The image of Igor in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”
The literary scholar brings to your attention a short essay on the topic “The Image of Igor in the Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” which reveals the components of the image of the hero created by the ancient Russian author.
“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is the greatest monument of ancient Russian literature. It is connected with folk culture, language, worldview. Its ideological content is aimed at unifying and strengthening Rus'. Love for the homeland, the readiness to defend it until the last breath was inherent in many people of that time. The main character of the poem, Prince Igor, is no exception.
The theme of the work was the campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich against the Polovtsians. It ended unsuccessfully. The prince's army was defeated, and he himself was captured. To understand the reason for the failure, you need to understand what Prince Igor was like and what motivated him.
Prince Igor, the ruler of Novgorod, is the main character of the poem. He comes from an old princely family. Igor has a powerful squad, which he leads against the Polovtsians. On his side is his brother Vsevolod.
The prince is a brave and strong warrior, but an inexperienced ruler. He is young, hot and vain. He came up with the idea of “tempting an unknown land”; this was the main reason for the campaign. The prince’s actions had no practical benefit. At that time, disagreements with the Cumans were resolved. A truce was established between the Polovtsian khan and the Russian princes, which was disrupted by Igor’s campaign.
He is “full of military thoughts” and does not pay attention to heavenly signs. Before the start of the hike, there was an eclipse of the sun, which greatly frightened people. They took this phenomenon as a bad omen. The spirit of the army, which is so necessary for victory, was broken. Confusion and murmur appeared in the ranks of the vigilantes. The prince made a mistake by continuing his journey. Of course, the solar eclipse itself was not a real warning, but it affected the mood of the fighters and deprived them of faith in victory. They expected failure.
A proud and self-confident man, the prince cannot cancel the campaign or break his word because of a natural phenomenon. He decided to defeat the Polovtsians and is not going to change his intentions. His word is law not only for warriors, but also for himself. He tries to keep his word and not change his decisions. This is a good quality if it is accompanied by common sense. This was precisely what was not enough for Prince Igor. The thirst for fame silenced the mind.
The “daring” prince fights bravely together with his warriors, he does not hide behind their backs. He is all wounded, but does not leave the battlefield. Next to him, his brothers fight shoulder to shoulder. In the heat of battle, he loses sight of them. The prince loves his brothers and worries about their fate.
Igor is eager to fight, dreams of military glory. Thinking only about himself, he does not imagine how his campaign will turn out for the Russians. His step was short-sighted and thoughtless. The Polovtsian Khan, outraged by the attack of the Russian army, gathered the main forces and moved them to Rus'. He took cruel revenge, ruining Russian cities. Igor’s frivolous act turned out to be a great grief for his native land. None of the princes wanted to go and rescue him from captivity. Everyone cursed his act, which brought on the Polovtsian raids.
Grand Duke Svyatoslav, Igor's father, has a terrible dream about the fate of his sons. He does not justify his son's actions. Svyatoslav says that the sons aimed at the glory of their ancestors. They went on this trip, thinking only about how to please their vanity. Princes should not do this, they are responsible for their country, for the people. And yet he calls on the princes to stand up for Rus' and avenge Igor’s wounds, stop civil strife, and unite.
No matter what mistakes the young prince makes, he is loved in his homeland. Rus' darkened in his absence, dark, difficult days have come. Igor was captured, Rus' was beheaded. “It’s hard, brothers, for a head without shoulders,” says the author.
In Putivl, Prince Igor left behind his wife Yaroslavna. She loves her husband very much and worries about his fate. She dreams of becoming a cuckoo in order to fly to Igor and wash and heal his wounds. The princess, like a fairy-tale princess, turns to the forces of nature to help her husband defeat the Polovtsians and return home. Her prayers were heard.
The prince is thinking about how to return to his homeland, and God himself helps him with this. The author of the word very poetically describes Igor's escape. He uses fairy tale techniques and similes. The prince first turned into an “ermine-squirrel”, then swam along the river, like a falcon, and rose into the clouds. He strives to go home, to his native land, for which he is so guilty. He must atone for his guilt, repent before the people. In Rus', everyone rejoiced at the prince’s return: “the sun is rising in the sky - Prince Igor has appeared in Rus'.” It is clear from everything that the author of the word also sympathizes with the prince, despite the mistake he made, which led to the death of many people.
