An outstanding monument of ancient Russian literature, The Tale of Igor's Campaign, has many ideological and artistic merits. All of them are inseparably linked with the image of the author of the poem.
Numerous studies conducted over many decades have not yet established with complete certainty who the author was. He remains nameless. However, the text of a remarkable work makes it possible to draw some conclusions about his personality.
First of all, every phrase, every image of the Lay testifies to the author as a patriot of the Russian land. Knowledge and reliable depiction of all the details of the campaign of Prince Igor allow us to suggest that the author was a direct participant in the events described. And, finally, the indifferent attitude of the author to the main character of his story suggests that he was probably one of his associates.
This relationship cannot be unambiguously defined. On the one hand, the author shows numerous princely prowess in the image of Igor. We see that this is a noble, courageous person, ready to give his life for his native land. Thus, the first thing the author credits to his hero is patriotism, love for his native land.
Secondly, the author highly appreciates the personal qualities of a warrior and a man, shown by the prince. In the campaign, Igor shows exceptional courage and bravery, he is filled with the “military spirit”, values \u200b\u200bmilitary honor, burns with the desire to “drink the Great Don with his helmet.”
So, when at the very beginning of the campaign a formidable omen - a solar eclipse - puts the army before a choice: continue the campaign or turn back, Prince Igor makes a courageous decision: “It is better to be killed than captured,” he declares.
With approval, the author highlights such a human quality of Prince Igor as love for his family and friends. He has deep brotherly feelings for Vsevolod and is ready to sacrifice his own life to save his brother. The author of the Lay makes it clear to us that Igor and his wife Yaroslavna are united by a deep feeling of love that supports him when the prince languishes in captivity among the Polovtsians.
On the other hand, the author sees not only the advantages, but also the shortcomings of his hero. So, he makes it clear that the defeat that ended the campaign was due to the prince's lack of a clear idea of the need for unity and joint struggle against the enemy, the desire for personal glory. It is no coincidence that the words of condemnation against Igor and Vsevolod were put into the mouth of the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav by the author, saying that their campaign would not bring honor to the brothers themselves and the entire Russian land. After all, the goal of Igor's campaign was to conquer rich booty in the Polovtsian steppes. That is why, contrary to his own proud words about the preference for death on the battlefield to captivity, the prince falls into the hands of his enemies. material from the site
And yet, the author's positive assessment of the personality of Prince Igor prevails. And this is emphasized by the finale of the work, in which the prince manages, risking his life, to make a bold escape from captivity. He came out of the endured trials even more tempered and wiser. He is ready to continue to stand guard over the Russian land. Igor comes to a conclusion that is especially important for the author himself. This conclusion is that in order to successfully fight external enemies, Russian princes need internal unity. And the author conveys this assessment to the readers of his poem, who live many centuries after the events described.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page, material on the topics:
- what is the author's attitude to the campaign of Prince Igor
- a word about Igor's regiment description of the protagonist
- who is the main character the word about igor's regiment essay
- how the author describes Prince Igor the word
- what is the attitude of the author to Prince Igor
Art. Rassadin, B. Sarnov
What about negative characters?
Is it really possible for a writer to describe himself at least a little while describing each of his characters, even negative ones?
Once, about 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 vicious, 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 at least partially portray yourself in Kavalerovo?
And others simply decided that Nikolai Kavalerov is the writer Yuri Olesha.
Answering this question, Olesha said:
"In every person there is bad and there is good. I do not believe that a person is possible who could not understand what it is to be vain, or a coward, or an egoist. Each person can feel in himself the sudden appearance of any kind of double. In an artist, this manifests itself especially brightly, and this is one of the amazing properties of the artist: to experience other people's passions. This confession explains a lot.
The bravest person ever got scared at least once in their life. The most disinterested - at least once envied. Which of us in childhood did not envy the owner of a beautiful fountain pen, a rare brand, a sparkling racing bike? Does this mean that we are all inveterate envious people? Of course not. That is why Olesha speaks of the artist's ability to "experience other people's passions." Aliens! Not yours! But in order to authentically, truthfully, penetratingly, that is, ARTISTICALLY depict "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 a family, nothing, I’m not afraid. many people are dear to me - father, sister, wife - the people dearest to me - but, no matter how terrible and unnatural it seems, I will give them all now for a moment of glory, triumph over people, for the love of people whom I don’t I know and I won't 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 is terrible to imagine that a man like Prince Andrei could experience something like this. 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 also personified the conscience of the world in the eyes of all mankind.
