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 19thand 20thcenturies.
Gabe, these are interesting thoughts! Your close analysis of the way victory and defeat are portrayed differently in the battle scenes is very perceptive and well done! Similarly to my comment on Brennan’s post, though, we have to be careful to understand the historical context: it doesn’t make sense at this time, really, to talk about Rus as a “nation” or “country” in anything like the modern sense in which we understand it now. Also, I’m not sure that “exceptionalism” is a useful category at this period–what we have is a patriotic text about a battle against an enemy (one that was brutal toward the Russians, raiding and burning their cities and enslaving their people!), and any sense of cultural superiority that comes through is related to these circumstances and also to the fact that the Rus are Christians at this time (though very ambivalent ones, as we can see!) while the Kumans–a Turkic people, not a Slavic one–are pagans. This is also the basic, factual meaning of the word “infidel,” even though the word does have a pejorative implication in our modern usage. (Also remember that the text you read is a translation!) Nevertheless, the basic “us vs. them” quest for cultural survival that lies at the base of this text, and the sense of Rus as a culture beset by enemies wanting to destroy it, is arguably a feature of the Igor Tale (rooted in the geography of the region) that does persist into much later historical periods! I hope we’ll have a chance to discuss these interesting ideas in class tomorrow!