The author of the word, talking about the campaign of Prince Igor, uses this story to call on the Russian princes to unite. The image of Prince Igor is the embodiment of courage and nobility. His example suggests that Rus' must be united. Important decisions must be made jointly and carefully so that the enemy cannot win.
Prince Igor
Scene from the opera by A.P. Borodin "Prince Igor". Bolshoi Theater production
Prince Igor, the main character of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is a real historical figure, Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversk. The creator of the work was his contemporary. In the image of this prince, he sought to show the destructive consequences of civil strife and individual actions for Rus'.
Description of the hero
Igor Svyatoslavich is a minor appanage prince, who by the time the campaign began was in the prime of his life (34 years old). He is a typical representative of the feudal era. The prince's main desire is to achieve personal glory.
Igor Svyatoslavich is a very brave and courageous person, which was one of the main qualities of the ruler. In his understanding, he certainly loves his homeland and intends to defend it from enemies to the last drop of blood. At the same time, Igor Svyatoslavich is a very bad and short-sighted politician. The desire to become famous overshadows in his soul the need for joint action in the war against the Polovtsians. Starting a campaign against the will of Svyatoslav and almost alone (with his brother, son and nephew), he acts according to the feudal formula: “we are for ourselves, and you are for yourself.”
Prince Igor. Illustration by P. Skotar
Dreams of military glory and ambitious plans of Igor Svyatoslavich are clearly manifested in his words: “It’s better to be hacked to death than captured,” “I want... to break a spear at the edge of the Polovtsian field... to drink with the helmet of the Don.”
A very important quality of Igor Svyatoslavich, which distinguishes him favorably from most princes, is indifference to wealth. Having won a victory over the advanced Polovtsian detachment, he takes as personal booty only the enemy’s battle insignia: “a red banner, a white banner, a red bang, a silver staff.” These trophies are much more important to him than all the “Polovtsian jewels.”
The role of the hero in the work
The main task of the author of “The Lay...” is to call on all ancient Russian princes to unite. Based on this, he attaches great importance to the unsuccessful campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich.
The Novgorod-Seversky prince personifies the main reasons preventing the unification of Rus'. Igor Svyatoslavich is a brave and courageous warrior, but this is not enough. A striking example is the hike he organized.
Still from the film-opera “Prince Igor”. 1969
Speaking against the Polovtsians, Igor Svyatoslavich acts in the general Russian interests, but he is driven not by patriotism, but by the desire to achieve personal glory. This explains the protracted confrontation between Rus' and the nomads. As soon as some prince manages to unite large forces under his banners, the Polovtsians suffer a crushing defeat.
Using the example of Igor Svyatoslavich, the author seeks to clearly demonstrate the urgent need for joint action against the enemy.
Character development as the story progresses
The author practically does not touch on the spiritual development of his main character, but as the plot develops it is easily visible. At the beginning of the campaign, Igor Svyatoslavich is very determined and ignores all ominous omens. His fighting spirit increases significantly after the first victory and the capture of the Polovtsian banners.
Finding himself surrounded by numerically superior Polovtsian forces, Igor Svyatoslavich probably for the first time thought about the consequences of his rash act. Defeat and capture deal a serious blow to his ambition.
Igor's escape from captivity. Illustration by R. Belousov
The fact that Igor Svyatoslavich does not resign himself to captivity, but “measures the fields from the great Don to the small Donets with his thoughts” is evidence of his ardent desire to return to his homeland and continue the fight.
The author's attitude towards the hero
The author's attitude towards the main character is ambivalent. At the beginning of the work, he, paying tribute to the courage of Igor Svyatoslavich (“sharpened his heart with courage”), decisively condemns him for his campaign doomed to defeat and disobedience to Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich.
The author directly blames Igor Svyatoslavich and his brother for the heavy defeat of the Russian army. The worst thing is that this led to another surge in Polovtsian raids: “Kyiv groaned from grief, and Chernigov from misfortunes.”
“The Golden Word” by Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich reflects the author’s clear position in relation to the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich and his brother: “Early you began to annoy the Polovtsian land with swords, and seek glory for yourself.” The military valor and courage of the princes did not bring any benefit to Rus'.
Simultaneously with the condemnation, the author involuntarily breaks out a pitiful feeling for the unfortunate prince: “he moved from a golden saddle to a slave’s saddle,” “the falcons [Igor and his brother] had their wings cut off with filthy sabers,” “the two suns darkened,” etc.
