévolod's death, Vladímir, studious for lawful succession, allowed his cousin Svyatopólk, the eldest collateral to take the throne of Kíev. In 1094 Svyatopólk made peace with the Pólovtsy and ratified the treaty by marrying the daughter of Tugorkan their leader. Evidently, the same process of fusion was beginning, as had assimilated the Pečenegs of the past period. Henceforth there is frequent mention of the tame and the wild [дикій] Pólovtsy: the former must be those already Christianized.

In 1094 the изгой Olég of Tmutarakáń, together with his Polovsk allies made war on Vladímir at Černígov, who found it prudent to retire to Pereyáslavl’.

In the next year, the Polovsk ambassadors Itlar and Kytan were treacherously and unnecessarily murdered, in the raid that followed, Olég would not help the Russians, and Kíev was desolated by Bonyák, the Polovsk leader.

But fortune was at last favouring the Russians in this desultory campaign against the Svyatosláviči and the Pólovtsy. In 1096 Olég Svyatoslávič was defeated at Starodúb, and Tugorkan on the river Trubež; Tugorkan "the father-in-law and foe of Svyatopólk" was brought to Kíev and buried at the crossroads outside Berestovo (a suburb of Kíev).

It is because the popular ballads recorded these details so well and enlarged on them, because the Chroniclers dilate on them at such length, and lastly, because the Slóvo refers to them specifically that the events prior to the accession of Vladímir II as Great Prince of Kíev must be stated with some particularity.

In 1096 Olég was again defeated on the river Klyážma, (very far North, not far from Moscow).

The outcome of all this endless disorder was a renewed attempt at some territorial concordat at the Synod of Lyúbeč 1097. Svyatopólk, Vladímir, Olég and David Svyatoslávič, David Ígorevič, Vasílko Rostíslavič were amongst those summoned.

Turov and Kíev were assigned to Svyatopólk; Pereyáslavl’, Smolénsk and Rostóv to Vladímir; Nóvgorod to Mstíslav Vladímirovič; Černígov, Peremýsl’ to Olég, David and Yarosláv, the Svyatoslâviči; and Polotsk was acknowledged to belong to Vséslav Bryáčislavič (this was a mere recognition of fact); whilst to David Ígoŕevič, was given his father's удѣлъ of the principality Vladímir Volýnsk.

But, that same year 1097, David Ígorevič discontented with his share as compared with the grants to the two Rostíslaviči, Vasilko and Volodáŕ, brutally blinded the former, boring out one eye after the other, a gross treachery that raised up against him all the conscience of Russia; after further disputes and fighting, David Îgorevič had to surrender his new inheritance [отчина] of Vladímir Volýnsk.

Thus, Russia was finally partitioned into heritable principalities with no common allegiance; with at best, only a shadowy deference to the senior prince of Kíev. Tranquillity had been secured for a time, and in 1103, 1106, 1107, 1109, 1110, 1113, crushing victories were obtained over the Pólovtsy, and the Russian arms once again proved themselves formidable, even as far as the Don and beyond, e.g. in the year 1116.

In 1113 Yarosláv Svyatoslávič began a campaign against the unruly Yatvyági (on the Lithuanian frontier), and extended the sphere of Russian influence.

The Chronicles provide very full accounts of the successful campaigns of this decade, give all the names of the Polovsk leaders who were captured; of these is worth noting Šarokan (1107). whose name recurs often in the popular ballads); Bonyák (1107); and Taz (1107): (Strabo Lib. VII Cap. III of οἱ Ῥωζολανοὶ στρατηγὸν ἔχοντες Τάσιον) and, no doubt, many of these names could be elucidated by a Turanian philologist.

Introduction: The Four Great Princes

In the year 1113 Svyatopólk II Izyaslávič died. Like his uncle, Vsévolod I he had been maintained on the throne by Vladímir.

The citizens of Kíev insisted on Vladímir resuming the office of Grand-Prince and passing over the claims of the Svyatosláviči, the next eldest branch of the Yarosláviči, whose record had been none of the best during the previous reigns. Svyatopólk left no brothers, and his sons were mere lads. Vladímir Monomákh [his baptismal name] ascended the throne; by so doing, he incurred the hostility of the envious Ólgoviči, who were now sovereigns in the independent domain of Černígov.

There had, as yet, been three great rulers in Kíevite Russia. The first of these, Svyatosláv I, was the great conqueror, a Bayard, who worked with the statesmanlike object of giving his country intelligible frontiers, to protect it against the nomads and secure the trade-routes down the Dněpr and on the Black Sea. He shattered the Khozars, and shook off the Asiatic yoke. His was a romantic figure that compels admiration.

The second is his son Vladímir I. His was a passionate and sensuous nature, but his impulsiveness was directed to great ends. He re-created Russian unity; gave Russia a new religious purpose, and, with this end in view, even attempted to formalize and institute Paganism. He ruled with vigour and concentrated authority in his own hands at Kíev within those huge confines (which Svyatosláv could not enlarge).

After him there came the great administrator and law-giver, Yarosláv I. This monarch had less initiative than his father Vladímir; but he was just and strong and did all he could to build enduringly on the foundations laid by Svyatosláv and Vladímir. Yarosláv I made Russia known to foreign states: one of his daughters married Henry I of France: another, the King of Hungary.

But the many sons of Yarosláv were unequal to the stupendous task of maintaining in unity a realm with no defined boundaries, without even the loose bond of a feudal system, and pertinaciously, relentlessly, attacked by swarms of nomads from the steppes. During the anarchy of the succeeding reigns, the natural lines of fissure asserted themselves and developed; Nóvgorod split off, to enjoy till 1478 (when she was conquered and destroyed by Moscow) virtual independence, electing and rejecting what prince she would: Polotsk parted from Russia; and at last the independence of Smolénsk, Volhynia, Černígov and Galicia had to be conceded. The domain of Černígov included Moscow, Ryazáń, Vyátka and the Rádimiči.

At this point of history, medieval Russia's last great ruler steps in, a man trained to arms, which he had never used except against rebels or the enemy, the faithful lieutenant of his father Vsévolod I and his cousin Svyatopólk II, the statesman who adhered to the rules of succession, imperfect as they were, so as to preserve some safeguard against arbitrary force. The dismemberment of Russia was inevitable: he accepted and tried to rebuild on this assumption. But the dilemma was hopeless. Unless the great estates were made heritable, there would be no stability, and no contentment of princely ambition: if they were made heritable, there could be no concerted common action, save by casual consent. If the old scheme obtained of grants of military posts for life, the holders would be always dissatisfied, and their sons always in rebellion. There was no middle course of feudal vassal tenure with a sovereign overlord.

To a state racked with anarchy within, with its morale broken by living precedents of treachery and alliance for selfish ends with the Pagan foe, Vladímir II † at last succeeded; he left Russia organized enough for common action, so as to subsist a century longer.

Introduction: Vladímir II

At the age of sixty-one, in the year 1113, Vladímir ascended the throne. He had eight sons, one, Izyasláv had been killed in the campaign of 1096 against Olég Svyatoslávič: another, Svyatosláv died in 1114; a third one, David, is mentioned in 1116, and probably predeceased his father.

Vladímir's formal accession makes no break in the policy of Russia which he led and initiated.

The Chronicle for 1114 contains a curious apocalyptic tale, an Egyptian legend of Svarog (the Slav god of the sky) instituting an Elysian age, and being succeeded by his son Dažbog, the Sun-god, under whose rule cities were founded and civilization prospered. The interpolation of this piece of mythology may be symbolic of Vsévolod I and Vladímir II.

The forays against the peoples of the steppes were almost continuous during the thirteen years of this reign and very successful. The Russian arms were carried as far north as the Bolgars of the Volga (e.g. by Yúri Vladímirovič in 1120) and the cities of the Pólovtsy beyond the Don were taken and sacked. The steppes were cleared and the enemy driven back to the Caucasus. As Vladímir himself says in his 'Instruction to his children,' he had beeen engaged in eighty-three campaigns of consequence, concluded nineteen treaties with the Pólovtsy, and captured three hundred of their leaders.

Vladímir was also a good legislator, remedied the condition of the закуны (half-free debtors) and left his impress on the internal organization of the State.

In 1126 he died; the Chronicle justly says:--"He enlightened Russia like the sun, shedding its beams. His fame went forth to all countries. He was a terror to the Pagans, a lover to his brothers [this attribute has at this time no mere conventional value] and charitable; and a good champion for Russia.

On his five surviving sons, Mstíslav of Kíev, and Mstíslav's sons Nóvgorod, Kuŕsk and Smolénsk; Yaropólk was granted Pereyáslavl’; Vyáčeslav Turov, Yúri Suzdal’; and Andréy Volhynia.

Introduction: The Successors of Vladímir II

The history of Russia after 1126 down to the Mongol conquest 1240 is a welter of civil wars, nomad incursions, incapable and selfish rulers, increasing disunion; and under such adverse conditions the country was progressively impoverished. In forty four years eighteen princes sat on the throne of Kíev, i.e. up to the sack of Kíev by the Northern federation. It is better to survey the course of this long senescence and pass over the particular symptoms.

The short reign of Mstíslav I (1125-1132) is principally notable for the reoccupation of the principality of Polotsk, the princes of which were banished to Greece for their evil customs [Злонранвіе]. After Vséslav's death subdivision and anarchy ensued, and the Polotsk princes, barbarous beyond the conventions of the time, used to sell their own subjects into slavery. Izyasláv Vladímirovič was temporarily installed at Polotsk. [C.f. 1.534 of the text].

Yaropólk II, his brother (1132-1139) arranged that his nephew Izyaslûv Mstislavič should succeed him at Kíev, thus abrogating the rights of the surviving sons of Vladímir II. Vsévolod Ólgovič interposed; (the house of Černígov was glad of the broils of the Monomákhoviči). Yúri of Súzdal, the founder of the Northern house of the Tsars of Moscow, claimed Kíev, and for three years 1154-1157 was Grand-Prince; meantime civil strife was incessant, in the course of which the Ólgovič Vsévolod II usurped the throne from 1139-1146.

Yúri of Suzdal was a hard calculating character, unscrupulous with the coldness that distinguishes the Northern princes of Suzdal and Vladímir from their Southern predecessors. The Princes of Smolénsk, Černígov and Volhynia rose against his rule in the year of his death 1157.

From this date down to 1240, when the Tatars sacked Kíev, no less than thirty princes held the perilous throne of Kíev, a title soon to be devoid of honour or significance.

Introduction: The Fall of Kíev and Rise of Suzdal and Moscow

The confused history of this epoch is clearest surveyed from its centre, which had moved up North.

South Russia was exhausting itself. From the year 1054 the Pólovtsy had been ravaging and laying waste, carrying off with them Russians as slaves and creating utter insecurity, poignantly described in the Chronicles for 1170. "God put a good thought into the heart of Mstíslav Izyaslávič on behalf of the Russian land; for he wished her well with all his heart; so he summoned his brothers, and took counsel with them, saying;--'Brothers, have compassion on the Russian land, and for your own ancestral estates; for the enemy every year carry away the peasants [or the Christians] in their tents; they cut down our forests, and always march over us; and already they will soon cut us off from the road to Greece to Salonica. . . .'"; or again (1103) "In the spring the serf [смердъ] sets out to plough with his horses, and the Polovčín arrives, strikes him down with his arrow, takes his horse, then goes into his village, seizes his wife, his children and all of his possessions, and burns the empty hut."

After 1126 the evil went on unabated. Some of the Polovsk campaigns should be outlined. In 1128 they were active under a leader Seluk, a very Turkish name. In 1135, 1139, the Ólgoviči are in alliance with the Pólovtsy. In 1140 the Pólovtsy were beaten and pursued beyond the Don and Volga. In 1150 they are in alliance with Yúri of Suzdal. In 1152, 1154 they reappear in the heart of Russia, in 1155 on the Kanina river (near Kíev), and there is another great battle in 1160.

After 1160 there is frequent mention of the wild Pólovtsy,: the implication seems to be that some of them had been settled on Russian territory, and used as auxiliaries by the territorial princes. Thus in 1172, when Glĕb Yúrevič of Suzdal was on the throne of Kíev, a host of Pólovtsy invaded, and divided into two sections; one proceeding to Pereyáslavl’, the other going down the Dnĕpr to Korsún; both sent envoys to Glĕb to say that God had established him in his ancestral estate at Kíev, and they wished to settle amongst the Russians who need fear nothing from them. Terms were arranged with the first section, but not with the second.

In 1161, 1162, 1165, 1167 (when the Polovsk leader was Bonyák), 1168, this endless fight continues with the Pólovtsy; in 1172 Glĕb Yúrevič is found in alliance with the 'wild' Pólovtsy, under Kontsák (or Končák) against whom Ígoŕ Svyatoslávič, the hero of the Slóvo, made his foray in 1185. In 1173 the relentless nomads ravaged the neighbourhood of Kíev; but were beaten and pursued as far as the river Bug.

This list of years and invasions might be prolonged; every year seems the same; the nomads moved forwards with their herds and tents, no doubt themselves shifted from their old pastures by other tribes who urged them from the rear. In 1177 the Russians suffered another great defeat: "God let loose his wrath on us," says the Chronicler in 1177, "and sent the Pagans; but not in compassion for them; but, as manifesting to us, turning us to repentance, that we might be deterred from evil paths. For this is his scourge. . .'--pious reflections, but poor consolation.

Končák appears again in 1178, leading the "godless Ishmaelites, the desperate sons of Hagar,"; whilst still the princes bickered and Svyatosláv Vsévolodič in 1180, Prince of Kíev, used these foes in his quarrel with the treacherous house of Suzdal which had imprisoned his son Glĕb.

Meanwhile the princes of Suzdal were gradually conquering the Bolgars of the Volga, a tribe which had almost settled into civic ways.

In 1184 Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič defeated the Polovsk chieftain Kobyák, an incident mentioned in the Slóvo l. 344. But in that same year Kontsák, "the desperate and godless and thrice-accursèd," made a very dangerous inroad, using the 'Greek Fire,' that belched flames out of long heavy tubes. Unfortunately for the Pólovtsy, their one artificer was captured, and the Russians won a great victory.

And so the tale of these incursions goes on, until in 1224 the Pólovtsy disappear from history, wiped out of separate existence by the Tatars, and merged with the subject Russians.

The territory of Kíev and South Russia was being steadily devastated by these ceaseless incursions of barbarians.

The population was also changing its character. The endless wars internal and external resulted in great captures of slaves the general impoverishment of the agricultural population was also contributing to the enslavement of the Russian people. The husbandman in this insecurity could not cultivate or pay his debts; as a debtor, he became a закупъ or debt-serf, who had to pay in labour what he could not absolve in money; as such, if he ran away or evaded his obligations he lost his freedom altogether. Prosperity was founded on slave-ownership and, at the end there were too few freemen left to fight for national freedom.

The composition of the population was changing. When the Pólovtsy subdued the Pečenegs, the latter were soon absorbed into the mass of the people, and these Asiatics were allowed to settle on Russian soil. The remnants of the Pečenegs, the Torks, the Beréndiči, and other similar tribes were collectively called Black-caps [черные клобуки] and used as auxiliaries of the Prince of Kíev. In like manner Černígov † and Galicia drew on other barbarian peoples as mercenaries.

These ruralized Turanians became the natural allies of the Russians in defence of their villages and lands; but these admixtures were altering the composition and so the character of the nation.

To these disturbing factors may be added the continuous emigration North, to Suzdal, six hundred miles away, where there was something like a settled government, and above all some immunity from nomad incursion. These Turanian invaders seem nearly all to have come from the South, from the shores of the Caspian, North of the Caucasus, and to have advanced by the steppes watered by the Don, the Volga and their affluents. This also was the Tatars' line of advance.

Thus South Russia, racked with civil war, depleted by emigration, repeopled by Asiatics, ravaged year in, year out, by savage foes, and crippled in her energies by the rapid extention of slave-holding, was exhausted, the wonder is that she kept up the struggle so long, and gave such valiant account of herself at the last hopeless contest with the Mongols.

Something, even though in outline, must be said of the dynastic changes from 1126, when Vladímir II died, down to the extinction of Russian freedom by the Tatars and the supersession of Kíev as the seat of the Grand-Prince.

After the death of Mstíslav I in 1132, the Monomákhovici had to contend with the Ólgoviči, who aspired to Kíev; with the rivalry of the descendants of Izyasláv II and Rostíslav I, (i. e. the princes of Volhynia and the princes of Smolénsk), as well as with the claims of Suzdal which were governed by the descendants. of Yúri Vladímirovič. On the death of Izyasláv II, (a prince whom the Chronicle calls honourable, orthodox and pious; he was certainly a brave warrior), Yúri from 1154-1157 held the throne of Kíev, for which he had plotted so long and so indefatigably. The annals from 1157 are mainly occupied with wars with the princes of Galicia, during which Yarosláv Vladímirkovič was creating his immense principality [v. note sub hoc nomine].

