DID THE AUTHOR OF THE TALE OF IGOR’S CAMPAIGN KNOW THE CHRONICLE NARRATIVES ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN OF 1185? PART 1

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of textual connections between The Tale of Igor’s Campaign and the narratives about the campaign of Prince Igor in 1185, which are part of the chronicles of the Laurentian group and the Ipatiev Chronicle. Hypotheses and opinions belonging to various scholars are examined in detail: the idea of the absence of such connections, the assumption of the primacy of the Tale in relation to the narrative from the Ipatiev Chronicle, the statement of the secondary nature of the ‘song’ about Igor’s campaign in relation to both narratives. The subject of attention is primarily the overview of concepts by P.E. Vadenyuk, I.P. Khrushchov, V.N. Peretz, A.A. Zimin, B.A. Rybakov, V.Yu. Franchuk, B.I. Yatsenko, L.V. Sokolova, A.N. Uzhankov. As a result of a critical analysis of the existing hypotheses and a comparative analysis of the Tale and two narratives, it is proved that this literary monument is secondary in relation to the narrative contained in the chronicles of the Laurentian group (apparently, to its core as part of the hypothetical Pereyaslav or Chernigov chronicles), and is primary in relation to the text of the narrative from the Ipatiev Chronicle. The idea of the dependence of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign on the narrative of the Laurentian group is assessed as quite convincing, and considerations in favor of the version of the secondary nature of The Tale in relation to the narrative of the Ipatiev Chronicle are recognized as contradicting the facts: the nature of the references to the Kayala River and the sea in both texts indicates that the chronicle was not the source of The Tale, but, on the contrary, the ‘song’ influenced the chronicle narrative. The findings support the early dating of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign (mid to second half of the 1180s) and are indirect arguments in favor of the authenticity of the ‘song’.