For all his imprudence, Igor Svyatoslavich, according to the author, is needed by the Russian land as one of its main defenders. Therefore, his successful escape leads to general rejoicing: “The villages are happy, the cities are cheerful.”
Prototypes
The real prototype of the main character of “The Lay...” is the insignificant Novgorod-Seversk prince Igor Svyatoslavich (1151-1202). For some time he fought in alliance with the Polovtsians against the Monomakhovichs. He was a matchmaker to his future enemy (the son of Igor Svyatoslavich was engaged to the daughter of Khan Konchak). In 1180, Igor Svyatoslavich was defeated by Rurik Rostislavich, after which he joined the anti-Polovtsian coalition.
Prince Igor Svyatoslavich. Illustration by I. Glazunov
In 1184, due to icy conditions, Igor Svyatoslavich was late to join the united campaign of several princes under the leadership of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich against the Polovtsians. This could have aroused suspicions of sympathy for the former allies and became an indirect reason that Igor Svyatoslavich undertook a new campaign alone.
The campaign began on April 23, 1185. His brother Vsevolod, son and nephew went with Igor. The author of “The Lay...” accurately conveys the events: victory in the first clash, encirclement, three days of stubborn fighting, defeat and capture of Igor and his relatives.
In captivity, Igor Svyatoslavich enjoyed relative freedom, engaged in hawk hunting and even called a priest to him. Soon, however, a rumor spread about the imminent execution of all Russian prisoners. Igor Svyatoslavich fled with the help of the baptized Polovtsian Laurus and after eleven days reached the Russian borders.
Igor Svyatoslavich really thought about the need for joint action and in 1191 he organized a campaign of several princes against the Polovtsians, which, however, ended unsuccessfully.
Film adaptations of the hero
In 1969, the opera film “Prince Igor”, based on the plot of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” was released on Soviet screens. The main role was played by the artist of the Taganka Theater - B. A. Khmelnitsky.
By this time, Boris Alekseevich had already starred in several films and was known to Soviet viewers. Director R. Tikhomirov made a good choice. Critics highly praised Khmelnitsky's brilliant performance as Igor Svyatoslavich, the warlike, decisive prince.
It is interesting to note that Boris Alekseevich had to grow a beard for filming. It was in this image that he subsequently entered the history of Soviet and Russian cinema.
Hero outside the work
In 1989, a monument to Igor Svyatoslavich was unveiled in Novgorod-Seversky.
In 2003, a monument to the famous prince and literary hero was unveiled at the site of the supposed start of the 1185 campaign near Lugansk.
Bibliography
- All the heroes of works of Russian literature: School curriculum: Dictionary-reference book. – M.: Olimp, 2002.
- Stakhorsky S.V. Encyclopedia of literary heroes M.: Agraf, 1997.
- Kuzmina V.D. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” as a monument of world literature. — In the book: The Tale of Igor’s Campaign: Sat. articles edited by I. G. Klabunovsky and V. D. Kuzmina. M., 1947.
- Likhachev D.S. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is a heroic prologue of Russian literature. L., 1967.
- Glukhov V.M. On the question of Prince Igor’s path to the Polovtsian steppe. - TODRL, M.; L., 1955.
- Kudryashev K.V. About Igor Seversky, about the Russian land: Historical and geographical essay about Igor Seversky’s campaign against the Polovtsians in 1185. M., 1959.
- Charlemagne N.V. Nature in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” — In the book: The Tale of Igor’s Campaign: Sat. research and articles / Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. M.; L., 1950.
- Rybakov B. A. The negative hero of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” In the book: Culture of Ancient Rus'. M., 1966.