In 1169 Mstíslav II Izyáslavič was on the throne, and allied him self with Nóvgorod in a last attempt to strengthen Kíev against Suzdal, which under Andréy Bogolybhski Yúrevič (1110-1174) had been steadily growing and consolidating. A great conspiracy was entered into against, Kíev, amongst others by the princes of Pereyáslavl’, Smolénsk, Dorogobug, Ovruc, Vysegórod, Olég and Ígoŕ Svyatoslávic of the house of Černígov. The expedition was entrusted to Mstíslav, Andréy's son. Kíev was sacked for two days; "no mercy was shown to anyone; the churches were burnt; the inhabitants slaughtered, the women led into captivity and separated from their husbands; and the children sobbed as they saw their mothers' plight: houses were pillaged: royal robes, icons and books looted; and all the bells were carried away. All men in Kíev groaned and lamented. All of this was accomplished for our sins."

Andréy Yúrevič had too mean an opinion of the former capital of Russia to trouble to occupy the throne; at his orders, his son Mstíslav set up Glěb Yúrevič as regent.

Suzdal had long been virtually independent. It had taken practically no share in the defence of Russia against the Pólovtsy, and directed its energies to expansion Northwards against the pacific Bolgars of the Volga. Andréy, by the brutal sack of Kíev, turned the current of Russian history. In 1172 Mstíslav Izyaslavič with the aid of the Galicians [cf. 1.486 of the text] re-entered Kíev: and Glěb, to recover his conquest, utilized the savage Pólovtsy under Končák. In 1173 Román Rostíslavič was allowed to take the throne of Kíev, on the death of Glĕb, whom the Chronicle celebrates as one who loved his brothers, held fast by his oath until death, was gentle, courteous, generous to the church and charitable. This obituary gathers force by comparison with another of 1174, one Vladímir Mstíslavič who suffered much evil, fleeing to Galicia, to Hungary or Polovsk-land, for his own fault, that he never was faithful to his pledged word.

In 1175 the prince of Suzdal already has the title of Grand Prince [великій князь], whilst the ruler at Kíev is appointed and deposed at his will, and soon called simply Князь кіевцкій like any other local princelet. In 1175 Andréy Yúrevič, the real founder of the northern Russian state, was assassinated. He is duly appraised by the Chronicle for his wisdom and piety, his zeal in building cities, and the greatness of the state he erected. He was born in the North, was cold and calculating, unlike the great princes of Kíevite Russia; but he deserves the lengthy laudation awarded to him by the contemporary Chronicle.

Moscow was founded in 1147, and already appears in 1175 and 1176 as a place of importance. In 1271 it became the capital of Moscovite Russia, replacing Vladímir, [the northern town of that name].

In 1177 Vsévolod Yúrevič succeeded to Andréy as virtual autocrat of the independent state of Suzdal. He was the master of Russia, controlled the Ólgoviči of Černígov, from whom he took Ryazán, compensating them with the gift of Kíev. Thus in 1180 Svyatosláv Vsévolodič, the grandson of Olég of Tmutarakáń succeeded to the sceptre of Vladímir II.

From all these causes the centre of gravity of medieval Russia gradually shifted up North; Kíev was left to decay: to be swept into the subsequent Lithuanian State, and at last to be recovered by Moscow, two hundred and forty years later, together with the Tatar title of Tsar of Russia [Царь бсея Россіи], after the Tatar dominion had been overwhelmed by new Turkish invaders, who swept farther South to uproot the ancient Eastern Empire, and to occupy the impregnable Dardanelles.

Introduction: The Historical References to Ígoŕ Svyatoslávic

The preceding sections are intended to put the text here edited into historical perspective, and also to give some account, however scanty, of medieval Russian history, up to those two cardinal events, which deflected and reshaped Russia, namely, the decline of Kíev, where Russian nationality was born, and the forcible submersion of all the petty princes under the unendurable and degrading yoke of the Mongols, who left an Asiatic impress on the autocracy of the Moscovite state.

In this last section such biographical details as the Chronicles supply should be set forth of the career of the hero of the Slóvo, Ígoŕ Svyatoslávič.

He was born in the year 1151, the third son of Svyatosláv Ógovič. After 1097 the удѣлъ [or as sometimes rendered the 'appanage'] of Černígov became the inheritance [дѣдина] of the Ólgoviči, and inside this domain the lateral course of devolution in order of seniority was Černígov, Kursk, Trubeč and Nóvgorod-Sĕverski. Thus, in 1146 Svyatosláv Ólgovič succeeded to this capital [столъ] of Černigov. In 1166 Ígoŕ's brother Olég defeated the Pólovtsy and killed their leader Santuz. This Olég must have been a brave prince, for in 1161 he was invited to Kíev by Rostíslav I to serve him. Civil wars arose in the Principality of Černigov; in 1167 Olég was fighting his first cousin Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič over a matter of succession; presumably, the sons of Vsévolod Ólgovič resented their position as изгои, landless princes, (because their father predeceased Olég, the founder of the house), thus repeating history in the second generation. In 1167 Olég, Ígoŕ's brother vanquishes Bonyák, a Polovsk leader.

Ígoŕ's name first appears in the great expedition of 1169 against Kíev, together with that of Olég. He had married Evfrósyna (Εὐφροσύνη) Yaroslávna, the daughter of the Galician ruler, and had five sons by her, of whom Vladímir was born in 1173, Olég in 1175, and Svyatosláv in 1177.

In 1174 Ígoŕ collected troops and marched out towards the river Oskol [Воръсколъ] (about eighty miles from the town of Kursk down the river Seim); he was informed by a captive that Kobyák and Končâk were moving on towards Pereyáslavl’; in this unimportant engagement Ígoŕ was victorious. He was evidently acting by himself.

In the same year Ígoŕ took part in the campaign against Mstíslav Rostíslavič, who was endeavouring to recover Kíev from the usurper. The Rostíslaviči in this instance won and petitioned Andréy Yúrevič for permission to reign at Kíev. In 1175 Olég and Svyatosláv Svyatoslávič, Ígoŕ's brothers, were fighting against each other.

In 1177 the Rostíslaviči were expelled from Kíev and Svyatoslâv Vsévolodovič, Ígoŕ's first cousin installed. The Ólgoviči were now the princes of Kíev.

In 1178 Olég, Ígoŕ's brother died, and Ígoŕ succeeded to Nóvgorod-Sěverski; Černígov passing to Yarosláv Vsévolodovič who became notable for his cowardice [v. note on l. 558].

In 1180 Svyatosláv (who had meanwhile lost Kíev to Rurik Rostíslavič) assembled to Lyúbeč a conference to recover the capital; Yarosláv Vsévolodič, and the brothers Ígoŕ and Vsévolod Svyatoslávič attended.

In 1180 Ígoŕ is found advising David Rostíslavič who was being attacked by Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič. He counselled him to remain quiet and support his brother Rurik.

But in 1180 Svyatosláv Vsévolodič again expelled Rurik from Kíev. In this year Svyatosláv, in alliance with the Pólovtsy made war on Vsévolod Yúŕevič to release his own son Glěb whom the Prince of Suzdal had treacherously imprisoned. Ígoŕ was left behind to guard Černígov. A battle was fought on the Vlena, and Svyatosláv won. David Rostíslavič assailed Ígoŕ, who would not give battle.

At this time Ígoŕ was in alliance with Končák and Kobyák, formidable Polovsk chieftains. Together with them, he was defeated by Mstíslav Rostíslavič on the river Čertoryĭa, and escaped with Končák in a boat. The Chronicle gives a long list of Polovsk names; one chieftain is called Козелъ Сотановичъ--"Goat Satanson"!

In 1183 Končák invaded Russia. Svyatoslâv Vsévolodovič, and Rurik Rostíslavič set out to fight them at Olžič where they awaited Yarosláv Vsévolodovič. Ígoŕ summoned his son Olég, his nephew Svyatosláv Ólgovič and his brother Vsévolod, and was to assume the command. The Pôlovtsy declined an engagement.

Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič hereupon designed an expedition on a much larger scale, followed the Pólovtsy into the steppes, defeated them and captured Kobyák. Again we see Ígoŕ unsuccessful and acting for himself, whilst Svyatosláv concerts measures and wins.

Ígoŕ was piqued at his cousin's achievement, sent for his brother Vsévolod and his son Vladímir. Nothing immediately came of this meeting.

About this time, Ígoŕ alone of the Russians gave shelter to Vladímir Yaroslávic of Galicia, whom his father had expelled.

In 1184 Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič repelled Končák who invaded Russia, using the Greek Fire and doing more havoc than usual [v. preceding section and note Карнаижля].

In 1185 Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič and Román Rostíslavic on the 1st of March again repulsed Končák; and again his brother Yarosláv would not accompany the expedition.

Ígoŕ was never asked to share in these organized attacks; and on the 23rd of April with his brother Vsévolod, his nephew Svyatosláv Ólgovič of Rylsk and his son Vladímir of Putívl’, so as to assert himself and show what he could accomplish, set out on the foray, which has been eternalized in this poem. His impulsive character, generous but weak, is evident all through.

The story had better be told at length in the words of the Chroniclers. Their account differs in slight details which supplement, and corroborate.

At all events, this summary of Ígoŕ's career exemplifies the purposeless anarchy of Russia at this epoch. The reports are as full for all the years preceding and following; the accounts become scanty and bare only after 1240, when the Tatars enforced peace, having made a desolation.

In 1187 Svyatosláv and Rurik Rostíslavič again attacked Končák. In 1191 Ígoŕ and his brothers made another foray which proved successful. In 1194 Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič, together with Ígoŕ and his brother Vsévolod concerted an attack on the territory of Ryazáń.

In 1198, on the death of Yarosláv Vsévolodovič, Ígoŕ succeded to the principality of Černígov. He died in 1202.

Introduction: The Chronicle for the Year 1185 Translated in Full

The Chronicle for the year 1185 contains very full details of the events in the Slóvo, but it is evident that the poet did not borrow his facts from the sources, as we now have them.

On the 1st of March 1185 Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič and Ryúrik Rostíslavič defeated Končák, and pursued beyond the River Khorol, but did not succeed in tracing or capturing him.

Yarosláv Vsévolodovič, the prince of Černígov, declined to accompany this expedition, contenting himself with sending his man Olstin Oveksič. Ígoŕ resented not being invited to take his share in this foray, and without consultation, on Thursday, the 23rd April, went to Nóvgorod Sĕverski, where he was joined by his brother Vsévolod of Trúbeč`, and his nephew Svyatosláv Ólgovič of Rylsk, and also by his son Vladímir from Putívl’. Yarosláv Vladímirkovič, the ruler of Galicia, and father-in-law of Ígoŕ was also asked to send contingents, and the Ковуи of Černígov [Turanian tribes attached to the Russian princelets] were summoned as auxiliaries.

With this army, Ígoŕ set out to the River Donéts. "He looked up at the sky and saw the sun standing like the moon, and said to his boyárs and druižna:--'Do ye see what this portent is?' They gazed and saw it and bowed their heads. But the men spoke--'This portent bodes no good!' [The importance attached to astronomical portents in the Chronicles is very great, and every event of the sort is closely and accurately described]. . . . . . . Ígoŕ forded the Donéts and Ígoŕ marched on to the Oskol and there waited two days for his brother Vsévolod, who was coming by another road, from Kursk; thence the two proceeded to the River Salnitsa.

Their scouts advised them--"We have seen the array of your enemies; they advance at evil speed: let us move swiftly, or return home; the time is not our own.' Ígoŕ spoke with his brothers,--'If we do not fight, but retreat, then our disgrace will be more than death; be it as God will.' † And, with this premonition, they marched on all the night through; and on the morning of that Friday, at noon-time they met the army of the Pólovtsy.

When they reached the enemy, the Russians left their tents behind them; and the enemy young and old were all standing on the further bank of the River Syuurli. Ígoŕ ranged his six companies; his own in the middle, Vsévolod's on the right, that of his nephew Svyatosláv on the left; in front of him, his son Vladímir, and a company kept by Yarosláv (with Olstin and his Kovúi), and in front a third regiment of archers drawn from all the princes' troops. This was the order of battle.

"And Ígoŕ said to his brothers,--'We have sought this: let us push on!' and so they advanced, putting their hope in God. As they reached the River Syuurli, the archers in the Polovsk host advanced and shot an arrow each at the Russians: and galloped back again. The Russians had not yet crossed the River Syuurli; the Polovétski forces, who stood farther from the river also galloped away.

Svyatosláv Ólgovič and Vladímir Ígoŕevič and Olstin with the Kovúi and the archers pursued them; but Ígoŕ and Vsévolod advanced slowly, keeping their men in hand; but the Russians in the van struck the enemy down and captured them. The Pólovtsy fled beyond their tents, and the Russians reached the tents and plundered them, whilst others came back to camp at night loaded with booty.

When all the Pólovtsy had been gathered together, Ígoŕ said to his brothers and his men:--"Thus hath God by his might given us victory over our foes and honour and glory to us; we have seen the companies of the Pólovtsy, how many they are, but have they all yet met? So, if we now march through the night, who will follow us till the morning, will they all follow us? Our best horsemen, may-be, will he cut down and we shall fare as God wills it." Then Svyatosláv Ólgovič spoke: "I have pursued the Pólovtsy far, and my horses can do no more; if I now continue, I shall have to fall behind on the march." And Vsévolod confirmed him in his resolve to stay there.

Ígoŕ said: "It is unprofitable, knowing this, brothers, that we should perish thus." So they encamped on the spot.

When the Saturday dawned, the regiments of the Pólovtsy came forward, like a forest; the Russian princes were bewildered; whom should they assail first; for the multitude of them was numberless. And Ígoŕ said:--"Thus we know we have collected against us all the land; Kontsák and Kozá Burnovič and Tóksobits Kolobič and Etebeč and Tertrobič." And, understanding this, they dismounted from their horses, for they wished to fight their way to the River Donéts and said: "If we flee, we shall ourselves escape, but we shall desert the Black folk [i.e. the serfs or servants; here the hired soldiers] but in the eyes of God we shall pass bearing the sin for them; so, let us die or remain alive in one place!"

With these words they all dismounted and set out to the fight; and, by the dispensation of God, Ígoŕ was wounded in the hand; and his left hand was as though it were dead; and there was great grieving in his host; and his general was taken, after receiving a wound in the front.

So the fight went on steadily all that day until nightfall, and there were many wounded and dead in the Russian forces; and on the Saturday night they continued fighting.

The Sunday was dawning, when the Kovúi became disordered, and fled in panic. Ígoŕ at that time was on horseback, on account of his wound, and rode to their company, wishing to make them return to the army. Then realizing he had left his own people some way behind, he took his helmet off and galloped back to his regiment, in order that he might be recognised as their prince and they might rally. But none returned, except Mikhálko Gyúrgovič who recognised his prince and-came back. For the men were not well mingled with the Kovúi, except a few of the privates or some of the boyárs' champions [отрокъ]. For the good men were fighting on foot, and amid them Vsévolod showed no little valour.

And as Ígoŕ was approaching his regiments, [the Pólovtsy] crossed his way, and took him captive within an arrow's shot from his own men.

When he was a prisoner, Ígoŕ saw his brother Vsévolod fighting stoutly; and, in his soul, he implored his own death, that he might not witness the fall of his own brother. Vsévolod went on fighting until he had not a weapon left in his hands, and they were fighting round a lake.

Thus, on Holy Sunday, the Lord poured forth his wrath upon us; and, in the stead of mirth, he gave us wailing, and instead of gladness grief [желю], on the River Kayála [now the Kagál’nik; v. note to Каяла]. And Ígoŕ said:--"I recollect my sins before the Lord my God, that I have wrought many to die, and shed much blood in the Christian land; how I showed no mercy to the Christian folk, and took by storm the city of Glěbov near Pereyáslavl’, For there no little evil befell the innocent Christians; fathers † were parted from their offspring, brother from brother, friend from friend, women from their betrothed and daughters from their mothers, and all was confounded in the captivity and sorrow that then arose; so that the living envied the dead and the dead rejoiced, as holy martyrs who had undergone their trial by fire in this life; old men were swept aside and youths received wounds cruel and ruthless; grown men were hewn and mutilated and the women violated; and all this I have done" Ígoŕ said "I am unworthy to live, and now I see the vengeance of the Lord my God. Where is now my beloved brother? Where is my brother's son? Where is the son I have born me? Where are the nobles of my Council, where my valiant warriors, the file of my men? Where are my steeds and my priceless muniments? Am I not parted from it all; has not the Lord given me as a captive to these lawless foes?". . . . . . . .