But Tolstoy's wife Sofya Andreevna fills her diaries with endless complaints about Lev Nikolayevich's vanity and selfishness. She directly says that for the sake of fame, he is ready to forget his relatives and friends.
Maybe Sofya Andreevna should not be trusted? Maybe she just did not 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 ruthlessly, even much more ruthlessly about the vanity of Leo Tolstoy:
“I suffered a lot from this passion,” he writes in his diary, “it ruined the best years of my life for me and forever took away from me all the freshness, courage, gaiety and enterprise of youth.”
It turns out that Tolstoy was painfully familiar with the feelings that owned the soul of Prince Andrei - this, as the writer himself said, "incomprehensible passion." She haunted him already in his early youth, pursued him all his life.
Well, perhaps this gives us reason to be disappointed in Tolstoy? Makes us bow less to his great soul?
Quite the opposite!
A great man is not great because his soul is sterile, like distilled water. He is great in that even a fleeting bad feeling torments him, causing unbearable pain. No wonder Tolstoy says that he "suffered a lot" from his vanity. Yes, and his hero Prince Andrei was ashamed of his unkind feelings: "I will never tell anyone this ..."
Perhaps, creating the image of a bad person, the writer is able to penetrate so deeply into his dark soul because he hates everything bad, first of all in himself, strives to defeat evil in his soul and in life in general.
Could Fonvizin have said: "Is Mitrofan 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’s much more reasonable to follow not Mitrofan, who was very pleased with his own bad qualities, but Tolstoy, who was uncompromisingly related to the smallest 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, eyewitnesses of a crime are interrogated in court, their testimonies almost always differ significantly. It often happens that, say, out of five witnesses, none 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 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 would you say if we put next to Mitrofan not the disgusting Shvabrin, but the most handsome Petrusha Grinev?
Perhaps you would provide:
- 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, and 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 prominent 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 an average hand."
The poetess Marina Tsvetaeva also came up with this comparison. In the article "Pushkin and Pugachev" she directly calls the young Grinev Mitrofan. Although this sounds insulting to Petrusha, there are reasons for such a rapprochement. And a lot.
Remember "The Captain's Daughter":
"... It was reported that Monsieur was giving me his lesson. Batiushka went to my room. At that time, Beaupre was sleeping on the bed with a 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 wall without any use, and for a long time tempted me with the goodness of the paper. I decided to make a kite out of it, and, taking advantage of Beaupré's dream, set to work. The father came in at the same time as I was adjusting the washtail to the Cape of Good Hope. Seeing my exercises in geography, the priest pulled my ear, then ran up to Beaupre, woke him very carelessly and began to shower reproaches. Beaupré, in dismay, wanted to get up and could not: the unfortunate Frenchman was dead drunk ... The father lifted him from the bed by the collar, pushed him out of the door and on the same day he drove me out of the yard ... That was the end of my upbringing.
I lived underage, chasing pigeons and playing leapfrog with the yard boys ... "
Well? Aren't Petrushino's upbringing and Mitrofan's teachings alike, like two drops of water? Similar, down to the smallest coincidence. "Exercises in geography" by Petrusha and Mitrofanov's knowledge in "geography". Beaupre, who "was a hairdresser in his own country", and his double Vralman, who had previously served as a coachman. What Petrusha and Mitrofan have in common is their predilection for dovecote...
And yet, whatever you say, Mitrofan evokes one attitude towards himself, and Petrusha - a completely different one.
So what's the deal? Maybe one writer portrayed the "normal Russian nobleman of an average hand" correctly, while the other was unfair to him?
Incidentally, this is exactly what the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky thought. He believed that Pushkin portrayed the noble undergrowth of the 18th century "more impartial and truthful than Fonvizin. In the latter, Mitrofan strays into a caricature, into a comic anecdote. In historical reality, a minor is not a caricature and not an anecdote ...".
Contrasting the fate of the average Russian nobleman with the noisy fate of the higher nobility, who found shelter in the capital's guards, Klyuchevsky wrote:
"The fate of our Mitrofans was more modest. They always studied a little, through tears under Peter I, with boredom under Catherine II, they did not make the government, but decisively made our military history of the 18th century. These are infantry army officers, and in this rank they trampled the glorious the way from Kunersdorf to Rymnik and to Novi. They, with Russian soldiers, carried on their shoulders the expensive laurels of the Minikhs, Rumyantsevs and Suvorovs."
