The official investigator, apparently, described in Moscow, after spending some time before Dmitry Ivanovich’s return there, “a remarkable event. The lack of details in the description of the campaign and the battle clearly indicates that he not only was not an eyewitness, but listened little to the stories of the witnesses and participants in the campaign. The author is inspired by the texts of the Holy Scriptures, but in bdoiadad, odigtsrorah to Oleg Ryazansky and Mamai (the enemy, the betrayer of Odzhe) tsmdfn the same official tone with which over a century they will write “about the pious worker Ivan Shch and about. Having said that, yes, it is the same with the life of the Grand Duke - the hero of the day, and is alien to anachronisms.] In the absence of living details, there is, however, accuracy in determining the days and hours of the battle. m1i)b <.
Dmitry is introduced. main lazon, a “hero”, spiritual and aware of his feat. The principles that describe his courage are put into his mouth, and the hope in $od < DtszhfTs.de does himself and helps him, through him the Russians - “O Rev. SerNE "naively vivol ^v yudaom, me?eu WHAT from.shugotsrnschla
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
I. I. KHRUSCHOV,
There are features in the mint that indicate to us that, first of all, the song of glory about the Battle of Kulikovo was heard in Moscow and that in this song the shed blood was compared to rain, as in the word about Shoku Igor, and it was said that Mamai fled keitoshmi dfroiamk. But despite his commitment to his jasper, the author of the tale cannot remain completely alien to those poetic expressions in which, not with a pen, but with a voice, the feat of the Russians was glorified, who did not allow Mamai to repeat Batu’s invasion. The initial verbal praises included a story about the departure of the Grand Duke from Moscow and the lamentation of the Grand Duchess and noblewomen, eclipsing a prominent place in them. Not wanting to miss this cry, the author of the chronicle legend translated it into his own way: “and there was a cry of bitterness and a voice of sobbing in the city of Moscow... Rachel wept for her children with great sobs and sighs, not wanting to be consoled, they went with the Grand Duke for the whole Russian land to the bitter copy. Alas for us,
our ubdgaya 'Chadtsa*, etc.
The second essay on the Battle of Kulikovo is the most extensive and most widespread. Pref. Filaret, on the basis of Karamzin, attributed it to Ryazayets Zephaniah or Sophrony. Soloviev accepted this position and it became generally accepted.
The discovery of the author in the person of Zephaniah was primarily based on the fact that only in one of the numerous lists and the most recent legend is the ego found with the following writing: “the story, or the story of the invasion of the godless king Mamai with countless Agarans, Ryazan, priest Sophoais.” Karamzin corrected: SofrMiya; Stroev remained with Sophovia, remaking it into Zephaniah. Onegirev in 1838 in the Russian Historical Collection of General. East. and Ancient published this monument after collating many lists. And since he did not find the name of Sophrony or Zephaniah anywhere, he identified this Ryazan citizen as a copyist or even the owner of the manuscript. Siegirev denied this author’s personality also because the Havanese would have spoken differently about his wife and about Prince Oleg, and that the priest could not have kept up the details of the battle and the armor of the warriors.
' The discovery of the third kind of descriptions of the Battle of Kulikovo by Idolsky, where the Ryazan Oophonia was reaped as the person who glorified this event, finally confirmed the copyright of the Ryazan Sophia, as the creator of the extensive noetic rocks that have come down to us in numerous lists, of which one, XVI century. (excellent list) belonging to Rev. Porfiry was located on the archeol. exhibition in Kyiv. Belyaev, in the preface to the Zadoshtsina published by Undolsky (Vremennik M. Obshch. and Ancient Book 14), claims that Sofovia was a contemporary of the event - and in this he is absolutely right. He and Rev. Filaret considers all anachronisms found in poetic legends to be distortions of copyists. But we cannot agree with this.
According to the edition of Vol. XV of P.S.R.L., where the name of Sophovius of Ryazan appears again, also a Bryansk boyar who wrote to praise Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, the dispute about who was the author of the poetic legend ceased; doubts disappeared.