One of the Targols, a man named Čilbuk had captured Ígoŕ; Vsévolod his brother had been taken prisoner by Román Kzič, and Svyatosláv Ólgovič by Eldečyuk of the Voburčeviči, and Vladímir by Kopti of the Ulaševiči.

On the battlefield then Kontsák took charge of Ígoŕ, his kinsman [сватъ], as he was wounded. . . . . . . .

Out of the many captives few could escape; for it was impossible for those who ran away to evade because they were encompassed by the powerful armies of the Pólovtsy as though by stout walls. About fifteen of the Russians escaped, and fewer of the Kovúi, the rest were drowned in the sea [i.e. the river].

At this time the Grand-Prince Svyatosláv Vsévolodovič had gone to Koráčev and was collecting an army from the Uplands, wishing to march against the Pólovtsy on the River Don all the summer. Svyatosláv on his return, was at Nóvgorod-Sĕverski when he heard of his brothers; how they had marched against the Pólovtsy, and concealed their movements from him; and he was displeased at the news.

Svyatosláv was travelling and when he arrived at Černígov, Běloyolod Prosóvič came and told him what had happened with the Pólovtsy. When Svyatosláv heard of it, he heaved a sigh and wiped his tears and said:--"Oh my beloved brethren and sons and men in the Russian Land! Would that God had allowed me to conquer the Pagans: but, not casting away their youthfulness, they have opened wide the gates to the Russian land [ворота на Русьскую землю]". . . . .

Svyatosláv sent his son Olég, and Vladímir [Glěbovič] into the Posémye †: and hearing the news, the cities of the Posémye were stricken and there was grief and bitter wailing, such as had never been in the Posémye or in Nóvgorod-Sěverski or in all the domain of Černígov. . . .

Svyatosláv sent for help to David Rostíslavič of Smolénsk, and there arrived other help, but Yarosláv [of Černígov] collected troops at Černígov.

But the Pagan Pólovtsy having conquered Ígoŕ and his brothers were seized with great pride and gathered all their tribes [языкъ] on to Russian soil. Strife ensued amongst them; for Končák said:--"Let us go to the Kíev country where our brothers and our Grand-Prince Bonyák were defeated" [i.e. in the year 1185 ‡]; whereas Kza spoke:--"Let us go by the River Seĭm where their wives and children are left, a ready booty for us; for we shall capture the cities, without incurring risks" and so they parted their armies into two. . . . . . . .

Končák proceeded to Pereyáslavl’, which was defended by Vladímir Glĕbovič; this prince was himself wounded in a sally from the walls. Vladímir Glěbovič sent word to Svyatosláv, Ryúrik and David, and the relief was despatched.

But the Pólovtsy hearing of this, retired from Pereyáslavl’ and on their way attacked Rimov [or perhaps Rim]. But the men of Rim shut themselves up in their city, and climbing up to the ramparts, when, by Divine judgment, two defences fell down with the men, into the enemy, and the rest of the citizens were overcome with panic. Some citizens quitted the town and fought as they betook themselves into the Rimov swamps and thus escaped capture; those who lingered in the town were all taken prisoners.

. . . The Pólovtsy, after capturing Rimov, looted it and went on their ways. But the Russian princes returned home, and were sorrowful. . .

But the other Pólovtsy went by another road to Putívl’. Kza had a powerful army: and they waged war in their districts and burned the castle at Putívl’ and then returned home again.

But Ígoŕ Svyatoslávi that year remained among the Pólovtsy and said:--"I, fitly with my merit, have received defeat at Thy command. . . . . . . ." The Pólovtsy showed awe for his generalship and did him no offence; but set to guard him fifteen men from out of their sons and five from their chieftains' sons, in all twenty. And they gave him freedom to betake himself where he would, and he went hunting with his sparrow-hawk, five or six of his servants accompanying him. His guards obeyed him and honoured him, and wherever he sent anyone, willingly that one did his bidding.

He had also brought a priest with him from Russia for the Holy Office; for he knew not the will of God and was readying himself to stay there a long time.

But the Lord rescued him for the prayers of the Christians, many of whom grieved for him and shed tears for him.

Whilst he was there among the Pólovtsy, a man by birth a Polovčín, named Lávor, had found his way there; he had a goodly thought and said:--"I will go with thee to Russia." But Ígoŕ at first gave him no confidence, † but held to the lofty reasoning of youth,--and did not intend taking the man and fleeing with him to Russia,------: and he said:--"For the sake of glory I did not run away from the družína before, and now I will not depart by a dishonourable road." With Ígoŕ there was the son of the thousandman and his groom and they persuaded him and said:--"Prince, go back to Russia, if God desires to rescue thee." But such an occasion came to point as Ígoŕ sought for himself. But, as we said before, the Pólovtsy were returning from Pereyáslavl’; so Ígoŕ's counsellors said to him:--"Thou cherishest a haughty thought within thee and one mispleasing to God; thou seekest to take this man and to flee to Russia; but of this thou dost not take heed, that the Pólovtsy will be returning from the war; and we have heard this that our princes have been beaten by them, that they will slay the prince and you and all of Russia. Then thou wilt have neither fame nor life!"

Prince Ígoŕ took this word to his heart, for he was afraid of their return and he tried to flee. He considered were it better for him to flee by day or night. It was not possible for him to escape by day or night: for his guards watched him; but he secured a suitable time at sunset.

So Ígoŕ' sent to Lávor his groom, and told him:--"Cross to the farther bank of the river Tor with a led horse," for he had decided to escape to Russia with Lávor.

At this time the Pólovtsy were drinking kumys and evening was approaching; the groom came to Ígoŕ his prince and acquainted him that Lávor was waiting for him.

Ígoŕ got up in terror and trembling, and bowed low to the Divine image and the venerable cross and prayed;--"Lord of Mercy. . . . . . ."

The guards were playing and making merry, and thought the Prince was asleep. The Prince advanced to the river and forded it, mounted his horse and thus passed through their tents.

This rescue the Lord wrought on Friday evening. Ígoŕ then walked a-foot eleven days to the town of Donéts and thence to his own Nóvgorod; and they rejoiced to see him; from Nóvgorod he went to his brother Yarosláv at Černígov to ask for help in the Posémye. He travelled thence to Kíev to the Grand-Prince Svyatosláv and Svyatosláv was glad to see him, as was also Rúrik."

From the Lavrentíski MS. the following supplementary facts can be taken; as almost always, this text is much terser and less detailed.

"This year the grandsons of Olég decided to march against the Pólovtsy, because they had not gone that year with the rest of the princes. They went by themselves, saying,--"Are we not princes too? So we too shall gain ourselves renown."

Ígoŕ with two of his sons from Nóvgorod-Sěverski set out from Pereyáslavl’, and his brother Vsévolod from Trúbeč, and Svyatosláv Ólgovič from Rylsk and the Černígov mercenaries joined them.

The Chronicle proceeds to tell how at the three days' battle Ígoŕ's army suffered through lack of water, and the two following phrases occur, which recall passages in the Slóvo.

"Where he had had joy, now we had discouragement, and wailing spread afar . . . . . and there was wailing and groaning." [Гдѣ бо бяше бъ насъ радость, нынѣ же въздыханье и плачь распротранися . . . и быстъ плачь и стенаніе].

Introduction: The Construction of the Poem

The Slóvo falls into three distinct parts, each of them subdivisible. The episode eternized by the author is very slight, one of the many forays against the nomad foes, with whom, for the rest, these Russian princes never scrupled to ally themselves in their perpetual dynastic and territorial quarrels. But Ígoŕ, to judge by the space his exploits occupy in the Chronicles, seems to have been a romantic and impulsive figure, and this particular raid receives very much more than the usual allowance of space. Still, to eke out the tale, the author in true epic style introduces a mass of material, incidental and illustrative.

In the first section of Part I, (l. 1-28) the poet opens by hesitating whether he shall tell the weary story of Ígoŕ's expedition in the old-world style of Boyán [or Yan], or in contemporary manner, probably like the ballads, (a diffuse method of narration with many repetitions, and couched in a loose metre of long lines with four or five accentual beats). He passes on to a eulogy of Boyán the wizard, whose fingers made the harpstrings live, in recording the feats of the princes three and four generations back.

The next section (ll. 29-37) states the scope of the invention of the author, from Vladímir I to his contemporary Ígoŕ; and passes on to the third (ll. 38-58) where in words almost identical with the Chronicles, Ígoŕ, despite the evil omen of an eclipse of the sun (astronomically verified to the hour) summons his men, he being fierily eager,--as the Chronicles tell,--to avenge the imagined slight that he had taken no share in the victory of the previous year 1184.

At l. 38 the action begins in words very nearly identical with the Chronicles.

The author, in the fourth section (ll. 59-78), characteristically interrupts the narrative, this time with an invocation of Boyán, whose inspiration extended back to the legendary days of Troyán, probably representing the founders of the Scandinavian dynasty. He quotes some of Boyán's lines, and composes a sequel in the same style, but applicable to his own day.

In the fifth section (ll. 79-99) the action of the poem is resumed. Vsévolod in a spirited speech,--which points a moral against others' indifference,--announces his readiness to help his brother; and the following division (ll. 100-112) relates how they start, how evil were the portents.

But (ll. 113-135) the enemy are making their preparations and the Russian force is cut off from its base.

Section Eight (ll. 136-148) describes the first day of battle, and the Russian victory, the looting of the Polovsk tents; followed by a night of ill-judged repose (149-155).

The tenth sub-division gives a brief narrative of the second day's fight (156-189) and the countless re-inforcements of the barbarian enemy.

Again (section XI, ll. 190-208) other matter is interposed; the panegyric of Vsévolod who showed such valour; and in section XII (ll. 209-249) there follows a reminiscence of the days of Rurik and Yarosláv the Great and of Olég of Tmutarakáń, the ancestor of the Ólgoviči, the house ousted from Kíev by Vladímir II. The exploits of Olég and his associate Borís Vyáčeslavič, the battle on the Nežátin are mentioned; the author deplores that the children of the civilizing Sun, the Russians were and are wasting their blood in internecine strife.

Section XIII (250-284) describes the battle during the next night, and the morning of the next day; the language is powerful and poetic; the calamity expressed in words of striking simplicity and pathos. Ígoŕ has fallen; his banners are the enemy's prize; the brothers are separated.

So the first part ends; and the second, the longest, touches on the woes of Russia consequent on this defeat, and the misery inflicted on her by her disunion.

The first section (ll. 284-308) is a gruesome account of how Discord arose, and Ignominy walked abroad. So, too, after this disaster; when Končák the Polovsk leader used the Greek fire against the cities of Russia, (ll. 309-331) and the women of Russia wept, and Kíev was oppressed with grief. The cause is ever the same; civil strife, whilst the pagan gathers tribute. But this was Russia's secular bane; tinder the Tatar rule, those immense territories could not combine for defence; only the iron hand of Moscow could enforce union and despotism.

The third movement of this part (ll. 332-360) continues in the same strain; that Ígoŕ and Vsévolod have courted disgrace and contrasts Svyatosláv III, the reigning prince at Kíev, who had in 1184 gained such a glorious victory. And, all the nations rang with his praise.

At this point (section IV ll. 361-389) the poet interposes another subject, the Dream of Svyatosláv, and its interpretation by his boyárs. He had dreamed he had been given wine mixed with dust; that the mainstays of his house had been sapped; for on that fatal Third day two such mighty princes had been defeated, and the Lights of Russia extinguished (Section V. ll. 390-413) on the Kayála river; whilst the maidens rejoiced on the shore of the Black sea.

After this lyric interruption, the poet (section VI II. 414-452) resumes the lament of Svyatosláy. This "golden word" is terse and moving. Ígoŕ and Vsévolod are valiant, but headstrong. Yet Svyatosláv sees no aid approaching from his powerful Galician ally Yarosláv Vladímirkovič who could summon the mercenaries from beyond the Carpathians. Nor is there any relief going out to the city of Rim which the Pólovtsy have sacked and gutted.

At section VII (l. 453) the poet leaves Svyatosláv and addresses the principal territorial rulers of his time, who are backward in offering assistance. First of all, he adjures Vsévolod Yúrevič, the sovereign of Suzdal (the Northern state which had already gained practical supremacy (ll. 453-464). Vsévolod had in 1182 conducted an expedition against the Bolgars of the North; if he would help, slaves would be cheap again!

Next (ll. 465-476) he demands succour of Ruric and David Rostíslavič, princes of Smolénsk.

Thirdly (ll. 477-494) he directs himself to Yarosláv of Galicia, a wise and circumspect ruler over an immense territory bounded by the Carpathians for all their length, and bordering on Poland. Yarosláv was also Ígoŕ's father-in-law.

Fourthly, Roman and Mstíslav Rostíslavič (ll. 495-516) of Smolénsk † are besought for aid. These campaigned beyond the Tátra range of the Carpathians, and amongst the Lithuanians; will they not turn their arms nearer home to the frontier rivers of the East?

Next, the poet requests help (ll. 517-530) of Ingváŕ and Vsévolod Yaroslávič of Lutsk, another branch of this prolific house. [v. the genealogy], and joins with them the three Mstíslaviči, their first cousins. Of all of these the poet records no good done; will they not bestir themselves?

Now the writer prepares the way for suggestive reminiscences of chieftains of the past. He recalls (ll. 531-557) the heroic death of Izyasláv Vasíl’kovič of the house of Polotsk, fighting alone and unaided of his brothers against the Lithuanians. It is curious that this is one of the few references for which no authority can be found in the Chronicles. The tone of these lines carries conviction of their factual truth and is strong evidence of contemporary authorship. The same expressions of ceremonial mourning are used of this Izyasláv, as of Ígoŕ (555-557).

After this long section of the poem, we find a general imprecation against the sluggishness of the princes of the day, addressed to the cowardly brother of Svyatosláv III, Yarosláv Vsévolodovič, and to all of the descendants of the great Vséslav of Polotsk (ll. 558-568). The writer, whose sympathies are entirely with what the historians regard as the rebellious houses of Polotsk and the Ólgoviči, still accuses these princelets of degeneration from ancestral valour, and of utilizing barbarian mercenaries, rather than fending off the national foe. With this introduction of Vséslav who revolted so successfully against Vladímir II, he enters on the ninth section (ll. 569-611).

This is one of the difficult and corupt passages in the text; full of references which have been the standing puzzles of all interpreters.

The author selects the episode of the battle on the Nemíga, after Vséslav had sacked Nóvgorod and Pskov, when Vséslav was treacherously imprisoned at Kíev. For nine months he was chosen Grand Prince of Kíev, whilst his enemy Izyasláv, the reigning prince, was in exile in Poland; on Izyasláv's approach he fled secretly by night to Bělgorod and thence home to Polotsk. Vséslav in the ballads was turned into a wizard, and in these passages the writer of the Slóvo accumulates a perplexing detail of mythological and superstitious lore, with incidental mention of those riddling persons Boyán and Troyán.

From Vséslav (ll. 611-620) the poet passes on to a brief mention of Vladímir I, whose energy was never abated.

A new section opens (ll. 621-662) the lament of Evfrósyna Yaroslávna, Ígoŕ's wife. It is not too much to say that this portion of the poem is one of the most beautiful heroic lyrics known. It is no doubt based on some pagan incantation of the four elements and splits up into four sections, her resolve to bind her hero's wounds, her appeals to the Wind, the Water and the Sun.

The third great division of the poem opens at line 663. It is very short and has the appearance, (as has been suggested by Sederholm and others) of being a subsequent addition. This poem must have been written immediately after the disaster, as the appeals for help go to show. When Ígoŕ escaped, this jubilant appendix was added.

The first section (ll. 663-693) describes how Ígoŕ escaped at night from captivity, during a drunken feast. He had to be persuaded against his will, and removed by his fear of being murdered before he would adopt this course of breaking parole. His groom Ovlur, Vlur or Lavor obtained him the means of evasion.

There follows (ll. 694-718) a curious dialogue between Ígoŕ and the river Donéts, in which the clemency of the river-god to Ígoŕ is contrasted with the cruelty of the Stugná to young Rostíslav Vsévolodic at the battle of 1093 against the Pólovtsy.