And then he said: "It is not for nothing that the captain's daughter M.I. Mironov preferred the good-natured army man Grinev to the witty and familiar with French literature guardsman Shvabrin. The historian of the 18th century has to approve both Pushkin's sympathy and the taste of Marya Ivanovna ".
The historian Klyuchevsky is right in many respects, but not in his attitude to Fonvizin's "Undergrowth". Mitrofan does not at all "go astray into a caricature", he is conceived as a caricature, as a satirical image. And Pushkin and Fonvizin - both of them told the truth about the noble undergrowth. It's just that Fonvizin condensed the negative properties of undergrowths (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, took care of correcting existing morals. After all, a person, like society, sometimes it is very useful to see their vices through a magnifying glass.
By the way, they say that Fonvizin's comedy had the most direct effect. According to some of his contemporaries, Mitrofan was a caricature of the noble boy Sasha Olenin, whom Fonvizin knew. And the caricature made such an impression on young Olenin that he pounced on 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 Juan
You say:
- Well, well, Fonvizin and Pushkin both wrote the truth. This is clear. Only, maybe everything is explained much easier? After all, they wrote about the same phenomenon, and not about the same person. Pushkin could take a good undergrowth, Fonvizin - a bad one. Only and everything!
But the fact of the matter is that very often different writers portrayed even the same REAL, really existing person in such a way that these images were no more similar to each other than Petrusha Grinev to Mitrofanushka Prostakov.
Let us recall the lines of one of the best poems of Russian poetry:
Mighty arms crossed
Lowering your head to your chest
He goes and sits on the steering wheel
And quickly sets off.
He rushes to France dear,
Where he left the glory and the throne,
Left an heir-son
And he's the old guard...
To the shore with big steps
He walks boldly and straight
Companions loudly he calls
And the marshals are menacingly calling.
But the mustachioed grenadiers are sleeping -
In the plain where the Elbe roars,
Under the snow of cold Russia
Under the hot sand of the pyramids.
This is "Airship", poems in praise of 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 is another writer. And a completely different Napoleon:
"... The Emperor Napoleon had not yet left his bedroom and was finishing his toilet. Snorting and grunting, he turned either with a thick back or with an overgrown fat chest under the brush, with which the valet rubbed his body. Another valet, holding the bottle with his finger, sprinkled cologne on the well-groomed body of the emperor with an expression that said that he alone could know how much and where to sprinkle cologne. Napoleon's short hair was wet and tangled on his forehead. But his face, although swollen and yellow, expressed physical pleasure ... "
And this other Napoleon looks at the portrait of his son, the very one about whom Lermontov speaks so touchingly:
"... With the Italians' ability to change arbitrarily facial expressions, he approached the portrait and pretended to be thoughtful tenderness. 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, it is that he, with his greatness ... show, in contrast to this greatness, the simplest human tenderness. His eyes were misty, he moved, looked around at the chair (the chair jumped under him) and sat down on it opposite the portrait. One gesture of his - and everyone tiptoed out, leaving himself and his feeling of a great man ... "
This is Tolstoy. "War and Peace".
Just think - what a difference! Lermontov has a proud exile, walking, despite his humiliated position, "boldly and straight"; Tolstoy has a self-satisfied vulgar man, coying with himself, even turning his paternal feelings into a fake and actor's pose. There are "powerful hands". Here is a well-groomed, fat body. In verse - a lonely man, betrayed by the living and abandoned by the dead. In prose - a gentleman surrounded by lackeys, whoever they are, valets or marshals. 
Two Napoleons... And there are many such examples. Not dozens, but hundreds, even thousands of cases.
It is impossible to imagine a reader who would not know the name of Don Juan. Who met him in Moliere's comedy, who - in Byron's poetic novel, who - in the story of Merimee, who - in Pushkin's little tragedy "The Stone Guest" (where he, however, is called Don Juan), who - in the dramatic poem by A.K. Tolstoy ... Can you name them all! World literature has about HUNDRED FIFTY Don Juans. And each writer has his own Don Juan, unlike his fellow writers.