What is the attitude of the author of the word to Igor’s campaign. Professor knowing
author Team of authors
Reading laboratory What the “voices” of characters in a work tell us You already know that in literature characters very often talk to each other. You can find direct speech in literary texts: monologues and dialogues of characters. But we remember that
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to learn to characterize a character in a work of fiction? The school year will end soon. You've learned a lot during this time. You now know how to read works of fiction, and most importantly, you love reading them. You already
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to learn to distinguish between folklore and literary works The main difference between literature and folklore is that it is an author's work that embodies the moral and aesthetic ideal of a particular person. Let us remind you that folklore
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to determine the main theme of a work How would you answer the question “What is A. S. Pushkin’s ballad “Song of the Prophetic Oleg” about?” The answers can be very different: a work about the military exploits of Prince Oleg, about the wisdom of magicians, about the death of Prince Oleg
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to write a review about a work you have read When a reader liked the book he read, he really wants to tell his friends, parents, and acquaintances about it. How to make this story interesting? To do this you need to know a few rules. Review of
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to learn to retell the plot of a work of art You have been given the task of retelling the work. Specify the task, because you can retell both the plot and the plot. These are different types of retelling. If you talk briefly about
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to learn to characterize the features of a composition Composition is the organization of a narrative, the construction of a literary work, the sequence of the main plot episodes in it. The first rule. To learn to characterize
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to hear the voice of the author in a work of art When distinguishing between literature and folklore as types of verbal creativity, the central concepts become “author”, “author’s ideal” and “author’s position”. No matter what shape
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to learn to determine poetic meter You are already familiar with the concept of “music of verse”, and you know that, as a rule, each poem has its own meter (size). Moreover, two poems written in the same meter (for example,
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to learn to quote a work of art It is impossible for the reader to comprehend the author's intention outside the text. The text of a work of art is the basis for understanding the author’s ideal, so the reader’s work requires constant
From the author's book
Reading laboratory How to learn to determine the artistic role of the interior You already know that the writer has many ways of characterizing the hero: this is his name, portrait, actions, life story, his speech, etc. There is another way - the interior, the interior decoration of the house,
Art. Rassadin, B. Sarnov
But what about the negative heroes?..
Is it really true that when describing each of his characters, even negative ones, a writer necessarily describes himself at least a little? Once, approximately the same question was asked to the famous Soviet writer Yuri Olesha. Olesha wrote the novel “Envy”, the main character of which was Nikolai Kavalerov, a rather vulgar man, obsessed with evil, frenzied envy. Kavalerov was depicted with such a piercing force of reality, with such a personal understanding of the most hidden corners of his soul, that many asked Olesha: “Did you really at least partially portray yourself in Kavalerov?” And others simply decided that Nikolai Kavalerov is the writer Yuri Olesha. Answering this question, Olesha said: “There is bad and good in every person. I do not believe that there is a person who could not understand what it is to be vain, or a coward, or an egoist. Every person can feel the sudden appearance of any double within themselves. This manifests itself especially clearly in an artist, and this is one of the amazing qualities of an artist: to experience other people’s passions.” This confession explains a lot. The bravest man was scared at least once in his life. The most selfless person was envious at least once. As a child, who among us did not envy the owner of a beautiful fountain pen, a rare brand, or a sparkling racing bicycle? Does this mean that we are all inveterate envious people? Of course not. That’s why Olesha talks about the artist’s ability to “experience other people’s passions.” Strangers! Not yours! But in order to reliably, truthfully, heartfeltly, that is, ARTISTICALLY portray “someone else’s passion,” the writer, at all costs, must find in his soul at least a tiny, even the most insignificant sprout of this passion. The hero of War and Peace, Andrei Bolkonsky, on the eve of the Battle of Austerlitz, admits to himself: “I will never tell this to anyone, but, my God! What should I do if I love nothing but glory, human love? Death, wounds, loss of family, nothing, I'm not afraid. And no matter how dear and dear many people are to me - my father, sister, wife - the most dear people to me - but, no matter how scary and unnatural it seems, I will give them all now for a moment of glory, triumph over people, for love for myself people whom I do not know and will not know.” Prince Andrei is one of the most charming characters in world literature. He is smart, fair, noble. But the feeling that took possession of him this time was a bad, dark feeling. It’s terrible to imagine that a person like Prince