Still more remarkable is the following section (ll. 719-744), a conversation between Gzak and Končák, the Polovsk leaders: the good omens cease and these two discuss what will be the outcome of the escape. They say that Ígoŕ's son will marry a daughter of one of their chieftains during his captivity, but this will not be to the advantage of the nomads.

The fourth section (ll. 745-753) contains a reference, possibly a quotation, from Boyán, probably an outline of the history of the princes whom he celebrated; and the quotation is made to bear upon the Ígoŕ of 1185.

The fifth section (751-770) concludes the poem and mainly consists of an account of Ígoŕ's return, the joy it spread, and a conventional ending not unlike that of the later ballads: some of this conclusion might be spurious.

Allusions and historical references are very aptly introduced, and serve to make, out of the bard's commemoration, a little epic in which the life of medieval Russia is faithfully and appositely illustrated; one, too in which much poetry of very high quality abounds.

Introduction: The Versification

The principal authority on this head is Korš, whose edition of the text is virtually a monograph and metrical reconstruction. With his bold interpolations and omissions it would be premature to agree; his accentual lore one must gratefully follow.

The metrical basis consists of two main accents, the first of which may be preceded, by one, two or more enclitic syllables, each foot usually being dactylic: these two accents are followed by a caesura, after which comes a third subsidiary dactylic ending, such as is always found in the ballad metre. Examples of such perfect lines are To analyse the metre in full would betray me into a discussion, too long for this introduction; and I rather doubt whether it would be profitable, either to truth, or the advancement of the subject. The few hints given in this section are all derived from Korš; for the rest the reader had far better trust to his own ear; and the richness of this three-beat measure will ring out. The position of the accented syllable in the foot is variable, as also, within reason,--unlike the style of the later bylíny,--the number of the unaccented syllables.

The regularity of the alliteration approximates the metre to that of the old German poems; but the freedom of the Slav has released this Russian verse from the stiffness and artificiality that characterize some of the Early English alliterative poems.

Later, this Russian liberty of accent and syllabization developed into anarchy in the popular ballads; and form had to be restored to Russian verse in the eighteenth century by the imitation of Western models.

The Slóvo is important in the history of early Slav literature, not least as an instance of native poetry with the just balance of form and license.

Introduction: Style and Authorship

To enquire for the name of an author of this poem is a hopeless quest; there is only one original; and other medieval writings of Russia must likewise remain nameless.

But it is still possible from both internal and external evidence to localize and individualize the poet.

This poem is a little epic, to celebrate an event of merely passing interest, to invoke aid to release a minor prince of the House and revenge an unimportant defeat,--almost a broadsheet which was also a work of genius. It is narrowly and strictly historical. The date of composition is fixed by the reference to the eclipse of 1185, the adulation of Yarosláv of Galicia who died early in 1187, and also by the evident manner in which the first two sections were written as an appeal for help, without any anticipation of Ígoŕ's escape which is poetized in the third part.

Thus the poem is absolutely topical; and its accuracy is enhanced by its close connection with the contemporary Chronicles in style, grammar and matter. The historical invocations and reminiscences are not only in conformity with the records, but in many cases borrow their phraseology with the very slightest modifications.

The account of the battle, as many of the commentators have observed is so sharp, and contains corroborative details, which would almost make it appear that the poet was an eye-witness or a combatant; and Petrúševič goes so far as to infer that he must have been one of the Galician volunteers, i.e. in the train of Yaroslávna, Ígoŕ's wife, and thus summoned by Ígoŕ to aid him in this expedition.

Dubenski indeed puts forward a hypothesis that the writer may have been that of the Pilgrimage of Daniel the Palmer, in view of some similarities of words and idioms; but this is a mere possibility.

The style is strongly marked. There is a recurrence of animal similes, a very evident love of nature, not the modern lyrical worship, but shown in an intense faith in Nature's cooperation and sympathy with mankind, a genuine survival of the old Pagan pantheocracy.

The style is terse and powerful. There is no waste of effort, no empty verbiage such as mars the longer and more intimate passages in the Chronicles; nor again any of that wearisome reiteration and loose metre that makes the bylíny so formless, turgid and unschooled. In fact, the writer seems to take his resolve "not to follow the school of the ballads of his own day" so seriously, that at the crises of his story, his narrative becomes almost telegraphic in its compression, e.g. the parting of the brothers Ígoŕ and Vsévolod, the recital of Ígoŕ's escape and rescue †; whilst in the invocations to the princes there is hardly one word that does not serve to explain their boundaries, their exploits, or their patriotic record.

This exactitude and conciseness, combined with poetic presentation, and a wealth of imagery drawn from the forests and the heavens, is broadly speaking the determinant feature of the style of the Slóvo; and it is not inapposite to remark that the Ipatíevski Chronicle, in the years succeeding the events of 1185, contains snatches of verse reminiscent of the Slóvo [e.g. 1195, 1196, 1201].

Probably, if not certainly, the close correspondence of the Chronicles and this poem tends to prove that the writer must have been connected with the monastic houses, which, year by year set down so faithfully the little incidents in Russia's anarchic history, and yet so often were able to discern and insist on the bigger events, e.g. the taking of Kíev by Mstíslav Andréyevič of Súzdal’ in 1171, the first approach of the Pečenegs, the Pólovtsy and the Tatars.

But all we have is the poem, and it is only from its style that any guess should be hazarded as to who the author may have been. He is a sincere patriot who has exact acquaintance with his country's history and deplores the petty selfishness of the numberless princes, between which the wide territories were being parcelled up; his ambition was a united Russia, and, it is perhaps for this reason that he coined the word Русичи sons of Russia, an affectionate patronymic not used since or before to designate the Russian people.

This poem must have enjoyed some fame, for it was woefully and unintelligently plagiarized in the Zadónščina to celebrate the great and unique victory of Dmítri Donskóy over the Tatars,--this copy is occasionally useful to enable to restore a text earlier than that of Musin-Puškin's MS.--and passages from the Слово are quoted in some of the XV or XVI century bylíny [of Rybnikov ed. 1861 I 19 l. 237 and other references in Kirĕyevski ‡]. Its semi-pagan tone and the comparative triviality of the history it celebrates must have contributed to its neglect.

Introduction: Pagan Survivals in the Text of the Slovo

So much has been made of the heathendom of this poem, so full a construction has been put on the passage from Strabo (v. note to незнаемѣ) that it becomes hard to see what is stated, or omitted,--apart from what modern critics delight to read into it.

One fact stands out, in the strongest contrast with the Chronicles--even those for 1185, where Ígoŕ is presented as a devotee--and with other more or less contemporary productions such as The Virgin's Visit to Hell, Daniel the Prisoner, Abbot Daniel the Palmer, that this poem is conspicuously non-Christian, non-pietistic in tone; the one or two references to Churches impress me as conventional and insincere, and are, I think, interpolations made between the date of the original Manuscript of 1186 and the sixteenth century copy which was burned in the conflagration of Moscow.

At the same time the poem is not Pagan; it seems to reflect the mind of a sincere patriot, with no marked disbelief either in the lingering superstitions, or in the world-faith superimposed on them.

The attitude is what the Russians call Двоевѣріе, double-belief.

When Pagan gods go down before the intolerant and exclusive banners of Christianity, the former sovereigns of the empyrean are dethroned, anathematized and soon forgotten, whilst the meaner local, deities of the rivers and the way-side are left in possession, as before the great change; perhaps, clandestinely.

Incantations and ideas of witchcraft linger on; and, in Russia especially voluminous collections have been made of the formulas.

But, in the Slóvo these ordinary conditions are reversed; there is frequent and specific mention of the great gods, such as Stribog, Veles, Khors, Div, Dazbog; the Virgin of the primitive Slavs (recorded in Herodotus IV 9; poetized by Euripides in Orestes as Artemis of Tauris; and geographically certified by Strabo) reappears as the personification of Strife, counterbalanced by the figure of Glory. And, be it noted, in all of these passages both texts agree in using the old Bulgarian vocalization (which is replaced in E by more Russian forms). It is also observable that the principal god of the Russian pantheon, Perun, the Thunderer, is never so much as mentioned: he was the Jupiter who had been dethroned.

The beautiful wail of Yaroslávna is based on some primitive incantation of the four elements, but has been transfigured far beyond the model,--to judge by the examples compiled by Sakharov.

Where the great gods are mentioned, it is always to ascribe to them metaphorical descendants: thus the winds are the scions of Stribog, the Russians the descendants of Dažbog, the fertilizing sun,--possibly also some Saturn who founded a Golden Age (cf. the Chronicles for 1114)--whilst Boyán, the great poet of the past epoch, is the inspired grandson of Véles † the god of cattle, a phrase, which in the complete absence of other contemporary evidence, it is impossible to explain.

Div, some kind of malignant bird who screeches disaster from the tops of the trees, scarcely comes in the same category. He possesses more reality than these other semi-metaphorical beings. He must be ranked with the numerous omens of the natural phenomena, which play so live a part in the elaboration of the unimportant foray, the subject of the poem. The crows, the magpies and daws, the nightingales and the wild beasts are all credited with superstitious relevance to human happenings; in these lines there is no trace of convention or effort after style. After all such ideas are rife even in latter-day England.

The sun is, if not worshipped by the writer of this poem, regarded as a person of great influence. In the Chronicles every eclipse of sun and moon is narrated with the greatest detail; and the highest compliment that can be paid to virtuous and vigorous princes is to compare them with the sun, to treat them, literally, as the sources of enlightenment. So, too, in this poem Ígoŕ and his brave brother are called two suns who ‡ have been extinguished, his infant children, two moons that have waned. One of the real survivals of heathendon in this poem is to be traced in the passionate attention paid to Nature and her manifestations.

The rivers and wells of Russia have always been peopled with spirits. This fact emerges throughout all of the balladry and the folklore of Russia and, indeed, all the Slav nations. The rivers consciously protect or destroy their favourites; they are powers who must be appeased. The story in this text, of the malicious Stugná that drowned young Rostíslav Vsévolodič, whilst the Donéts smoothed its waves to facilitate the escape of Ígoŕ; the conversation between our hero and the Donéts; all of these are real beliefs, the outcome of heathendom, that can be parallelled voluminously in the later ballads (e g. in the account of the death of Vasíli Buslávič, and in the bylíny of the mystic river Smoródina).

In this poem every form of nature has active power to help, to sympathize or to thwart. When the heroes of Russia falter, all nature literally droops, the trees weep, the grass withers. These expressions are real, the live relics of the old nature worship of the Slavs; of which Rambaud has said:--"Les Grecs se sont bien plus vite dégagés de la matière; ils sont allés aussitôt au polythéisme . . . . . . Chez les Slaves le panthéisme est partout à fleur de terre; cette matière cosmique, les Slaves l’ont aimée comme elle était, l’ont chérie, sans éprouver le besoin de lui donner forme humaine. . . ."

To sum up; it seems to me that in this poem the author was expressing his inmost convictions, and therefore indulged in no conventional religious outbursts such as disfigure his plagiarist in the Zadónščina, and pall on the reader of the monastic Chronicles; but, he was well acquainted with the Chronicles and imported images from them of the ancient Pagan gods, without transliterating them into his own dialect; perhaps it was an assertion of the longing for a united Russia to fight the infidel nomads, a literary asseveration of nationalism.

I cannot hold, with Vyazemski and Petrúševič that there is any Greek influence on his form, still less any adaptation of classical models. In the passages dealing with that remarkable figure Vséslav whose sa reputation for Pagan practices must have had some foundation in history, there are probably records of what was told of him; though most of the direct allusions to episodes that would only suit a fairy-tale are certainly misreadings of a text unusually corrupt. The principal survival of Pagandom is the vivid presentation of the active part which every natural growth and phenomenon,--from the stars in heaven down to the grass of the steppe--takes in the affairs of humanity, to forward the right and deplore the wrong.

Those who are interested in the primitive worship of the Slavs (mostly unreflected in this poem) and in the heathen cosmogonies, will find a useful reference in the Густинская лѣтопись (прибавленія къ Ипатской, О идолахъ рускихъ). The account is later and different from the list given in Nestor, where he tells of Vladímir I's Pagan revival.

Introduction: Boyán

This name has been one of the insoluble problems in this poem; Boyán the divine seer whose name apparently is elsewhere unrecorded.

In the text he is mentioned four times; first, (ll. 8-28) as a bard, endowed, either metaphorically or in popular credence, with the power of transformation so common in Slavonic legend [c.f. the bylíny of Volgá Svyátoslavič]; in this passage the heroes he rhapsodized are specified: secondly, ll. 59-66, where he is definitely associated with "the track of Troyán"--whatever that may mean--; thirdly, (ll. 605-611) in specific historic relations with Vséslav Bryâčislavič of Polotsk; and lastly, in the epilogue (ll. 745-753), the most obscure and corrupt passage of all. The poet of the Slóvo considers whether he shall write in the same lofty style as Boyán, quotes some of his refrains, and,--to judge from the manner--imitates him in the highly poetical descriptions, e.g. (ll. 531-536).

To a casual reader, not going beyond the text, it might be evident that a bard so passionately and vividly addressed was flesh and blood, some predecessor acquainted with the campaigns of Yaroslâv I and perhaps Vladímir I, a man of extraordinary knowledge some of which would have been accounted witchcraft.

The suggestions have been as many as the commentators.

To pass a few over in review.

I. Paucker stated that Boyán is a common Bulgarian name and cites tales of one Tsarévic Boyán Siménovič.

II. Again, the name of Boyán has been found in some of the late lists of Pagan gods of Slavdom; probably unauthoritatively.

III. Dubenski contains most suggestive matter in his notes. From the references he gathers, it seems that Boyán is the name of a stream †, that a street in ancient Nóvgorod was named after him; that the word Bayan is Turkish and Tatar; and also that in 1821 a Hymn of Boyán was discovered. [Сынъ Отечества LXX 1821]:

"We have a copy of a so-called hymn of Boyán dedicated to some prince Letíslav [? Mstíslav Vladímirovič the Brave and cf. l. 19 of the text] written on parchment, with red ink, and in Runic characters unknown in Russia. The original belonged to Selakadzeev [v. Весѣды Любителей Русскаго Слово 1812]. In the hymn Boyán of Bus [v. note on Бусъ] the educator of the young Wizard [воспитатель юнаго волхва] gives his name as a descendant and grandson of the Slovenes, as the son of Zlogor, the long-lived minstrel [дольный пѣвецъ] of ancient tales; that he, Boyán was bred and began his minstrelsy amongst the Zimegoli [presumably some tribe], that he served in the wars, and more than once was drowned in water [тонулъ въ водѣ]. Dubenski adds;--"The hymn has never been published for criticism and is unreliable as evidence."

Does the phrase тонулъ въ водѣ mean we are on the track of a river-god? Such beings abound in Russian mythology; cf. the references to the Don and the Donéts and the Stugna in this poem; the ballads of Súkhan Odikhmântevič, Volgá, Svyatoslávič etc. Possibly we may compare the stream Boyán; whilst, if Boyán be the correct form of his name, and not Yan (v. infra) the Turanian origin is accentuated and confirmed by his association with Bus, and with the "wizard." But as regards the words волхвъ (wizard) Nestor [v. the year 6406 etc.] makes it certain that the original meaning was some specific nomad race; and possibly this may be the better interpretation of the passages from the Chronicles cited infra in support of Weltmann's theory of Yan.

Melioranski and Korš both prefer a Turanian derivation, the former referring to the Mongol bai rich [Турецкіе Элементы], the latter specifying the Turkish baĭan.

IV. Vyázemski opines the word Boyán only means poet [from баять to speak, баснь a fable], and that it should be spelt Баянъ. There is no manuscript authority for this, but Vyázemski and Petrúševic enlarge on this view, aver great Euripidean and Homeric influence on the form of the Slóvo,--a view partially supported by Rambaud in his La Russie Epique--and arrive at the conclusion that Boyán is Homer, il sovran poeta, thus to be apotheosized even in the steppes. All of this follows on the theory that Contumely [Обида] is a development of the Evil Helen of Troy, and that Troyán means Trojan; personally, I see no foundation for this explanation.

V. I follow Weltmann's commentary in nearly all of his conclusions. Weltmann is a destructive critic, with little respect for the traditional text, but rightly associating with history, rather than philological theory. He states that Boyán is identical with the Yan Vyšátič who died in 1106 at the advanced age of ninety, a fact to be signalized in the short generations of this time of turbulence. Nestor says;-- "In this year there passed away Yan, a kindly old man of ninety years of age and vigorous; who lived in accord with the divine law, no less than the just men of olden time. From him I have heard many recitals [многы словесы] and I have inscribed in this Chronicle what I have been told by him. He was a happy, genial man, peaceable, and kept himself aloof from all wealth [огребаяся всякой вещи].