There may be doubt here. Although, according to rumors, Don Juan actually existed, he still lived a long time ago, in the XIV century. And Napoleon after all lived relatively recently. His portraits, biographies compiled by contemporaries, historical documents have been preserved. In a word, it is known quite precisely what exactly Napoleon was - 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 as well?
Maybe. And this time both are right.
Not only Lermontov, who admired the emperor of France, but also Tolstoy, who hated and despised Napoleon, who made him the embodiment of hypocritical vulgarity, could say: "Napoleon is me! .." This would mean: "I did not write Napoleon in general, but MY Napoleon!"
The real, historical Napoleon Bonaparte was equally little like the mighty hero of Lermontov's poem and the fat vulgar man depicted in War and Peace. Both Tolstoy and Lermontov did not particularly strive for the similarity of the portrait with the original, because both of them painted not 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.
Prince Igor, whose campaign became the main reason for the author's thoughts about the unification of the Russian land, is, in my opinion, an ambiguous character. He combines many worthy characteristics, but at the same time he cannot express the author's idea, therefore the author himself, respecting him, doubts the correctness of his actions.
As the narrative and description of Igor's campaign itself, the author notes many good qualities in this hero. So, the words of the prince at the beginning of the campaign, addressed to the army ("Brothers and squad! / Better to be killed by swords, / Than by the hands of filthy people"), speak of his fearlessness, lack of fear of death and, most importantly, unwillingness to lose his valor. For him, captivity is tantamount to loss of honor, to which he would prefer death. The author also emphasizes that the same honor for Igor is more important than any wealth, when "Svyatoslavich the brave" took "a scarlet banner with a white banner, a bang and a spear made of silver" as a reward for victory, not wanting anything else. And, of course, this valor serves as a role model for the prince's squad, even if there were fugitives in it, whom Igor seeks to "bring back to battle."
And the author admires this, so in the word you can often find respectful appeals to the prince: "... Prince Igor and Vsevolod the brave, // Svyatoslav the brave sons", "Igor the brave is cursed", ".. I took Svyatoslav the brave as a reward." He sees a real warrior in the prince.
But also the author cannot fail to see the reasons for his defeat. He understands that all the desire of the prince, full of ambition, to manifest his valor, the search for glory and attempts to test his strength lead to irreversible consequences:
"Igor the Prince and Vsevolod the Brave -
Svyatoslav brave sons -
That's because someone with a fearless squad
Woke the filthy for war!"
Having proved his strength, Igor thereby weakened his own homeland. He destroyed the tranquility and peace that his father had won with such difficulty in ancient years, again inviting misfortune and malice on the part of the Polovtsy. It is difficult for the author to admit this because of his admiration for the prince. And here, in the future, the most important detail in the author's attitude towards this hero through Svyatoslav begins to be revealed. It is through Svyatoslav, who is the representative of the author's idea, expressing his opinion.
"Oh, sons, I did not expect such evil!
You have lost your youth
The enemy was attacked at the wrong time,
Not with great honor in battle
The blood of the enemy was shed on the ground.
What have you kids done to me?
And my silver gray hairs?"
Svyatoslav condemns the act of his sons, and, therefore, the author also initially turns out to be against Igor's campaign, seeing him as thoughtless and destructive in relation to peace in the Russian lands. Despite all the omens and a fairly large chance of defeat, Igor still did not think about the consequences and dooms his squad to death, disgracing his father with such an inglorious campaign. But even so, Svyatoslav, like the author, never ceases to admire his prowess.
"Get up, sovereigns, in the golden stirrup
For offense on this black day,
For the Russian land
For Igor's wounds -
Daring son of Svyatoslavich!
And the author, even somehow in a fatherly way, understands Igor, his desire to show his strength. And he, perhaps, is even offended that Igor simply did not have enough prudence to achieve his goal. He, like a wonderful commander, could lead people, but he acts zealously, abruptly and thoughtlessly. The author, feeling this, defends the prince when he talks about rumors about Igor's campaign that have passed to other countries.
".. And the rumor about the daring one is running,
As if he, inviting evil to Rus',
From the saddle, unfortunate, golden
Moved to the Kashcheevo saddle ... "
The very word "rumor" used by the author implies a rumor, gossip, which is not even worth believing. And in the end, this is proved by the thrown word "As if", confirming that the author does not believe all the rumors of foreigners, neglects them, remaining on the side of the prince.
