I want to focus on the differing ways in which the characters in the “Tale of the Destruction of Riazan” deal with grief. The tale stays central to the theme of death and destruction, in which many princes die in a man’s quest to conquer large areas of land for power. I find that the notions of death, martyrdom, and strong religious ties emphasize the ways in which the characters express their grief. For example, the death of Prince Fedor by Batu was devastating for his wife. In her grief, she killed herself and her son. This shows how death is dealt with in one way. Also, it definitely shows the contrasts with the way in which Prince Ingvar grieves for the death of his brothers and his citizens. This is most important and should be noted because these bereavement processes inform the ways in which the reader interprets the progression of the plot.  In this way, the story shows the self-destruction and ill fate that hatred and grief may inflict upon certain characters. Additionally, the importance of the actions of the characters in relation to experiencing intense grief is central to the text’s portrayal of christianity and paganism. In this approach of addressing bereavement, the reader is shown the implication of religion and the intent of a text in informing the reader.  For this text, I was intrigued by the ways in which the characters dealt with the death of their loved ones. Particularly, I was struck by the christianity of Prince Ingvanovich in choosing to grieve by giving a proper burial for his kin and rebuilding the city instead of causing more destruction like the others.

Question:

Does the delivery of a story directly impact the historical truth of a time period while also manipulating the interpretation of a text?

Eupaty Kolovrat’s revenge against Batu’s forces features prominently in “Tale of the Destruction of Riazan,” wherein the monk authors laud his bravery in confronting an army much larger than his improvised force and slaying senior Mongol personnel. The sequence reminded me of Olga’s revenge Derevlians from The Tale of Bygone Years. There are a number of key differences between the stories, though these converge on a vital commonality. For starters, Olga employs perfidy against the Derevlians, murdering unsuspecting Derevlians through live burial and burning bathhouses. By contrast, Eupaty engages the Mongols in a conventional battle. Both courses of action apparently startle their targets, though whereas the Derevlians seek mercy from Olga, Batu displays mercy toward Eupaty’s compatriots. Furthermore, while Olga ultimately triumphs against her enemies, Eupaty dies in battle. In both cases, revenge serves to highlight virtue: Olga’s acts reveal her cunning, while Eupaty’s reveal his courage. In this way, revenge appears as a valid means of realizing acceptable (if not righteous) urges.

What struck me as contradictory is how revenge represents an exception to the Orthodox monks’ typical treatment of violence. In other contemporary works, devout Christians such as Yaroslav, Theodosius, Boris, and Gleb do not partake in the violence ascribed to their pagan predecessors; the latter three even accept brutal acts against them as expressions of God’s will or a test of devotion. Even the preceding portion of “Tale of the Destruction of Riazan” advances the theme of Christians passively accepting God’s judgement of their sins. However, Eupaty is not portrayed poorly for abdicating these values in the context of avenging Riazan. I wonder how this narrow toleration of violence entered the early Russian imagination and how it would evolve over the following periods.

The “Tale of the Destruction of Riazan” presents as a legend story to be told and passed down to future generations. I found this as a major theme of the Tale. There are battles fought with glory and passion to protect the homeland of Riazan. I found that this paralleled many previous stories we have read in class.

A theme of religion was tied into the Tale as well. The main identification was the battle between the good, Russia, and the evil, the godless emperor Batu. The godless emperor Batu showed no mercy in the slaughter of the city of Riazan. Although, god had a plan for the people and land of Russia. The saying, “And all this happened for our sins” was repeated many times in the story after death. All death happened for a reason. The story is ended by the land of Raizan being restored to god.  This restoration of the land was expected due to the theme of religion in the Tale. Everything in the Tale occurred for a reason and in accordance to god so the loss and death of many people occurred to sacrifice for the greater power of Russia.

I found it interesting that the format and theme of the “Tale of the Destruction of Riazan” was similar to many other texts that we have read in class. Do all classic Russian stories have a theme of legend and religion?

Continuing to call upon the land trope exhibited in The Lay of Igor’s Campaign, the Tale of the Destruction of Riazan employs literary techniques to link land, religion, and for the Slavs, identity.

The tale begins by exclaiming, “… the godless Emperor Batu invaded the Russian land…” (pp. 82), which pits the religious beliefs of each side against one another. This is similar to the image illustrated in Igor’s Campaign, with the land beyond the rivers—Pagan land inhabited by the Kumans—being eerily described as dark, unholy and foreign. This imagery evolves as the Tartar’s are victorious in battle. Suddenly, instead of Rus land being holier-than-thou, it is described as being barren, frozen and covered in snow. Implicitly, the Mongols by way of their faith brought this frost.