His grave is in the Pečerski monastery [at Kíev] at the porch. There his body lies interned on the 24th June."

By itself this would be enough; but, from other references as well, Yan is made flesh and blood, a living man and politician. In 1106 Svyatopólk (1093-1114) despatched the brothers Yan and Putyáta Vyšátič to fight the Pólovtsy at Zarĕčsk,--possibly sons of Vyšáta who in 1042 accompanied Yarosláv I on his expedition against Constantinople; the name may imply relationship. This Yan is mentioned again in 1106, and a granddaughter Yasĕna is mentioned in 1167.

Yan, fairly often appears in the Chronicles trying to settle the civil wars, e.g. 1071; and in 1093 (where he is specifically called the son of Vyšáta) a very curious tale is told at length, of how two wizards [волхвы] came from the Vólga and destroyed the women by magic. Svyatosláv despatched Yan with twelve attendants [отроки]; he met them somewhere near the Bĕlo Ozëro, unarmed and catechized and exorcized them. That same time there was a diabolic visitation of the city of Polotsk at night. Also, this was the year in which Vséslav recovered his city of Polotsk from Svyatopólk of Kíev.

Thus Yan was born in the reign of Vladímir I, was attached to the house of Polotsk, was a writer, and took an active part in all the frays and events of the day. He might well be qualified to range down the generations of Russia [рища тропу трояню].

Weltmann states the name Boyán arose from a fusion in some Chronicle used by the poet of the Slóvo of a phrase like рекъ бо Янъ, 'thus spake Yan'; but it is quite possible that the Chroniclers, as we have them, have the wrong form, or even that there may have been contemporary inexactitudes.

As an associate of Vséslav of Polotsk, Boyán would be credited with supernatural powers; if there were a river-god of like name, popular etymology might have contaminated the two beings; as Боянъ sounds exactly the same as Баянъ, a further false derivation may have entered into the concept.

The hymn of Boyán cited by Duhenski, curiously confirms this interpretation, and independently. In 1106 one Ivánko Zakhárič Kozárin (i.e. of Khozar descent) is associated with Yan; and the phrase Бусово время, referring to the Pólovtsy, may he a quotation from some poem of Yan's.

Introduction: Troyán

The meaning of this word has always been in dispute and must remain a matter of sheer conjecture.

There are four references in the text.

I. l. 59. 'Oh Boyán, hadst but thou sung of these hosts. . . weaving together from both ends of this epoch, racing down the path of Troyán!' II. l. 209. 'There have been the ages [or, reading on the authority of Karamzín, сѣчи, the affrays] of Troyán, the years of Yarosláv have passed by, there have been the regiments of Olég.' III. l. 288. Contumely arose in the forces of Dažbog's descendant [? Russia, the civilizing power; compare a curious passage in Ипат. 1114 where a myth is told at length of a king of Egypt, Dažbog, who civilized men and was succeeded by the Sun], stepped like a maiden in the Land of Troyán. . .' IV. l. 569. 'In the seventh age of Troyán, Vséslav cast his lot for a maiden dear to him.' † In this last passage E. reads Зояни. If my view holds good that Troyán is derived from три three, this would be a natural eror; in the original MS. all numbers were designated by Cyrillic letters; and were copied by Musin-Puškin as Arabic numerals: hence the original may have had Fояни, which was copied out as Зояни by the clerk and then taken for Зояни.

If, again, on reading these passages, it appears that by substituting 'Russia' for 'Troyán,' a simple and satisfactory sense is obtained, the last passage is an amplification of the first, and it will be found there are exactly seven generations between Vséslav and Rurik, the founder of the dynasty.

it is evident that the phrase is highly poetical, and that it is associated with Boyán, the range of whose verse is set out in the very corrupt passage at the end, Рекъ Боянъ и хокды. . . l. 745 [v. the note on this passage].

There have been very many speculations.

1. (1) Geographical. That the land and path of Troyán refer to some country either East or West of medieval Russia, anyhow in Polovsk territory. There is a town called Troitsk in Orenbúrg on the river Уй and Увелка; a place Троянъ in Bulgaria in the Lobeč district on the river Osma whence roads lead to Loveč, Teteren and Selvi.

Sederholm states that the country between the Pruth and the Ister was called Provincia Traiani in the Geographia Antiqua of Cellarius. In the historical map for the year 895 there is a spot in the Danube near Lat. 44° Long. 40°, marked Pons Traiani.--This is the district identified with the "Trojan" country by other theorists.

To these facts may be added a town Troyán in Smolénsk, south of Krásny, and Troyánovka in Poltáva [Dubenski], and Troílov on the River Don near the Kagalnik or Kayála.

No doubt other names can be traced.

(2) Weltmann altogether rejects Троянъ and substitutes Краянъ the border land, This is very violent and does not explain all the passages.

II. That the word stands for Trajan, the Roman Emperor. This theory is not altogether fantastic; for Trajan built a road and a wall in Dacia; the road running from Várhély along the river Strey (which falls into the Máros) thence to Karlsburg and so North to Torda (Salinum) where it divided one branch leading to Kolosvár and the other North East.

There is some evidence that the name of Trajan survived in legend. Sederholm quotes a topical былина of the reign of Catherine II commemorating a Turkish war.

На разсвѣтѣ было бъ середу, На дорогѣ на Траяновой, Подашли мы близко къ лагерю.

On this theory Boyán's mind soared back very far to the oldest, prehistoric battle-fields of the Slavs.

In South Russia there is a long wall балъ трояновъ connected with traditions of Троянъ Царь Ермаланекій [римлянскій] and coins of Trajan have been found by his walls on the Danube.

Lastly, as evidence of the permanence of Trajan's name, a miracle, of Clement, Pope of Rome, commences thus.

Къ попу Клименту отъ Рима озимьстровану въ Херсонъ Траияну Царемь. [Изв. отд. рус. я. и словес.--VI Спб. 1903].

III. The possibilities of this flexible root are still unexhausted.

The word has been taken, mainly by Petrûševič and Vyázemski, to mean Trojan, to be the Russian tradition of Homer; and in this connection the Maiden is construed as the evil star of Helen, as the blood-thirsty Artemis of Tauris, whose rites were recorded both by Euripides and by Strabo. [V. note незнаемѣ]. This school tries to prove a Russian tradition, similar to that which obtained in England, France and Germany, of tracing ancestries back to Hector of Troy. It is argued that the lower Danube country was called Dardania in Strabo's time. This land would have served as a mart for interchange of the thoughts of the East and the West. But granting these facts--and very much of the vast erudition brought to bear on them is quite irrelevant to Russia--it is difficult to see how the land-locked state of medieval Russia could have imported very much of this lore.

The incessant warfare internal and external, the barring of the road to Constantinople by the Pólovtsy and Bolgars, and the hostility of the Catholic powers to the North West, have made Russian medieval productions peculiarly native; and it is difficult to discern any connection with ancient Greece, even in its medieval garb.

Rambaud (La Russie Epique) whose authorities are Vyázemski, Kirěyevski and others, also supports the theory of classical origin.

IV. Troyán has also been taken to be a Pagan god of Slavdom. For this theory there is fairly strong external evidence. Míkloziš cites from Vostókov of the ancient Slavs;--"believing in many gods, in Perun, and Khors, Div and Troyán, who were men of past days; Perun amongst the Greeks, Khors in Cyprus, Troyán an emperor at Rome. . .' It has been supposed that Troyán was the God of the dead, but I cannot find any proof.

In 'The Virgin's Descent into Hell' [Leo Wiener's translation]. 'These are they who did not believe in the Father. . . . They changed Troyán, Khors, Veles, Perún to gods. . . .' As a supernatural being, Troyán is found in several Serbian legends. Busláyev [Москвитянинъ 1842 No. 11] quotes Karadžić and says; there was once a city of Troyán on Mount Tsera near Dvorišša where Tsar Troyán lived. Every night he drove to Srěm [Sirmia], to see a maiden he loved. He went by night because he feared the day as it might heat him. When he arrived at Srěm, he gave his horses oats and at cock's crow [до Куръ v. l. 595] returned. But one day the husband of the maiden put sand into the manger instead of oats and slit all the cocks' tongues. The Tsar was kept waiting and stayed too long. The sun had already risen. He fled and hid behind a hayrick, but the cows came along and tore it down and so the Tsar melted.' Further [Древности 1865 Moscow Vol. I Матеріалы] in the Слово и Откровеніе Св. Апостоловъ, XVI. Troyán is recorded amongst the Pagan Gods, the passage, apparently being the one first quoted.

In Serbian and Bulgarian traditions of Troyán or Troím [Vuk Stepanović 1852 2nd edition] Troyán appears as a nocturnal being who fears daylight, may have three heads [? false etymology from три] and wings which melted in the sun; and in further development as a Midas with goat's ears. There are Bulgarian songs of a town Troyán the inhabitants of which believed in gold and silver.

It therefore appears that the Southern Slavs had legends of a nocturnal gnome who bore this name. To attach this tale to Vséslav and to translate до Куръ by cock's crow would be ridiculous and out of style with the poem.

V. It remains to sum up and, if possible, extract something coherent from this nebulous being.

I take it that Troyán is a name for Russia, derived from the significant number three, and that it was thus written in the lost MS. There were the three Scandinavian brothers who arrived at Kíev [v. Nestor 6370], Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. As the hills of Kíev came into sight they asked: "whose is this town?"The reply was;--"There were three brothers Kiĭ, Šček and Khoriv [i.e. the ancestors of Kíev, Čechs and Croatians] who built this little town, and they perished and we sit here paying tribute to the Khozars."

--It was always the same tradition of the subject Slavs.--Druhenski states that all the Slavs use the word Троянъ as a nickname; that it means the third, and generally the third son.--He proceeds to support his argument for шестикрыльци and осмомысле as a play on numbers; [v. notes on these words].

Thus the land of Rurik, of the third brother, may have been a poetical name; the exactness of the Seven Generations (l. 568) seems to me conclusive proof.

The word next acquired alien import; the traditions of Trajan who was worshipped in his lifetime, and who, after his death, was long remembered for his great road and wall, tendered this title of Russia more imperial and more dignified.

There also existed a belief in a subterranean God Troyán, a gnome ar sprite, condemned with the Rusálki (the mermaids) by the ecclesiasts, ever on their watch against the ineradicable lingerings of the old superstitions. The fact that this Troyán could be imagined to have three beads incidentally serves to justify the etymology from три. Probably this Serbian being did not influence the poet of the Slóvo.

The poet of the Slôvo (l. 30) takes up the poetical narrative where Boyán ceased; his scope of narration had been from Ígoŕ the son of Rurik and Svyatoshiv I to the "ancient time" [цтарое бремя], i.e., (as Sederholm remarks Vladímir I) [v. l. 745]

Introduction: The Language and Grammar

As will be seen in the bibliography, there has been almost endless discussion as to what language the Slóvo is written in, Korš has reconstructed it into early Russian in a pure form; Abicht into Church-Slavonic, with the opposite modifications, whilst other commentators have traced a great permeation of Polish, White-Russian, Little-Russian, Serbian, and so on; in fact, nearly every important dialect of the Slavonic family.

The one outstanding feature is that the language is identical with that of the Chronicles of that time, all of which seem to be written in Church Slavonic which is in process of change into Russian. Thus all through these Chronicles on the same page, even in the same sentence, forms are found of the same word in Bulgarian and Russian vocalization. Evidently the sounds were shifting and spelling was lagging behind.

If this introduction were to deal with the grammatical forms in full, this section would have to exceed in length all the rest. I shall therefore only summarlze and refer students to Church Slavonic grammars.

The inflexion of nouns and adjectives, the conjugation of the verbs is strictly in accord with Church Slavonic, with this broad exception that the old nasal vowels (preserved in Polish) have long since disappeared even from the spelling and been replaced by the Russian sounds я ю and у. The vowel ѣ has its Russian value of E and has lost its separate use, as it in Church Slavonic, of я or a compensatory for a lapsed nasal.

The laws for the mutation of the consonants are in full operation, and follow the older rules: gutturals being allowed to stand before ы.

As in Church Slavonic, all three numbers, singular, dual and plural are in use, but a dual noun is sometimes used with a plural verb.

The two texts show great laxity in the use of ъ and ь. Evidently these two vowels, mute in modern Russian, were in course of disappearance; this general rule may be laid down to determine whether they are to be sounded in this text: viz.:--wherever in modern Russian they have been replaced by o or e, or can be replaced "for euphony,"--e.g. in the prepositions къ, съ, въ, in the forms of nouns which "lose" their vowels e.g. ротъ рта: in all such cases ъ and ь are still to be sounded: in other positions they are, as in modern Russian signs of "hard" or "soft" consonants.

ъ and ь are omitted, when sounded in some cases, e.g. чрезъ for чьресъ; предъ for пьредъ; бдитъ for бъдитъ; спитъ for съпитъ (for these v. l. 670).

The third person inflexions in m (singular and plural) are sometimes soft and sometimes hard; both texts are irregular and inconsistent: Probably neither is accurate. Perhaps, in this respect, too, the language was in transition from the soft forms of Church Slav to the hard forms of the modern tongue; but, generally speaking, the older soft forms predominate and should be given the preference. In such present forms the ь of ть was still sounded and scanned. Very frequently, this ть тъ termination is added on to the third person singular and plural terminations of the imperfect аше, аху; in the singular so as to distinguish it from the second person; but these forms are optional, and there seems to be no rule.

As in the Chronicles, a collective noun invariably takes a plural verb:--so too, in modern English--.

There is little trace of the Dative Absolute, so common in the Chronicles. This is probably accident; the sentences and constructions are severely simple.

In the verbs, all the participles are fully inflected, as in the older language.

The present tense with perfective forms has the meaning of the future; the imperfect seems to signify a long-continued act in the past, which may not yet be over,--to correspond, more or less with the past imperfective of the modern language--: the aorist nearly always denotes an act, to import something of the semelfactive aspect of the verb in modern Russian; whilst the compound perfect of the perfect active particible in л with the auxiliary быть apparently has always the meaning of the Greek perfect; to be a present tense denoting the result of past conditions. This participle, in the text, is scarely ever used by itself as a tense, as is the rule in modern Russian. Instances of this use of these tenses will be found at lines 275..., 350..., 477..., 595... etc. etc.

The declension of nouns is strictly on the older model. The vocative has a distinct form only in the singular. The accusative is generally the case used for the object of a transitive verb (not the, genitive, as in modern Russian, for living beings), except after negatives and where,--really an illustration of the same idea,--the genitive has a partitive sense. The accusative plural of masculines has a distinct form in ы, the nominative plural being и. In feminine nouns the nominative and accusative plural both end in ы (whence analogy made the modern Russian masculine plural in ы); but feminines whose root ends in a sibilant replace the old Slav plural nominative in ą with e.

Hence the nominative plural of многъ is мнози but the accusative plural многы, sometimes written многи.

The genitive in masculines in a, has in the singular an alternative form in y, when used partitively; the plural genitive usually ends in ъ for nouns of all three genders: rarely in овъ as in modern Russian. The soft form ь is generally expanded through j ь into ей.

With regard to the dative, the only point that need be remarked is that the masculine and neuter forms plural are in омъ and емъ; the.

modern Russian амъ being derived from the feminine form амъ.

The instrumental is used to denote comparisons, as sometimes in modern Russian, predicatively. In masculine and neuter nouns, the termination in the singular is омъ емъ, occasionally the older омь емь. The invariable plural masculine form is ы, like the accusative: the modern Russian ами being again taken from the feminine forms.

The locative or prepositional can be used absolutely to denote place where. In the masculine and neuter singular it ends in ѣ; after the accent in и. In the plural it ends in ехъ; the Russian ахъ being taken from the feminine locative plural ахъ.

For all further details a Grammar of Old Slavonic should be consulted; the notes to this text deal with any peculiar forms.

But, for readers' convenience I here add the principal dual forms of nouns.

Masc.

Neut. and Fem.

N. V. A.

--а я ѣ after accent и.

G. Loc.

Dat. Instr.

ома ема ома ема, емя яма

Text: Introduction

The text is based on Pekárski's Екатерининскій Списокъ as emended by Simoni. The two texts are called Е and С: variants in the printed text of 1800 of Musin-Puškin being designated as П.

The lines and divisions of the text are the editor's: the original manuscript having been unpunctuated, unparagraphed and with the words unintervalled.

Emendations of the text are marked by italicized type.

The notes (with reference to the lines) are in the order of the Russian alphabet for easy reference: the words annotated have a little 'n' after them: where an emendation has been made, the word is to be found under the original form as stated in the variants.