Andrei could experience something like that. And it is completely impossible to imagine that this cruel, cold vanity, this extreme egoism, even to a small extent, were characteristic of Tolstoy himself, a man who not only preached love for people all his life, but who in the eyes of all mankind himself personified the conscience of the world. But Tolstoy’s wife Sofya Andreevna fills her diaries with endless complaints about Lev Nikolaevich’s vanity and selfishness. She directly says that for the sake of fame he is ready to forget his family and friends. Maybe Sofya Andreevna should not be trusted? Maybe she just didn’t understand her great husband? Moreover, Tolstoy actually sacrificed the well-being of his family, although not for the sake of vanity, but in the name of his ideas. Of course, this also played a significant role. But the fact of the matter is that L.N. Tolstoy himself speaks just as mercilessly, even much more mercilessly, about L.N. Tolstoy’s vanity: “I suffered a lot from this passion,” he writes in his diary, “it ruined my best years of my life and forever took away from me all the freshness, courage, gaiety and enterprise of my youth.” It turns out that Tolstoy was painfully familiar with the feelings that dominated the soul of Prince Andrei - this, as the writer himself said, “an incomprehensible passion.” She haunted him already in his early youth and haunted him all his life. Well, maybe this gives us reason to be disappointed in Tolstoy? Does it make us admire his great soul less? Quite the opposite! A great man is great not because his soul is sterilely pure, like distilled water. He is great because even a fleeting bad feeling torments him, causing unbearable pain. It’s not for nothing that Tolstoy says that he “suffered a lot” from his vanity. And his hero, Prince Andrei, was ashamed of his unkind feelings: “I will never tell this to anyone...” Perhaps, creating the image of a bad person, the writer is able to penetrate his dark soul so deeply that he hates everything bad, first of all, in himself, strives defeat evil both in your soul and in life in general. Could Fonvizin really say: “Mitrofan is me?” Yes, I could. Firstly, Mitrofanushka’s laziness, rudeness, and his other unattractive qualities are, to one degree or another, characteristic of each of us (although, let’s face it, it is much more reasonable to follow not Mitrofan, who was very pleased with his own bad qualities, but Tolstoy, who was uncompromising about the least their shortcomings). And secondly, when we say that every writer, even about his negative hero, can say: “He is me!”, we mean something else.
Mitrofanushka and Petrusha
When witnesses to a crime are questioned in court, their testimony almost always differs significantly. It very often happens that, say, out of five witnesses, not one repeats the version of the other. Everyone has their own version. It is natural to assume that, at best, only one of them is telling the truth, and the rest are lying. It turns out there is nothing of the kind. Everyone is telling the truth. But they say it the way they imagine it. Something similar happens in art. If you put Shvabrin from Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter” and Fonvizin’s Mitrofan side by side, then probably this would not surprise anyone. But I wonder what you would say if we put next to Mitrofan not the disgusting Shvabrin, but the cutest Petrusha Grinev? Probably, you would have provided: - Petrusha and Mitrofan? What are you laughing at? What do they have in common? Mitrofan is stupid, boorish, ignorant. And Petrusha Grinev is brave, noble, honest. Fonvizin mocks Mitrofan, but Pushkin loves his hero... It’s hard to argue with this. Pushkin really not only loves his hero, but also gives him his favorite thoughts. And Mitrofan... Even if Fonvizin wanted to give him his thoughts, he simply would not understand them. And yet... The greatest Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky argued that Mitrofan and Petrusha embody the same social and historical phenomenon: “This is the most ordinary, normal Russian nobleman of the middle class.” The poetess Marina Tsvetaeva also came up with this comparison. In the article “Pushkin and Pugachev” she directly calls young Grinev Mitrofan. Although this sounds offensive to Petrusha, there are grounds for such a rapprochement. And considerable ones. Remember “The Captain's Daughter”: “...They reported that Monsieur was giving me his lesson. Father went to my room. At this time, Beaupre was sleeping on the bed in the sleep of innocence. I was busy with business. You need to know that a geographical map was issued for me from Moscow. It hung on the wall without any use and had long tempted me with the goodness of the paper. I decided to make snakes out of it and, taking advantage of Beaupre's sleep, I set to work. Father came in at the same time as I was adjusting the bast tail to the Cape of Good Hope. Seeing my exercises in geography, the priest pulled me by the ear, then ran up to Beaupre, woke him up very carelessly and began to shower him with reproaches. Beaupré, in confusion, wanted to get up but could not: the unfortunate Frenchman was dead drunk... Father lifted him from the bed by the collar, pushed him out of the door and drove him out of the yard that same day... That was the end of my upbringing. I lived as a teenager, chasing pigeons and playing leapfrog with the yard boys...” So? Isn’t Petrushino’s upbringing and Mitrofan’s teaching like two peas in a pod? Similar, down to the smallest coincidence. “Exercises in Geography” by Petrusha and Mitrofan’s knowledge of “geography”. Beaupre, who “was a hairdresser in his fatherland,” and his double Vralman, who previously served as a coachman. What Petrusha and Mitrofan have in common is their passion for the dovecote... And yet, no matter what you say, Mitrofan evokes one attitude toward himself, and