Relatedly, as the Orthodox warriors fall in battle, they all drink “…the same bitter cup to the dregs.” Dying men finishing their distasteful drinks so as not to be wasteful of their land’s resources shows that land is part of the Russian identity. The narrator diligently includes this before the death of each Slav, especially the prominent ones, to highlight their respect for the land they fatally defend.

The text is also awfully incriminating during the sacking of Riazan, “Neither father nor mother could mourn their dead children, nor the children their fathers or mothers. Nor could a brother mourn the death of his brother, nor relatives their relatives. All were dead.” (pp. 84). The Tartars ravished the city, their behavior and reverence of the land is directly antithetical to the Rus—they were external.

Through the use of a Christian/Pagan land dichotomy, the text pushes the narrative that only land inhabited by good, humble, Orthodox people can be Russian land. Otherwise, it is barren, pagan and foreign.

At first glance, the chronicle of the Mongols destroying Riazan would seem to go against the work of God. For why would God allow a “godless” infidel such as Emperor Batu to annihilate a Christian city? However, this story solidifies the importance of Christianity on a much deeper level. Russia has been Christian for several centuries, enough to have the religion ingrained in its culture, and Russia as a Holy Land. As Batu expanded his destruction over Riazan, the value of Christianity became more apparent. It becomes apparent that the Mongols, considered lawless, without a god (without the Christian God, that Kievan Russians felt to be the only true God), religion plays a significant role in the reasoning of this destruction.

The repetition of the phrase “and this was all because of our sins” quite interesting. This explanation of God almost allowing the destruction of Riazan frames God as almost cruel. As the author expands on the seemingly senseless deaths of Christians by mentioning how “Christian blood flows like a great river,” the Rus citizens face a test of their religion. However, this tension between Christianity (what is right in this writing) and the godless Mongols (the undeniable evil) is the main focus of the Christian Rus’ fight without fear. The passion of the Rus is apparent with Eupaty’s regiments fight against Batu. Their answer to Batu asking why he “causes him such evil” is that they are “of the Christian faith.” They have no fear as they fight for Christianity, the true religion.

Starting the piece early on with blaming Batu’s rage on sins and ending with proper Christian burials done by Prince Ingvar highlights a redemption arc of a sort. The writing shows the cruelty of God, but also the loving hand of God. Those who fight for God’s righteousness will live again. Those who escape the godless Mongols, like Prince Ingvar, are successful because of God’s “strong hand.”

Nearly three centuries after the Christianization of Kievan Rus, the manner in which Christianity has become a defining characteristic of  Kievan Rus is revealed through central role it plays in the “Tale of the Destruction of Ryazan”. At the beginning of the text, the Mongol emperor is described as “godless” and “merciless”, suggesting that the tale would be told through a religious lens (199).  I was intrigued by the use of this type of language, in particular because I had been looking at the Mongol invasion in terms of politics, not religion. However, as the tale continued, the way in which the Kievan Rus citizens are described are also grounded in religious terms. Russian land is frequently described as “Christian land”, blood is described as “Christian blood”, and Russians don’t just survive, they are “preserved by God”.   The religiously-charged phrases in which the Mongols and Russians are described seeks to separate the two parties in regards to more than just political interests, but in terms of morality as well. In doing so, the author illustrates a fight that goes beyond just Russians  vs. the Mongols, but one of good vs. evil.  

Furthermore, while I may be over-reading, there are several instances in which the Russians are described in Christ-like terms, particularly regarding resurrection.  For instance, when the Russians fought back, the Tartars thought they had “risen from the dead”. Additionally the “Christian blood” that is shed is described “flow[ing] like a river”.  As water is a common symbol of rebirth, it could indicate the possibility of a resurrection of Russia (which, as we know, occurred). Finally, the tale ends with a group of Russians “with the help of God’s strong hand” surviving, further indicating an eventual rebirth with the help of God.

In general, I found the central role of Christianity in the story fascinating not only for the reasons explored above, but because of the fact (that at least in my educational experience), this story is often left out of discussions the “Holy War” period.  Was the invasion one surrounding religion? Or is this just an example of religious language entering Russian literature? Whichever the case, this tale is reveals that Christianity was a central aspect of Kievan Rus identity.  