Text: Part I

1 Не лѣпо ли ны бяшетъ, братие, начяти старыми словесы трудныхъ повѣстий о пълку 4 Игоревѣ, Игоря Сватъславлича? начати-же ся тъй пѣсни по былинамь сего времени, а не по замышленію Бояню?

8 Боянъ бо вѣщій, аще кому хотяше пѣснь творити, то растекашется мыслію по древу, сѣрымъ волкомъ по земли, 12 шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы? помняшеть бо, речь, первыхъ временъ усобицѣ. Тогда пущашеть соколовь 16 на стадо лебедей: который дотечаше, та преди пѣснь пояше; старому Ярославу, храброму Мстиславу, 20 (иже зарѣза Редедя предъ полкы косожьскыми), красному Романови Святъславличю.

Боянъ же, братие, не десятъ соколовь 24 на стадо лебедѣй пущаше; нъ своя вѣщіа пръсты на живыя струны въскладаше; они же сами княземъ 28 славу рокотаху.

Were it not seemly to us, brothers, to begin in ancient diction the tales of the toils of the army of Ígoŕ, Ígoŕ Svyatoslávič?

[Or] to begin this song in accordance with the ballads of this time, and not like the invention of Boyán?

For the wise Boyán when he wished to make a song for any man, in his thought used to fly in the trees, [race] like a grey wolf on earth, [soar] like a dusky eagle beneath the clouds. He used to recall the words and the dissensions of the early times.

Then he released falcons on a flock of swans; whichever [falcon] first arrived, its swan sang a song,--to the elder Yarosláv, to Mstíslav the Brave who slew Redélya in front of the Kasog hosts, [or] to Román Svyatoslávič the Handsome.

Yet, Boyán, my brothers, did not let loose ten falcons on a flock of swans, but laid his own wizard fingers on the living strings, which then themselves throbbed out praise for the princes.

Почнемъ же, братіе, повѣсть сію отъ стараго Владимера до нынѣшняго Игоря, 32 иже стягну умъ крѣпостію своею и поостри сердца [своего] мужествомъ; наполънився ратнаго духа, наведе своя храбрыя полъкы 36 на землю Половецькую за землю Руськую.

Let us begin, my brothers, this tale from the elder Vladímir up to our contemporary Ígoŕ, who extended his mind with firmness and sharpened his heart with manliness; and, filling himself with war-like spirit, led his brave hosts to the land of Pólovtsy, for the sake of the land of the Russians.

Тогда Игорь възрѣ на свѣтлое солнце 40 и видѣ отъ него тьмою вся своя воя прикрыты. И рече Игор къ дружинѣ своей:-- "братие и дружино! 44 Луце жъ бы потяту быти, неже полонену быти! а всядемъ, братіе, на свои бръзыя комони, 48 да позримъ синего Дону." Спаля князю умь похоти, и жалость ему знаменіе заступи искусити 52 Дону великаго. "Хошу бо," рече "копіе приломити конець поля Половецького, 56 съ вами, Русици, хощу главу свою приложити, а любо испити шеломомь Дону!"

Then Ígoŕ gazed up at the bright sun, and saw all his warriors covered with the darkness [that proceeded] out of it. And Ígoŕ said to his družína:--"Brothers and družína! Better is it to be hewn to pieces than to be captive! So let us mount, brothers, on our swift steeds and look upon the blue Don!"

The prince's mind flamed with desire, and his eagerness to have experience of the mighty Don concealed from him the omen.

"I wish," he said,--"to shatter a spear on the borders of the land of the Pólovtsy, with you, my Russians: I wish to lay down my head and to drink of the Don in my helmet!"

О Бояне, соловію старого времени! 60 Абы ты сіа полкы ущекоталъ, скача, славію, по мыслену древу, летая умомъ подъ облакы, свивая славы оба 68 полы сего времени, рища въ тропу Трояню чресъ поля на горы! Пѣти было пѣснѣ Игореви, 68a [того Ольга внуку].-- "Не буря соколы занесе чресъ поля широкая; галици стады бѣжать къ Дону великому." 72 Чили въспѣти было, вѣщей Бояне, Велесовь внуче:-- Oh, Boyán, nightingale of the times agone! If only thou hadst warbled of these hosts, leaping in the tree of thought, flying up with thy mind beneath the clouds, weaving together the glories of both halves of this time, racing on the path of Troyán through the plains to the mountains.

Thus might have been sung in song to Ígoŕ, [his (Olég's) grandson]. "Like as a storm bore hawks before it across the broad fields, the crows, in flocks run towards the mighty Don."

Or, thus might have been sung, oh wizard Boyán, scion of Véles.

"комони ржуть за Сулою; 76 звенить слава въ Кыевѣ; трубы трубять въ Новѣградѣ, стоять стязи въ Путивлѣ."

. . ."The horses neigh beyond the Sulá, the glory echoes at Kíev, the trumpets blare at Nóvgorod, the banners stand fast at Putívl’."

Игорь ждетъ мила брата Всеволода. 80 И рече ему буй-туръ Всеволодъ: "Одинъ братъ, одинъ свѣтъ свѣтлый ты, Игорю! Оба есвѣ Святъславличя! 84 Сѣдлай, брате, свои бръзыи комони. А мои ти готови, осѣдлани у Курьска напереди. А мои ти Куряни свѣдоми къмети; 88 подъ трубами повити, подъ шеломы възлѣлѣяни, Конець копія въскърмлени. Пути имъ вѣдоми, 92 яругы имь знаеми; луци у нихъ напряжени, тули отворени, сабли изъострени. 96 Сами скачють, акы сѣрыи влъци въ поле; ищучи себѣ чти, а князю славѣ."

Ígoŕ awaits his dear brother Vsévolod. And Vsévolod said to him:--"My one brother, my one bright light, thou Ígoŕ! we are both sons of Svyatosláv! Brother, saddle thy swift horses; mine are ready for thee, saddled at Kuŕsk beforehand: and my men of Kuŕsk are experienced fighters, nursed amid trumpets, rocked in helmets, fed at the spear-blades, well-known to them are the paths; familiar to them are the ravines; their saddle-bows are strung; their quivers are open; and their sabres are whetted. They themselves gallop like grey wolves in the field, seeking honour for themselves, and for their prince glory."

100 Тогда въступи Игорь князь въ златъ стремень, и поѣха по чистому полю. Солнце ему тмою путь заступаше; 104 нощь стонущи ему; грозою птичь убуди; свистъ звѣринъ възста; зъбы Дивъ кличетъ връху древа; 108 велитъ послушати земли незнаемѣ:-- Влъзѣ и Поморию, и Посулію и Сурожу, и Корсуню и тебѣ, 112 Тьмутораканьскый блъванъ!

Then Prince Ígoŕ stepped into his golden stirrup, and set out in the open field. The sun barred his way with darkness, night groaned to him; and roused the birds with terror; the shrill tones of beasts aroused him; Div arose crying calls on the tree-top; he commands a hearing from the Unknown Land, the Vólga, the sea-border, and the Sulá country on the Sea of Azov, Korsuń, and thee, thou idol of Tmutarokáń.

А половци неготовами дорогами побѣгоша къ Дону великому. Крычатъ тѣлѣгы полунощы, 116 рци, лебеди роспущени. Игорь къ Дону вои ведетъ. Уже бо бѣды его упасетъ птиць по добу; 120 волци грозу въсрожатъ по яругамъ; орли клектомъ на кости звѣри зовутъ; лисици брешутъ 124 на чрленыя щиты. О руская земле, уже за Шеломянемъ еси! Длъго ночь мрькнетъ; 128 заря свѣтъ запаля. мьгла поля покрыла. щекотъ славій успе; говоръ галичь убуди. 132 Русичи великая поля чрьлеными щиты прегородиша, ищучи себѣ чти, а князю славы.

But the Pólovtsy on trackless roads ran to the mighty Don. The carts creak at midnight, like swans released. Ígoŕ leads his hosts towards the Don. Already [Div] the Bird is fending off disaster from him at this season; the wolves raise up their [cries] threat in the crevasses; the eagles with their clatter summon the brute-beasts [to feed on] the bones; the foxes yelp at the crimson shields.

Oh land of Russia, already art thou beyond the frontier-hill! Long is the night dark; the dawn has begun to give forth light; mist has rolled over the fields; the twitter of the nightingales is hushed; the speech of the crows has been awakened.

The sons of Russia have barred the broad fields with their crimson shields, seeking for themselves honour, for their prince renown.

136 Съ заранія въ пятъкъ потопташа поганыя плъкы Половецкыя; и рассушясь стрѣлами по полю. Помчаша красныя дѣвкы Половецкыя, 140 а съ ними злато и паволокы, и драгыя оксамиты. Орътмами и япончицами и кожухы начашя мосты мостити 144 по болотомъ и грязивымъ мѣстомъ, и всякыми узорочьи Половецкыми. Чрьленъ стягъ, бѣла хорюговь, чрьлена чолка, сребрено стружие, 148 храброму Святъславличю.

From the dawning on Friday they trampled on the heathen hosts of the Pólovtsy and scattered themselves like arrows over the field. They seized the fair maidens of the Pólovtsy, and with them gold and cloths and costly samite. With the mantles and cloaks and coats they set about bridging over the myre and greasy places--, with all the various patterned raiments of the Pólovtsy.

[To Ígoŕ] the brave son of Svyatosláv [there fell] a purple flag, a white banner, a red panache and a silver spear.

Дремлетъ въ полѣ Ольгово хороброе гнѣздо;-- далече залетѣло! 152 Не было оно на обидѣ порождено, ни соколу, ни кречету, ни тебѣ, чръный воронъ, поганый Половчине!

The valiant brood of the Ôlgoviči slumbers on the battle-field; afar has it flown. It had not been born to be insulted by hawk or gerfalcon, nor by thee, thou black crow, thou Heathen Polovčín!

156 Гзакъ бѣжитъ сѣрымъ влъкомъ, Кончакъ ему слѣдъ править къ Дону великому. другого дни велми рано 160 кровавыя зори свѣтъ повѣдаютъ черныя тучя съ моря идутъ, хотятъ прикрыти солнца, 164 а въ нихъ трепещуть синіи молниіи. быти грому великому итти дождю стрѣлами съ Дону великого. 168 Ту ся копіемъ приламати, ту ся саблямъ потручяти о шеломы половецкыя, на рѣцѣ на Каялѣ, 172 у Дону великого! О Руская земле, уже на Шеломянемь еси. Се вѣтри, Стрибожи внуци, вѣютъ съ моря стрелами 176 на храбрыя полкы Игоревы. Земля тутнетъ, рѣкы мутно текуть, 180 пороси поля прикрываютъ, стязи глаголютъ. Половци идуть отъ Дона и отъ моря, 184 и отъ всѣхъ странъ. Рускыя полки оступиша.

Gzak races like a grey wolf, Končák rides after him towards the mighty Don.

On the second day, very early, blood-stained dawn-lights announce the day; black clouds approach from the sea, and are eager to bedim the four Suns, and in them there quiver blue lightning-flashes. There shall ensue a fearful thunder; it shall rain arrows from the mighty Don.

And there shall spears be shattered, and swords shall be blunted on the Polovétski helms, by the river Kayála, near the mighty Don.

Oh land of Russia, thou art now on the frontier-hill.

Now the winds, the scions of Stríbog, blow from the sea like arrows on to the courageous hosts of Ígoŕ. The Earth moans, the streams flow sullied, [clouds of] dust cover the fields, the banners murmur.

The Pólovtsy advance from the Don and the sea and from all sides. The Russian regiments retired.

Дѣти бѣсови кликомъ поля прегородиша, 188 а храбріи Русици преградиша чръленными щиты.

The children of Baal barred the fields with their yells; but the brave Russians barred them with their crimson shields.

Яръ-туре Всеволоде! Стоиши на борони, 192 прыщеши на вои стрелами, гремлеши о шеломы мечи харалужными. Камо туръ, поскочаше, 196 своимъ златымъ шеломомъ посвѣчивая, тамо лежать поганыя головы Половецкыя; поскепани саблями калеными 200 шеломы Оварьскыя отъ тебе, яръ-туре Всеволоде: кая раны вороіа, братіе, забывъ чти и живота, 204 и града Чернигова, отня злата стола, и своя милыя хоти красныя Глѣбовны 208 свычая и обычая!

Oh fierce bull † [?] Vsévolod, thou standest in the struggle, dartest with thy arrows on the hosts, crashest with steel swords on their helmets. Where thou, the bull, didst leap forward, gleaming with thy golden helmet, there the heathen Polovétski heads lie, [and] their Avar helms are split by tempered sabres, by thee, fierce bull Vsévolod: who repined at the wounds of the enemy and forgot his honour and his life, and the City of Černígov, his father's golden throne, and the wonts and the ways of his dear love, the fair Glĕbovna!

Были вѣчи Трояни, минула лѣта Ярославля. были полци Олговы, 212 Ольга Святъславичя. Той бо Олегъ мечемь крамолу коваше и стрелы по земли сѣяше. 216 Ступаетъ въ златъ стремень въ градѣ Тмуторoканѣ. То-же звонъ слыша давный великый Ярославъ; 220 а Владиміръ, сынъ Всеволожь по вся утра уши закладаше въ Черниговѣ.

There have been the ages of Troyán; the years of Yarosláv have declined. There have been the armies of Olég, Olég Svyatoslávič. That Olég with his sword forged rebellion, and sowed arrows over the earth.

He steps into his golden stirrup in the city of Tmutorokáń. Yarosláv the Great, long since departed, heard the peal [of bells], but Vladímir the son of Vsévolod, for all of his days closed his ears at Černígov.

Бориса же Вячеславлича 224 Слава на судъ приведе и на Канину зелену паполому потла за обиду Олгову 228 храбра и млада князя. Съ тоя же Каялы Святоплъкь повелѣ яти тъстя своего 232 междю Угорьскими иноходцы [ко Святѣй Софіи къ Кіеву.] Тогда при Олзѣ Борисъ ела влечи; 236 сѣяшется и растяшеть усобицами: погибашеть жизнь Даждь-божа внука; въ княжихъ крамолахъ. 240 Вѣци человѣкомъ скратишась. Тогда по Русской земли Рѣтко ратаевѣ кикахуть, нъ часто врани граяхуть, 244 трупіа себѣ дѣляче; а галици свою рѣчь говоряхуть, хотять полетѣти на уѣдіе. То было въ ты рати 248 и въ ты полкы, а сицей рати не слышано.

[Lust for] glory brought Borís Vyačeslávič to the Judgment-seat, and on the Kanína [banks] bedded him with a garment of green, on account of the wrong [done] to Olég, that valiant and young prince.

From this river Kayála Svyatopólk bade his father-in-law be carried amid Hungarian amblers [to Saint Sophia at Kíev].

Then, in the time of Olég, Borís wrought for evil: feuds were sown and grew apace, the life of [Russia] the scion of Dážbog [the Sun-god] was wasted in the factious of the princes and the generations of mankind were shortened.

Then on the Russian land seldom did the villeins shout gee-up, but often did the ravens croak, as they divided the corpses [amongst themselves]; the crows spake in their own tongue, 'they wish to fly to the banquet.' Thus it was in those battles and those expeditions; but, such as this battle, none has been heard of.

Съ зараніа до вечера, съ вечера до свѣта, 252 летятъ стрелы каленыя; гремлютъ сабли о шеломы, трещатъ копіа харалужныя въ полѣ незнаемѣ, 256 среди земли Половецкыи. Черна земля подъ копыты, костьми была посѣяна, From early moon until the evening, from the evening until the day-light, tempered arrows fly, the sabres thunder about the helmets, the lances crack in the foreign country, amid the land of the Pólovtsy.

The black earth beneath the hooves was sown with bones, and was watered with blood; а кровію польяна: 260 тугою взыдоша по Руской земли. Что ми шумить, что ми звенить, 264 далече рано предъ зорями? Игорь полкы възворочаетъ 268 жаль бо ему мила брата Всеволода. Бишася день, бишася другый; 272 третьяго дни къ полуднию падоша стязи Игоревы. Ту ся брата разлучиста на брезѣ быстрой Каялы. 276 Ту кроваваго вина не доста. Ту пиръ докончаша храбріи Русичи; сваты попоиша, 280 а сами полегоша, за землю Рускую. Ничить трава жалощами; а древо съ тугою 284 къ земли преклонилось.

on Russian soil these sprang up as grief.

What noise is that, what peal is that, just now early before the dawn? Ígoŕ is retiring his regiments; for he has compassion on his dear brother Vsévolod.