Petrusha a completely different one. So what's the deal? Maybe one writer portrayed a “normal Russian nobleman of average quality” correctly, but another was unfair to him? By the way, this is exactly what the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky believed. He believed that Pushkin portrayed the noble ignoramus of the 18th century “more impartially and truthfully than Fonvizin. In the latter, Mitrofan becomes a caricature, a comic anecdote. In historical reality, an undergrowth is not a caricature or an anecdote...” Contrasting the fate of the average Russian nobleman with the noisy fate of the highest nobility who found shelter in the capital's guard, Klyuchevsky wrote: “The fate of our Mitrofans was more modest. They always learned little by little, through tears under Peter I, with boredom under Catherine II, they did not create a government, but decisively made our military history of the 18th century. These are infantry army officers, and in this rank they trod a glorious path from Kunersdorf to Rymnik and to Novi. They and the Russian soldiers carried on their shoulders the expensive laurels of the Minikhs, Rumyantsevs and Suvorovs.” And then he said: “It was not without reason that the captain’s daughter M.I. Mironov preferred the good-natured army soldier Grinev to the witty guardsman Shvabrin, who was familiar with French literature. It remains for the historian of the 18th century to approve both Pushkin’s sympathy and Marya Ivanovna’s taste.” The historian Klyuchevsky is right in many ways, but not in his attitude towards Fonvizin’s “Undergrowth”. Mitrofan does not “go astray into a caricature” at all; he is intended as a caricature, as a SATIRICAL image. Both Pushkin and Fonvizin - both of them told the truth about the noble undergrowth. Fonvizin simply condensed the negative properties of the undergrowth (which Klyuchevsky also mentions: “we learned little by little... through tears... with boredom”). For Pushkin, the time of Mitrofanov and Grinev has already become history. And Fonvizin, a contemporary of Mitrofan, was concerned about correcting existing morals. After all, it is sometimes very useful for a person, as well as for society, to see his vices through a magnifying glass. By the way, they say that Fonvizin’s comedy had a very direct effect. According to some of his contemporaries, Mitrofan was a caricature of the noble boy Sasha Olenin, who was familiar to Fonvizin. And the caricature made such an impression on young Olenin that he attacked his studies, studied in Strasbourg and Dresden, became one of the most educated people in Russia and even the president of the Academy of Arts...
One Hundred and Fifty Don Juans
You will say: “Well, okay, Fonvizin and Pushkin both wrote the truth.” It's clear. But maybe everything can be explained much more simply? After all, they wrote about the same phenomenon, and not about the same person. Pushkin could take a good undergrowth, Fonvizin – a bad one. That's all! But the fact of the matter is that very often different writers depicted even the same REAL, really existing person in such a way that these images were no more similar to each other than Petrusha Grinev was to Mitrofanushka Prostakov. Let us recall the lines of one of the best poems of Russian poetry:
Crossing his mighty arms, lowering his head on his chest, he walks and sits down at the steering wheel and quickly sets off.
He rushes to dear France, Where he left glory and the throne, He left an heir-son, And he left the old guard...
He walks boldly and straight to the shore with long strides, loudly he calls out to his comrades and menacingly calls the marshals.
But the mustache grenadiers sleep - In the plain where the Elbe makes noise, Under the snow of cold Russia, Under the sultry sand of the pyramids.
This is “Airship”, poems praising Napoleon. Yes, precisely those who sing, because for their author, Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, Napoleon was a romantic hero opposing the low and vulgar people surrounding the poet. Here's another writer. And a completely different Napoleon: “...Emperor Napoleon had not yet left his bedroom and was finishing his toilet. He, snorting and grunting, turned now with his thick back, now with his overgrown fat chest under the brush with which the valet was rubbing his body. Another valet, holding the bottle with his finger, sprinkled cologne on the emperor’s well-groomed body with an expression that said that he alone could know how much and where to spray the cologne. Napoleon's short hair was wet and tangled over his forehead. But his face, although swollen and yellow, expressed physical pleasure...” But this other Napoleon looks at the portrait of his son, the same one about whom Lermontov speaks so touchingly: “... With the ability, characteristic of Italians, to change his facial expression at will, he approached the portrait and pretended to be thoughtfully tender. He felt that what he would say and do now was history. And it seemed to him that the best thing he could do now was for him, with his greatness... to show, in contrast to this greatness, the simplest human tenderness. His eyes became misty, he moved, looked back at the chair (the chair jumped under him) and sat down on it opposite the portrait. One gesture from him - and everyone tiptoed out, leaving the great man to himself and his feelings...” This is Tolstoy. "War and Peace". Just think - what a difference! Lermontov has a proud exile, walking, despite his humiliated position, “boldly and directly”; in Tolstoy he is a self-satisfied vulgar man, simpering to himself, even turning his fatherly feelings into a false and actor’s pose. There are “mighty hands”. Here is a well-groomed, fat body. In the poems there is a lonely man, betrayed by the living and abandoned by the dead. In prose - a master surrounded by lackeys, whoever they are, valets or marshals.