The Lay of Igor’s campaign depicts religious imagery in the form of winds, sunlight, and divine intervention/communication, but depicts its imagery in a noncommittal manner in respect to the particular religion acting upon the plot. The story mentions God and ends with an “Amen,” but it also mentions Slavic Deities such as Div, Stribog, Dazhbog, and even a personified form of the river Donets. The critical thing to note in this tale is the peaceful existence of these divine and supernatural forces in Kievan Rus’. I also watched the elective material, which was several tracks from the film opera rendition of the poem. This rendition, however, in my opinion, seems to be presenting and overbearing Christian agenda that I did not see paralleled in the text version of the story. One example of this agenda can be seen in Igor’s army’s banner. In the text, the Russians carry a scarlet shield with scarlet banners and golden helmets. In the film, the banners depict Jesus Christ, and the color scarlet is nowhere to be seen, replaced by the holy colors white and gold. The positioning of scenes further pushes this narrative in the example of the eclipse scene wherein the film the eclipse is pictured next to a cross on the top of a church. This is different from the text where even the first mention of God by his name on page 187. The film works to establish a fight between the pagan and Christian gods as the Kumans are seen to worship Pagan idols that are present in their homestead. The leader of the Kumans tries to persuade Igor into being his ally by offering him sex slaves who would disrespect the holy Christian ceremony of marriage to his wife. The fact that the Russians so heavily respect the Christian God and the Kuman the Pagan ones literally pits the two faiths against each-other, which is the complete opposite to the coexistence of forces in the original text. I might have misinterpreted the original text, but nature (pagan) had its own forces from the get-go, such as the tree of wisdom. I understood this representation as coexistence, but I’m open to other interpretations.

Throughout The Lay of Igor’s Campaign, the author attempts to exhibit Russian exceptionalism even in defeat through two methods, including the uneven coverage of battle and calling on the great rulers of the past.

There is a noticeable difference in the author’s depictions of battles won vs. battles lost. When Russia won a battle, the combat itself was glossed over, and rather the author described the spoils of victory, referring to the treasure that they rode off with, thus focusing on the glory gained from the fighting. This was markedly different from how subsequent battles were described. In these descriptions, the attention was shifted from exclusively the outcome and more towards the fighting itself. The fighting was described valiantly, languishing in the power and vigor with which the Russians fought. Though their loss was recognized and lamented, there was a much stronger emphasis on the strength of the Russian soldiers. In doing so, the author brought attention to the might of the army, displaying power even in defeat.

There was also heavy emphasis put onto the great leaders of the past, especially Prince Sviatoslav. There was a passage following the defeat that stated that Germans and Venetians still sang of his victories, inserting Russia’s power and regional influence into a story of great loss to the country. There are several more instances of the author praising the work of Sviatoslav in glorifying the nation, and though there is an underlying air of despair for the loss and the great work thrown away by warring princes, the presence of such glorification in the text exhibits strong feelings of Russian exceptionalism.

That being said, I’m not making the argument that the author thought Russia was perfect. In fact, they were very vocal about how the country had fallen under control of people they saw as inferior, as evidenced by the continued use of the term “infidel,” and they continually used language that exuded despair regarding Russia’s situation after their loss. Instead, I’m merely stating how I find it interesting that Russian exceptionalism was still present in a story about a horrible loss Russia experienced. While they may be completely unrelated, I also wonder if this pervasive sense of excellence is related to later expressions of Russian importance and superiority in the 19^thand 20^thcenturies.

Perhaps because we were reading this text after reading lives of saints, but I was surprised at the distinct lack of Christian imagery, which I was expecting because of the nation’s recent (or at least Kiev’s) baptism. Going through I could only count a few times where “God” was mentioned, and even so there was no reference to Jesus or the Holy spirit. Instead the text seemed rooted in naturalistic spiritual forces, those which would reflect the old pagan Gods. This is pure speculation, but perhaps due to this being an oral story originally, one which is unclear of whether it originates from the capital center, this could reflect a different religious sentiment of those who told it than the official government Christian decree.

Regardless, at the end “God shows the way to Igor, the way from Kuman land, to the Russian land,” but instead of calling upon God earlier in the epic for guidance or strength it seems instead the text is obsessed with underlying, unchristian, natural forces. This text under any examination is not Christian.