They fought one day, they fought another; on the third day, close on noon, the standards of Ígoŕ fell.

Those two brothers parted on the bank of the swift Kayála.

There of bloody wine there was not enough. There they finished the feast, the brave Russians; they plied the wedding-guests with wine, but themselves were laid low defending the Russian land.

The grass bows down with woe and the tree bent to earth with sorrow.

Text: Part II

Уже бо, братіе, невеселая година въстала; уже пустыни силу прикрыла. 288 Въстала обида въ силахъ Дажьбога внука; вступила дѣвою на землю Трояню; 292 въсплескала лебедиными крылы на синемъ морѣ у Дону плещучи, убуди жирня времена. 296 Усобица княземъ на поганы я погыбе. Рекоста бо братъ брату;-- "Се мое, а то--мое же". 300 И начаша князи про малое "Се великое" молвити, а сами на себе крамолу ковати. а поганіи со всѣхъ странъ 304 прихождаху съ побѣдами на землю Рускую. О, далече зайде соколъ птиць бья къ морю. 308 А Игорева храброго полку не кресити!

Now already, brothers a weary time arose, now it covered the army in the wilderness. Contumely arose in the hosts of the scion of Dážbog, stepped like a Maiden on the land of Troyán, splashed with her swan-wings in the blue sea; splashing them in the Don, she awakened the heavy times.

The discord of the princes ruined them against the Pagans. For, brother spake to brother;--"This is mine, and that is also mine." And the princes began to pronounce of a paltry thing, 'this is great'; and themselves amongst them to forge feuds; and the heathens from all sides advanced with victories against the Russian land. Oh, far has the hawk followed, smiting the birds into the sea! and Ígoŕ's brave host will rise no more!

За нимъ кликну Карнаижля, поскочи по Руской земли, смагу людемъ мычючи 312 въ пламянѣ розѣ. Жены Рускыя въсплакашась, аркучи: "Уже намъ своихъ милыхъ ладъ ни мыслію смыслити; 316 ни думою сдумати, ни очима съглядати: а злата и сребра, ни мало того потрепати." 320 А възстона бо, братіе, After him the Accursèd One shouted, leapt over the Russian land, shooting forth fire on the people in a flaming horn.

The women of Russia wailed, saying:--"Henceforth can we no longer think with our thoughts of our dear loves nor with our counsel counsel them, nor see them with our eyes nor amass gold nor silver, nay far from it?" and then, brothers, Кіевъ тугою а Черниговь напастьми. Тоска разліяся 324 по Руской земли; печаль жирна утече средѣ земли Рускыи. а князи сами на себе 328 крамолу коваху: а поганіи сами побѣдами нарищюще на Рускую землю емляху дань по бѣлѣ отъ двора.

Kíev groaned with mourning, and Černígov with disasters.

Grief poured forth on the Russian land, abundant tribulation flowed through the Russian lands. But the princes themselves forged discord amongst themselves, and the Pagans with victories overrode the Russian land and took tribute from each household of a squirrel's skin.

332 Тіи бо два храбрая Святъславлича, Игорь и Всеволодъ, уже лжу убудиста, которою то бяше успилъ 336 отецъ ихъ Святъславъ [грозный великый Кіевскый]. Грозою бяшеть притепалъ своими сильными полкы; 340 и харалужными мечи наступи на землю Половецкую, притопта хлъми и яругы, взмути рѣкы и озеры, 344 иссуши потокы и болота; а поганого Кобяка изъ Лукоморъя отъ желѣзныхъ великыхъ 348 полковъ Половецкыхъ яко вихръ, выторже. И падеся Кобякъ въ градѣ Кіевѣ, въ гридницѣ Святъславли. 352 Ту Нѣмци и Венедици, ту Греци и Морава поютъ славу Святославлю; кають князя Игоря, 356 иже погрузи жиръ во днѣ Каялы, рѣкы Половецкыя, Рускаго злата насыпаше. Ту Игорь князь высѣде 360 изъ сѣдла злата [а] въ сѣдло кощіево.

For those two valiant sons of Svyatosláv, Ígoŕ and Vsévolod, had aroused the wrong which their father Svyatosláv [the great and terrible of Kíev] had lulled asleep. With his might having conquered, [or kept in panic] through his powerful armies and tempered swords, he invaded the Polovsk land; he trampled down their hills and clefts, sullied their streams and lakes, dried out their rivers and fens. And the heathen Kobyák he tore, like a whirlwind, from the bight of the sea, out of the great hosts of the Pólovtsy; and Kobyák fell in the city of Kíev in the Hall of Svyatosláv.

There the Germans and the Wends, there the Greeks and Moravians sing the faine of Svyatosláv; they obsecrate Prince Ígoŕ; who foundered his abundance in the bed of the Kayála, the Polovsk river, and filled it with Russian gold.

There Ígoŕ dismounted from his golden saddle into a slave's saddle.

Уныша бо градомъ забралы, а веселіе пониче. А Святъславь мутенъ сонъ виде 364 въ Кіевѣ на горахъ. "Си ночь съ вечера одѣвасте мя", рече "черною паполомою на кровати тисовѣ. Чръпахуть ми синее вино, 368 съ трутомъ смѣшено; сыпахуть ми тъщими тулы поганыхъ тлъковинъ великый женчюгь на лоно 372 и нѣгуютъ мя. Уже дъскы безъ кнѣса въ моемъ теремѣ златовръсемъ. Всю нощь съ вечера бусови 376 врани възграяху; Дву плѣнника на болони, безъ щады, деу, рекы исади несоша я къ синему морю. 380 И ркоша бояре князю: "Уже, княже, туга умъ полонила. Се бо два сокола слетѣста съ отня стола злата 384 поискати града Тмутороканя, а любо испити шеломомь Дону. Уже соколома крильца припѣшали поганыхъ саблями, 388 а самого опуташа въ путины желѣзны."

The ramparts of the cities were hushed and mirth declined. And Svyatosláv dreamed a troubled dream at Kíev on the hills. "This night," he said, "from even-time, ye dressed me with a black coverlet on my bed of yew; [men] poured me out blue wine mixed with dust; they scattered great [treasure of] pearls from the empty quivers of the nomads on to my lap and [try to] soothe me. Already are the boards in my golden-roofed abode bereft of wall-plates.

All night long from even-time have the crows of Bus [or Blus] croaked; two captives [stand] by the fen: mercilessly [the foe] have carried the two to the landing-stage of the river, down to the blue sea."

And the Boyárs answered the Prince; "Already, Prince, has grief taken captive our mind. For two hawks have flown away from their sires' golden throne, to seek the city of Tmutorokáń, or, may be, to quaff in their helms of the Don.

Already are the wings of the two hawks by the sabres of the heathen made to walk afoot; and, [Ígoŕ] himself they have fettered in fetters of iron."

Темно бо бѣ въ третій день. Два солнца померкоста; 392 оба багряная стлъпа погасоста; и съ нима молодая мѣсяца, Олегъ и Святъславъ тъмою ся поволокоста.

It was dark on the third day. Two suns were dimmed; both purple columns [of the Aurora Borealis] were extinguished; and with these two the two young Moons, Olég and Svyatosláv, were draped in darkness.

396 На рѣцѣ на Каялѣ тьма свѣтъ покрыла. По Руской земли прострошася Половци, 400 акы пардуже гнѣздо: и въ морѣ погрузиста, и великое буйство подаста хиню. 404 Уже вснесея хула на хвалу; уже тресну нужда на волю; уже връжеся Дивъ на землю. Се бо Готьскыя красныя дѣвы 408 въспѣша на брезѣ синему морю, звоня Рускымъ златомъ. Поютъ время Бусово, лелѣютъ месть Шароканю. 412 А мы уже, дружина, жадни веселія.

On the stream of the Kayála darkness covered the light. Over the Russian land the Pólovtsy spread out like a brood of pards. And ye two plunged into the sea your mighty daring and will abandon it for folly.

Now obloquy was upraised after praise; now need burst out on freedom; now Div cast himself down [or? whined upon] the earth.

Thus the fair maidens of the Goths sang on the shore of the blue sea, tinkling in Russian gold. They sing the time of Bus [or Blus]; they cherish the vengeance for Šarokán. But, now, we, the družína, are a-thirst for joy.

Тогда великый Святъславъ изрони злато слово 416 слезами смѣшено и рече:-- "О моя сыновчя, Игорю и Всеволоде! Рано еста начала Половецкую землю мечи цвѣлити, 420 а себѣ славы искати! Нъ нечестно одолѣсте, нечестно бо кровь поганую пролиясте. Ваю храбрая сердца въ жестоцемъ 424 харалузѣ скована, а въ буести закалена Се ли створисте моей сребреней сѣдинѣ? 428 А уже не вижду власти сильнаго и богатаго и многовоя брата моего Ярослава, съ Черниговьскими былями, 423 съ могуты и съ Татраны и съ Шельбиры и съ Топчакы Then the mighty Svyatosláv let fall a golden word, commingled with tears, and spake: "Oh my nephews, Ígoŕ and Vsévolod! soon have ye begun to harass the land of the Pólovtsy with your swords, and to seek fame for yourselves! But, dishonourably have ye conquered, for dishonourably have ye shed the blood of the heathen. Your brave hearts are welded together in heavy steel, and tempered in audacity. This have ye wrought to me to my silvered grey hairs?

Now I no longer see the power of my brother Yarosláv, the mighty and wealthy and well-equipped, with the commanders of the Černígov mercenaries, with their forces, both with the men from the Tátra, the men from Šelbiŕ and Topčák, и съ Ревугы и съ Ольбѣры. Тіи бо бесъ щитовъ съ засапожикы 436 кликомъ плъкы побѣждають, звонячи въ прадѣднюю славу. Нъ рекосте:--"Мужаимъся сами; преднюю славу похытимъ; 440 а заднюю ся сами подѣлимъ!" А чи диво ся, братіе, стару помолодити? Коли соколъ въ мытехъ бываетъ, 444 высоко птицъ взбиваетъ: не дасть гнѣзда своего въ обиду. нъ се зло, княже ми не пособимо; 448 наниче ся годины обратиша. Се у Римъ кричатъ подъ саблями Половецкыми, а Володиміръ подъ ранами-- 452 "Туга и тоска сыну Глѣбову!"

from Revukha [or Revutsa] and from Olbieŕ. For these without shields conquer the hosts by their yells, echoing to the glory of their forebears. But ye spake:--"Let us play a man's part; let us steal the glory of yore; let us divide the glory to come for ourselves!"

But, what wonder were it, brothers, for an old man to grow young? If a hawk is moulting, it drives the birds afar high up, and will not foul its own nest.

But this disaster, oh my Prince, is irremediable: the seasons have gone backwards to nothingness.

Thus they cry out at Rim beneath the sabres of the Pólovtsy--,but Vladímir [lies] beneath his wounds,--"Woe and sorrow to the son of Glěb!"

Великый княже Всеволоде; Не мыслію ти прелетѣти издалеча отня злата стола поблюсти? 456 Ты бо можеши Волгу веслы раскропити, а Донъ шеломы выльяти! Аже ты бы былъ, 460 то была бы чага по ногатѣ, а кощей по резанѣ! Ты бо можеши по суху [живыми] съ Шереширы стреляти, 464 удалыми сыны Глѣбовы.

Great Prince Vsévolod! Is it not thine to fly from afar with thy thought to guard thy fathers' golden throne? For thou canst splash the Volga with thy oars, and bale out the Don with thy helmets! If thou hadst been [there], then a potentate would be priced at twelve pence and a workman at five pence!

For, on dry land, thou canst, with the men of Šeryšor shoot my valorous sons of Glěb.

Ты буй-Рюриче и Давыде! Не ваю ли злачеными шеломы по крови плаваша? 468 Не ваю ли храбрая дружина рыкаютъ аки тури, ранени саблями калеными на полѣ незнаемѣ? Вступита, господина, 472 въ злата стременя за обиду сего времени за землю Рускую, за раны Игоревы, 476 буего Святъславича!

Thou brave Rúrik and David, did they not swim in blood with your golden helms? Do not your brave Družína gallop like bulls wounded by tempered sabres in the unexplored land?

Step, my lords, into your golden stirrups, for the insult to our time, for the Russian land, the wounds of Ígoŕ, the brave son of Svyatosláv.

Галичкы осломи о Вислѣ Ярославе; Высоко сѣдиши на своемъ златокованнемъ столѣ! 480 подперъ горы Угорскыи своими желѣзными полкы; заступивъ Королеви путь; затворивъ Дунаю ворота; 484 мечавъ ремены чрезъ Влахы! суды, рядя, до Дуная! Грозы твоя по землямъ текутъ! Отворяеши Кіеву врата! 488 Стремляеши съ отня злата стола Салътаны за землями! Стрѣляй, господине, Кончака, поганого кощея, 492 за землю Рускую! за раны Игоревы, буего Святъславича!

Thou didst shatter the Galicians on the Vistula, Yarosláv; thou sittest high on thy gold-forged throne, supporting the Hungarian mountains with thy iron-clad regiments, barring the road against the [Magyar] King, closing the gates of the Danube, hurling thongs amid the Vlakhs, judging and ordaining as far as the Danube! Thy threats have sway over the lands. Thou openest the gates of Kíev, shootest from thy ancestral golden throne the men of Salatyn [who are] beyond thy lands.

Shoot, my liege, the heathen Končák the slave, for the sake of the Russian land, for the sake of the wounds of Ígoŕ, the brave son of Svyatosláv.

А ты, буй-Романе, и Мстиславе! 496 храбрая мысль носитъ ва съ уемъ на дѣло! Высоко плаваеши на дѣло въ буести, яко соколъ на вѣтрехъ ширяяся, хотя птицю въ буйствѣ одолѣти. 500 Суть-бо у ваю желѣзныи паробци подъ шеломы латиньскими. Тѣми тресну земля и многи страны,-- Хинова, Литва, Ятвязи, Деремела, 504 и Половци сулици своя повръгоша, а главы своя поклониша подъ тыи мечи харалужныи. Нъ уже, княже Игорю, 508 утръпѣ солнцю свѣтъ, а древо не бологомъ листвіе срони: По Ръси, по Сули 512 грады подѣлиша. А Игорева храбраго полку не кресити! Донъ ти, княже, кличетъ 516 и зоветь князи на побѣду.

Thou, valiant Román and Mstíslav, your brave thought carries you with your uncle to the work. Thou floatest in thy courage to thy toil like a hawk stretching himself in the winds, wishing in his strength to slay a bird!

For ye have iron cuirasses beneath your Latin helmets. Through them the earth trembled and many countries, Hinowice, Lithuania, the Yatvyági, the men of Dremble; and the Pólovtsy threw down their maces and bowed their heads beneath those steel swords.

But now, my prince, the light of Ígoŕ's sun has dimmed; the tree through misfortune has let fall its leaves, they [the enemy] have shared ont the cities on the Roś and the Sulá. And, Ígoŕ's brave regiment can no more rise. The Don summons thee, Prince, and calls the princes to victory.

Олговичи, храбыи князи, доспѣли на брань. Ингварь и Всеволодъ 520 и вси три Мстиславичи, нехуда гнѣзда шерстокрьлцы непобѣдными жребіи собѣ власти расхытисте! 524 Кое ваши златыи шеломы и сулици ляцкыи и щиты! Загородите полю ворота своими острыми стрелами 528 за землю Рускую, за раны Игоревы, буего Святъславлича!

The Ólgoviči, those brave princes [i.e. Ígoŕ and Vsévolod] have hastened to the combat. Íngvaŕ and Vsévolod [Yaroslávič] and ye three Mstíslaviči, ye heavy-winged ones of a noble nest, by inglorious lots have ye gotten yourselves power!

Wherefor [have ye] your golden helms and Polish maces and your shields? Guard the gates of the [frontier] land with your sharp arrows for the land of Russia, the wounds of Ígoŕ, the brave Svyatoslávič!

Уже бо Сула не течетъ 532 сребреными струями къ граду Переяславлю; и Двина болотомъ течетъ гоно-грознымъ Полочаномъ 536 подъ кликомъ поганыхъ. Единъ же Изяславъ, сынъ Васильковъ, позвони своими острыми мечи о шеломы Литовьскыя, 540 притрепа славу дѣду своему Всеславу, и самъ подъ чрълеными щиты на кровавѣ травѣ притрепанъ 544 Литовскыми мечи: и съ хотъю на кроватъи рекъ:-- "Дружину твою, княже, птиць крилы пріодѣ, 548 а звѣри кровь полизаша." Не бы ту брата Брячъяслава, ни другаго Всеволода:-- единъ же изрони 552 жемчюжну душу изъ храбра тѣла чресъ латы о жерелѣ. Уныли голоси, 556 пониче веселіе. Трубы трыбятъ Городеньскіи.