Two Napoleons... And many such examples can be given. Not dozens, but hundreds, even thousands of cases. It is impossible to imagine a reader who would not know the name of Don Juan. Some met him in Molière's comedy, some in Byron's poetic novel, some in Mérimée's story, some in Pushkin's little tragedy “The Stone Guest” (where, however, he is called Don Juan), some in the dramatic poem by A.K. Tolstoy... Can you really list them all? World literature numbers about ONE HUNDRED FIFTY Don Juans. And each writer has his own Don Juan, unlike his brothers. There may be doubt here. Although, according to rumors, Don Juan actually existed, he still lived a long time ago, in the 14th century. But Napoleon lived relatively recently. His portraits, biographies compiled by his contemporaries, and historical documents have been preserved. In a word, it is known quite accurately what exactly Napoleon was like - right down to his manners and habits. So who portrayed Napoleon correctly, in accordance with historical truth - Lermontov or Tolstoy? Could it be that both writers were right this time too? Maybe. And this time both are right. Not only Lermontov, who admired the Emperor of France, but also Tolstoy, who hated and despised Napoleon, making him the embodiment of hypocritical vulgarity, could say: “Napoleon is me!..” This would mean: “I did not write Napoleon in general, but MY OWN Napoleon! The real, historical Napoleon Bonaparte bore equally little resemblance to the mighty hero of Lermontov's poem and to the fat vulgar depicted in War and Peace. Both Tolstoy and Lermontov did not particularly strive for the portrait to be similar to the original, because both of them did not paint Napoleon, but THEIR ATTITUDE towards him. This is what an artist always does. In colors, in sounds, in words, he embodies his attitude to the world.
Drawings by N. Dobrokhotova.
Examination paper 3. Part 2, p.24.
The author of the immortal monument of ancient Russian literature is unknown. He could have been an associate of Prince Igor, a monk, a talented chronicler. In any case, this is a person who is not indifferent to the fate of the Motherland, a true patriot, wise and fair. He is clearly attached to Prince Igor, is in his close circle, admires his courage and strong, independent character. The author of the Lay sympathizes with Igor, shocked by his courage and determination to repel the Polovtsians, despite the eclipse of the Sun, which was a bad sign and foreshadowed trouble for the Russian troops. He admires the selflessness of the Novgorod-Seversk prince and his squad, who defeated the Polovtsians in the first battle, trampling jewelry and expensive fabrics under their horses. By this, the princes expressed their contempt for the hordes that were constantly robbing the Russians, and showed that they went to the Polovtsians not for profit and expensive trophies, but for the safety of Russian lands. The author glorifies the strength and nobility of the prince during the second battle with the enemy, who, according to him, fights like a lion, rushing to the aid of his comrades and forgetting about his own safety. The author attributes heroic properties to Igor, using hyperbole in the ecstasy of battle and tirelessness of the prince and his warriors: “From early morning until evening, red-hot arrows fly, sabers rattle on helmets, damask spears crack.” The author sympathizes with Igor, who was captured, and rejoices when he manages to escape from the Polovtsians.
He shows how devotedly his wife Yaroslavna loves, conjuring the forces of nature to help her beloved return to his homeland, avoiding shame, because before the campaign the prince proudly declared: “It is better to be killed than to be captured.” And nature responds to Yaroslavna’s call, while Igor himself shows strength of spirit and strength of body. The author makes Igor the hero of fairy tales: he strives so hard to go home that on his way he alternately turns into an ermine, a gogol, a wolf, and a falcon. At the end of the poem, the author exalts the prince, showing how the Russian land rejoices at his return.
Nevertheless, the author reproaches Igor,