So after Igor's escape and return to his homeland, despite his mistakes, he is greeted with honors and joy. The people forgive Igor, as Svyatoslav forgives him and as the author forgives him.
"Glory to Prince Igor,
Bui-tour to Vsevolod,
Vladimir Igorevich!
Glory to all who, sparing no effort,
For Christians, they beat the filthy regiments!
Thus, we can conclude that the author is proud that in Rus' there are warriors like Igor, and he admires him as a warrior, even if he acted short-sightedly and thoughtlessly. But even so, perhaps, Igor's campaign did not become so useless - he showed how weak disparate Rus' can be, thereby giving impetus to making the rest of the princes think about uniting.
The Tale of Igor's Campaign, an outstanding monument of ancient Russian literature, has many ideological and artistic merits. All of them are inseparably linked with the image of the author of the poem. Numerous studies conducted over many decades have not yet established with full certainty who the author was. However, the text of a remarkable work makes it possible to draw some conclusions about his personality. First of all, every phrase, every image of the Lay testifies to the author as a patriot of the Russian land. Knowledge and reliable depiction of all the details of the campaign of Prince Igor allow us to suggest that the author was a direct participant in the events described. And, finally, the indifferent attitude of the author to the main character of his story suggests that he was probably one of his associates. What is the attitude of the author of the Lay towards Prince Igor?
This relationship cannot be unambiguously defined. On the one hand, the author shows numerous princely prowess in the image of Igor. We see that this is a noble, courageous man, ready to give his life for his native land. Thus, the first thing the author credits to his hero is patriotism, love for his native land. Secondly, the author highly appreciates the personal qualities of a warrior and a man, shown by the prince. In the campaign, Igor shows exceptional courage and bravery, he is filled with a “military spirit”, values \u200b\u200bmilitary honor, is eager to “drink the Great Don with his helmet.” So, when at the very beginning of the campaign a formidable omen - a solar eclipse - puts the army before a choice: continue the campaign or turn back, Prince Igor makes a courageous decision: “It is better to be killed than captured,” he declares. With approval, the author highlights such a human quality of Prince Igor as love for his family and friends. He has deep brotherly feelings for Vsevolod and is ready to sacrifice his own life to save his brother. The author of the Lay makes it clear to us that Igor and his wife Yaroslavna are united by a deep feeling of love that supports him when the prince languishes in captivity among the Polovtsians.
On the other hand, the author sees not only the advantages, but also the shortcomings of his hero. So, he makes it clear that the defeat that ended the campaign was due to the prince's lack of a clear idea of the need for unity and joint struggle against the enemy, the desire for personal glory. It is no coincidence that the words of condemnation against Igor and Vsevolod were put into the mouth of the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav by the author, saying that their campaign would not bring honor to the brothers themselves and the entire Russian land. After all, the goal of Igor's campaign was the conquest of rich booty in the Polovtsian steppes. That is why, contrary to his own proud words about the preference for death on the battlefield to captivity, the prince falls into the hands of his enemies.
And yet, the author's positive assessment of the personality of Prince Igor prevails. And this is emphasized by the finale of the work, in which the prince manages, risking his life, to make a bold escape from captivity. He came out of the endured trials even more tempered and wiser. He is ready to continue to stand guard over the Russian land. Igor comes to a conclusion that is especially important for the author himself.
This conclusion is that in order to successfully fight external enemies, the Russian princes need internal unity. And the author conveys this assessment to the readers of his poem, who live many centuries after the events described.
The theme of love in Pushkin's lyrics
Pushkin's love lyrics still remain an invaluable treasure of Russian literature. His view of love, understanding of the depth of this feeling changed as the poet matured. In the poems of the lyceum period, the young Pushkin sang love-passion, often a fleeting feeling ending in disappointment. In the poem "Beauty" love for him is a "shrine", and in the poems "Singer", "To Morpheus", "Desire" is represented as "spiritualized suffering". Women's images in early poems are given schematically. For a young man, the very desire to love is important: “The torment of my love is dear to me - / Let me die, but let me die loving!”
In the St. Petersburg period of creativity, there are few love poems, since the poet at that time paid much attention to freedom-loving lyrics.
The motive of tragic love, disappointment, loneliness sounds in the poetic works of the southern period. In general, Pushkin's love lyrics reflect a complex set of feelings: sincerity, sincerity, sadness, hopelessness, tenderness, happiness, delight.