No longer does the Sulá flow with silvery stream to the city of Pereyáslavl’, and the Dviná flows thither in a morass to the grim hunters of Polótsk, amid the shouts of the heathen.

Izyasláv, alone, the son of Vasíl’ko, rang with his sharp swords on the helmets of the Lithuanians, grasped the fame of his grandfather Vséslav; and himself beneath the crimsoned shields was laid low on the blood-stained ground by the Lithuanian swords: and with grieving spake on his bed: "The birds, oh Prince, have been covering thy družína with their wings, and the wild beasts have been licking at their blood,"

On that field there was neither his brother Bryáčislav, nor his next [brother] Vsévolod: alone he let fall his pearl-white soul from his brave body out through his armour at his throat.

Voices were hushed; merriment was subdued. The trumpets of Gorodno blare.

Ярославли и вси внуце Всеславли, уже понизити стязи свои, 560 вонзити свои мечи вережени; уже бо выскочисте изъ дѣдней Славы. Вы бо своими крамолами 564 начясте наводити поганыя на землю Рускую, Oh Yarosláv [Vsévolodič] and all the scions of Vséslav, ye should now lower your standards and sheathe your maimed swords; for ye have now leapt away from the Glory of your grandfathers.

Ye, with your discords, began to lead the Pagans on to Russian soil, against the на жизнь Всеславлю. Которою бо бѣше насиліе 568 отъ земли Половецкыи!

life of Vséslav. From strife there has been oppression from the land of the Pólovtsy.

На седьмомъ вѣцѣ Трояни връже Всеславъ жребій о дѣвицю себѣ любу. 572 Тъй клюками подпръся о кони и скочи къ граду Кыеву; дотчеся стружіемъ злата стола Кіевскаго. 576 скочи отъ нихъ лютымъ зверемъ въ пълночи изъ Бѣлаграда; обвѣсися синѣ мьглѣ; утръже вязни въ три кусы; 580 отвори врата Новуграду, разшибе славу Ярославу; скочи влъкомъ до Немиги съ Дудутокъ. На Немизѣ снопы 584 стелють головами, молотятъ цѣпы халужными; на тоцѣ животъ кладутъ, вѣутъ душу отъ тѣла. 588 Немизѣ кровави брезѣ не бологомъ бяхуть посѣяни;-- посѣяни костьми Рускыхъ сыновъ Всеславъ князь людемъ судяше, 592 княземъ грады рядяше: а самъ въ ночь волкомъ рыскаше, исъ Кыева дорискаше до Чуръ Тъмутораканя, 596 великому Хръсови волкомъ путь прерыскаше. Тому въ Полотьскѣ позвониша заутренюю рано 600 у Святыя Софеи въ колоколы, а онъ въ Кыевѣ звонь слыша.

In the seventh age of Troyán Vséslav cast his lots for the Maiden dear to him.

He with wiles at the last tore himself free: and galloped to the city of Kíev; with his weapon took hold of the golden throne of Kíev; galloped from them like a wild beast at midnight from Bĕ́lgorod, swathed himself in a blue mist, rent asunder his bonds into three parts, opened wide the gates of Nóvgorod, shattered the Glory of Yarosláv [the First]; galloped like a wolf from Dudútki to the Nemíga.

On the Nemíga the sheaves are laid out with heads; men thresh with flails in hedgerows; on the barn-floor they spread out life; they winnow the soul from the body.

On the blood-stained Nemíga the banks were sown with bane,--sown with the bones of the sons of Russia.

Prince Vséslav was a judge to his subjects, he appointed cities for the princes: but he himself at night raced like a wolf from Kíev to the Idol [or, (accepting the reading of the text unaltered)--to the Lord] of Tmutarakáń, raced, like a wolf across the path of the great Khors.

To him at Polotsk they rang the bells early for matins at Saint Sophia; and he at Kíev heard the sound.

Аще и вѣща душа въ дръзѣ тѣлѣ, 604 нъ часто бѣды страдаше. Тому, вѣщей Бояне и перевое припѣвку, смышленый рече:-- 608 'ни хытру, ни горазду, ни птицю ни гудъию суда Божія не минути.'-- Although his wise soul were in a hardy [or precious] body, yet he often endured misfortunes.

To him thou, oh wizard Boyárs, didst first thoughtfully speak the refrain:--"Neither the crafty man nor the experienced, nor a bird nor a minstrel can escape God's judgments."

О стонати Руской земли, 612 помянувше первую годину и первыхъ князей. Того стараго Владиміра не льзѣ бѣ пригвоздити 616 къ горамъ кіевскымъ: сего бо нынѣ сташа стязи Рюриковы, а друзіи Давидовы; 620 нъ розъно ся имъ хоботы пашутъ!

Ah, moan for the Russian land [ye who] remember the first epoch and the first princes!

It was useless to nail down that olden-time Vladímir to the mountains of Kíev; his banners now have become, some of them Rúrik's and others of them David's; but [these banners] waver to and for at the hafts at variance one with the other!

(1) Вопилы поютъ на Дунаи; Ярославна нмъ гласъ ся слышитъ, зегзицею незнаемѣ рано кычеть:-- 624 "Полечю," рече "зегзицею по Дунаеви; Омочю бебрянъ рукавъ въ Каялѣ [рѣцѣ]; утру князю кровавыя его раны на жестоцѣмъ его тѣлѣ."

(1) The mourners sing on the Danube. Yaroslávna hears their voice; she moans early like a cuckoo in the unknown land:--"I will fly" she spoke,--"like a cuckoo along the Danube; I will wet my beaver sleeves in the Kayála river, I will wipe away for the prince his bloody wounds on his stricken body.

628 (2) Ярославна рано плачетъ въ Путивлѣ на забралѣ, аркучи:-- "О вѣтре, вѣтрило, чему, господине, 632 насильно вѣеши? Чему мычеши хиновьскыя стрѣлкы на своею нетрудною крилцю на моея лады вой?

Yaroslávna wails early at Putívl’ on the rampart, saying:--"Oh Wind, little Wind, wherefore, Master, blowest thou with violence? Wherefore hurlest thou with thy tireless wing torturing arrows on the hosts of my love?

636 мало ли ти бяшетъ горъ подъ облакы вѣяти, лелѣючи корабли на синѣ морѣ? чему, господине, мое веселіе 640 по ковылію развѣя?"

Little were it to thee to waft woes beneath the clouds, thou who rockest ships on the blue sea; wherefore, Master,--thou who waftest away my joy over the feathergrass [of the steppe]?"

(3) Ярославна рано плачеть Путивлю городу на заборолѣ, аркучи:-- "О Днепре Словутицю! 644 Ты пробилъ еси каменныя горы сквозѣ землю Половецкую! Ты лелѣялъ еси на себѣ Святославли носады 648 до полку Кобякову: Възлелѣй, господине, мою ладу къ мнѣ! а быхъ е слала 652 къ нему слезъ на море!

Yaroslávna wails early at Putívl’ on the rampart, saying. "Oh Dnĕpr Slovútič, thou hast pierced the stone mountains through the land of the Pólovtsy. Thou hast rocked on thyself Svyatosláv's barges up to the armies of Kobyák; rock up to me, Master, my love. Would that I had never sent tears to him over the sea!" † (4) Рано Ярославна на морѣ плачетъ въ Путивлѣ на забралѣ, аркучи:-- 656 "Свѣтлое и тресвѣтлое слънце! Всѣмъ тепло и красно еси! чему, господине, простре горячюю свою лучу на ладѣ вои? 660 Въ полѣ безводнѣ жаждею имъ лучи съпряже, тугою имъ тули затче!"

Yaroslávna wails by the waters on the rampart at Putívl’ early, saying:--"Oh sun, thou bright, thrice bright one! To all men art thou warm and beauteous! Wherefore, Master, hast thou spread thy burning beam over my love's men? Thou hast stretched their bows in the waterless plain with thirst, and choked their quivers with tribulation."

Text: Part III

Прысну море полунощи; 664 идутъ сморци мьглами: Игореви князю Богъ путь кажетъ изъ земли Половецкой на землю Рускую, 668 къ отню злату столу. Погасоша вечеру зари. Игорь съпить, Игорь бъдитъ, Игорь мыслію поля мѣритъ 672 отъ великого Дону до малаго Донца. Гомонь въ полуночи: Овлуръ свисну за рѣкою; 676 велить князю Разумѣти князю Игорю не бысть; Кликну. Стукну земля: въшумѣ трава. 680 Вежи [ся] половецкыя подвизашася; Игорь князь поскочи горнастаемъ къ тростію и бѣлымъ гоголемъ на воду; 684 въвержеся на борзъ комонь, и скочи съ него босымъ волкомъ, и потече къ лугу Донца, и полетѣ соколомъ подъ мьлами, 688 избивая гуси и лебеди завтроку и обѣду и ужинѣ. Коли Игорь соколомъ полетѣ, тогда Влуръ влъкомъ потече, 692 труся собою студеную росу. Претръгоста бо борзая комоня.

The sea spurted at midnight; the waterspouts pass like mists. God manifests the road to Prince Ígoŕ from the Polovsk land to the Russian land, to his fathers' golden throne.

The twilight dimmed at even-time. Ígoŕ sleeps, Ígoŕ wakes, Ígoŕ in his mind measures the plains from the mighty Don to the little Donéts.

[There is] clamour at midnight; Ovlur whistled beyond the stream, summons the prince; Prince Ígoŕ could not understand.

[Ovlur] called out loud; the earth throbbed; the grass rustled. The Polovsk tents began to stir. Ígoŕ the Prince raced like an ermine to the brushwood, like a white duck to the water, cast himself on his swift horse and leapt from it like a swift-footed wolf and fled to the meadow of the Donéts, and flew like a hawk in the mists, slaying geese and swans for breakfast, dinner and supper.

When Ígoŕ flew like a hawk, then Vlur fled like a wolf, shaking off himself the cold dew. For they had over-ridden their swift steeds.

Донецъ рече: "Княже Игорю! не мало ти величія, 696 а Кончаку нелюбія, а Руской земли веселиа." Игорь рече: "О Донче, не мало ти величія, 700 лелѣявшу князя на волнахъ, стлавшу ему зелену траву на своихъ сребреныхъ брезѣхъ; одѣвавшу его теплыми мъглами 704 подъ сѣнію зелена древу. Стрежаше е гоголемъ на водѣ, чайцами на струяхъ, чрьнядьми на вѣтрѣхъ."

Donéts [the river] said:--"Prince Ígoŕ, not mean is thy greatness, nor Končák's hatred, nor the joy of the Russian land!

Ígoŕ said:--"Oh Donéts! Not mean is thy greatness, thou who swayest the Prince on thy waves, and hast spread out for him [a bed of] green grass by thy silvery banks, clothing him with warm mists beneath the shade of the green tree; thou hast guarded him with a duck on the water, with gulls on the billows, with mallards on the winds.

708 "Не тако-ли,"--рече, "рѣка Стугна, худу струю имѣя, пожръши чужи ручьи, и стругы, ростре на кусту? 712 Уношѣ князю Ростиславу затвори Днѣпрь темнѣ березѣ. Плачется мати Ростиславля по уноши князи Ростиславѣ." 716 Уныша цвѣты жалобою, и древо съ тугою къ земли преклонило.

"Was it not thus," he said, "that the river Stugná, having an evil stream, swallowing strange brooks ground down the barges on the bushes?

The Dnĕpr closed his dark banks to the youth Prince Rostíslav. Rostíslav's mother wails for the youth Prince Rostíslav."

The flowers drooped for sorrow and the tree for grief bowed low to earth.

(1) не сорокы втроскоташа, 720 на слѣду Игоревѣ ѣздитъ Гзакъ съ Кончакомъ. Тогда врани не граяхуть, галици помолкоша, 724 сороки не троскоташа, по лозію ползаша; только дятлове тектомъ путь къ рѣцѣ кажутъ; It was not the magpies chirping; in pursuit of Ígoŕ, Gzak rides with Končák.

Then the crows did not croak, the jackdaws were still, the magpies did not chirp; they crept in the boughs. Only the woodpeckers by their peeking show the road to the river; 728 соловии веселыми пѣсньми свѣтъ повѣдаютъ.

the nightingales with their merry song announce the dawn.

(2) Молъвитъ Гза къ Кончакови:-- "Аже соколъ къ гнѣзду летитъ, 732 соколича рострѣляевѣ своими злачеными стрелами." Рече Кончакъ ко Гзѣ:-- "Аже соколъ къ гнѣзду летитъ, 736 а вѣ сокольца опутаевѣ красньою дѣвицею" И рече Гзакъ къ Кончакови:-- "Аше его опутаевѣ 740 красною дѣвицею, ни нама будетъ сокольца ни нама красны дѣвице: то почнутъ наю птици бити 744 въ полѣ Половецкомъ."

Gzak speaks to Končák:--"If the hawk is flying to his nest, we two will shoot down the fledgeling with our gilded arrows!"

Končák said to Gzak:--"If the hawk is flying to his nest we will fetter the fledgeling with a maiden fair."

And Gzak said to Končák:--"If we fetter him with a maiden fair, then we shall have neither the fledgeling nor the fair maiden; but the birds will begin to assail us in the Polovsk plains."

Рече Боянъ и ходы Святъславли на Когана:-- "Пѣснотворъцъ азъ стараго времени 748 "Ярославля и Ольгова: 'Хоти тяжко ти, головѣ, кромѣ плечю, зло ти, тѣлу, 752 кромѣ головы;"-- --Руской земли безъ Игоря!

Boyán has told of the expeditions of Svyatosláv [the First] against the Kogan: "I am the poet of the ancient time [i.e. Vladímir I], of the time of Yarosláv [the First], and Olég [of Tmutarakáń]." 'Though it be heavy to thee, the head, parted from the shoulders; ill is to thee, body, parted from the head:--to the Russian land without Ígoŕ!' Солнце свѣтится на небесѣ; Игорь князь въ Руской земли. 756 Дѣвици поютъ на Дунаи; вьются голоси чрезъ море до Кіева.

The sun shines in the heavens. Ígoŕ the prince is in the Russian land. The maidens sing on the Danube; their voices mingle across the waters [and are borne] to Kíev.

Игорь идетъ по Боричеву къ святѣй Богородици Пирогощей. 760 Страны ради, гради весели, пѣвше пѣснь старымъ княземъ а потомъ молодымъ пѣти.

Слава Игорю Святъславличь, 764 буй-туру Всеволоде, Владиміру Игоревичь!

Здрави князи, и дружина, побарючи за Христьяны 768 на поганыя полкы!

Княземъ слава а дружикѣ хвала!

770 Аминь!

Ígoŕ repairs up [the hill] Boríčev to the Holy Mother of God at Pirogóšč.

The countries are happy, the cities rejoicing; singing a song to the princes of yore: and hereafter the the young shall sing it.

Glory, oh Ígoŕ Svyatoslávič, brave bull Vsévolod, Vladímir Ígorevič!

The princes prosper and the družína fighting for the Christians against the Pagans!

Glory to the Princes and (praise) to the družína!

The re-arrangement suggested in the note на седьмомъ would read:--'By strife there has been oppression from the land of Polótsk. In the seventh age of Troyán Vséslav cast lots. He set out to the [river] Issa, doffing his white sheep-skin. He opened wide (l. 580. . .) the gates of Nóvgorod, shattered the glory of Yarosláv [Svyatopólkovič]; galloped like a wolf . . .to the Nemíga. He at the last tore himself with wiles; galloped. . . . Bĕlgorod; . . . . . three parts. (ll. 572-579).' v. p. 18.

The Slovo o polku Igoreve (The Lay of Igor's Campaign) was composed c.1185–1187, shortly after the events it describes. Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversk launched his campaign against the Polovtsi in April 1185 without the support of the other Russian princes; his army was defeated at the Battle of the Kayala on 12 May 1185 and Igor was captured. He escaped in 1186 and returned to Russia.

The poem belongs to a genre of Russian oral-literary composition with no surviving parallels; its closest analogues are the byliny (heroic ballads) of Russian oral tradition, but the Slovo's literary sophistication is of a different order. The opening invocation of Boyan the bard — "who, when he wished to compose a song for someone, would soar in thought across the tree of thought" — is one of the most discussed passages in Slavic literary scholarship.

The Tale of the Armament of Igor was translated and published by Leonard A. Magnus, Oxford University Press, 1915.

Archival text. Transcribed from the sacred-texts.com digitisation of the 1915 Oxford University Press edition.

🌲