The poem "I remember a wonderful moment ..." is rightfully a masterpiece of love lyrics. It will never become obsolete, because it reflects a feeling of high love. The lyrical hero recalls the "wonderful moment" that will forever remain in his memory. And this miracle happens in reality when the hero meets his beloved. Love elevates, transforms a person, gives him a feeling of delight and flight of the soul. Pushkin calls a real woman a "genius of pure beauty", comparing with a deity. Nothing can kill love, there is no time and space for it:
And the heart beats in rapture
And for him they rose again
And deity, and inspiration,
And life, and tears, and love.
In Pushkin's later poems, romantic motifs give way to a realistic description of the feeling of love. Now the hero's love is deeper, more serious, more responsible. Pushkin's poems sound so truthful and sincere because they usually convey the feelings of a male hero, and a woman is depicted as an ideal. Her spiritual world is not explored. The hero talks about feelings as if "for two", without attracting a woman. From this, the meaning of the poem is not lost, we have before us the confession of a man in love.
Tender and pure feelings prevail in the poem "I loved you: love still, perhaps ...". The hero expresses them extremely simply and clearly, relying on verbs. We again have memories, but the feelings have not disappeared, love is alive. She makes the lyrical hero strong and wise:
I loved you silently, hopelessly,
Either timidity or jealousy languish;
I loved you so sincerely, so tenderly,
How God forbid you be loved to be different.
Only true love can produce such words. Only a person endowed with high spiritual qualities can wish his beloved happiness with another.
The poem "On the hills of Georgia lies the darkness of the night ..." testifies to the poet's attempts to find harmony, to find ways to reconcile contradictions. Often he combines words and concepts that are opposite in meaning: “my sadness is bright”, his despondency is serene, etc. Love in this poem appears as the meaning of life. The heart is given to a person in order to love, hatred kills. Without love there is no life, no inspiration.
All Pushkin's poems about love speak of one thing: there is no unhappy love, love is always great happiness. This is the wealth that a person keeps in his soul all his life.
- a work that was written many centuries ago. More than eight hundred years ago, an unknown author, whose name has not yet been established by historians, wrote this work, which today is like a monument to the literature of ancient times. But, despite the antiquity of the work, it is still relevant to this day, therefore, today's schoolchildren are studying this work. So today you need to write an essay on the topic of the author's attitude to the main character in the Word about Igor's Campaign. I will begin to reveal the theme of the author's attitude in the word about Igor's regiment, describing the created image of Igor.
The word about Igor's regiment the image of Igor
The work itself tells about real events, about the time when Igor was the prince of Novgorod-Seversky and decided to go to the Polovtsy, without waiting for the unification of all the princes, just together with his brother.
If we talk about the image and characteristics of Igor, then he can be imagined by reading the work, because the author describes the prince in detail. So we see that this is a young prince, as the author writes: the time has come for the young. The author portrays Igor as courageous: Igor... I chose courage. The author also presents Igor as a brave brave man. In addition, Igor is the daring son of Svyatoslavich. The author portrayed the prince as steadfast, because he continued the battle even when wounded and tried to "return the fugitives to battle."
The author's attitude in the Tale of Igor's Campaign
As you can see, from the created description of Igor, the attitude of the author in the Tale of Igor's Campaign to Igor is remarkable. The author admires Igor, his character traits, his courage and courage. But, right there we see another attitude of the author in the Lay about Igor's Campaign to the main character. The author does not support his reckless act, an act that woke up the beast and became like that red color for a bull, because after an unsuccessful campaign, the Polovtsians immediately attack Rus'. And the reason for this is Igor's desire to become famous. He wanted to take the glory by force, and even share the former glory. And here the attitude of the author to Prince Igor is not the best. It turns out that the author has an ambivalent attitude towards the prince, and it is clear why, because the attitude of the author in the Lay on Igor's Campaign to the events that occurred in 1185 is not the best. The author understands that the only way to defeat the enemy is by joining forces, but the prince does not understand this or does not want to understand. So we have what we have, and the relevance of the work lies precisely in the fact that in our time, many do not understand that strength and advantage over any enemy is precisely in unity, in unification and for common goals.
4.9 (97.14%) 7 votes 
The composition “What is the pathos of the monument“ The Tale of Igor’s Campaign ”?” 
Composition: Why did the image of Yaroslavna from "The Tale of Igor's Host" enter the gallery of classical images of Russian literature?
