Prince Mikhail of Chernigov: from maneuverer to martyr.
This article provides the first extensive analysis of Mikhail's behavior in 1241 in light of both the Rus' chronicles and medieval sources from Silesia. Since Nikolai M. Karamzin, the opinion has existed in Russian scholarship that Mikhail Vsevolodovich "dolgo begal ot tatar iz zemli v zemliu" (for a long time ran from the Tatars from one country to another) until he was robbed by Germans in Central Europe. (2) The distinguished historian of Ukraine, Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, followed the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle in depicting Mikhail primarily as a fugitive who was frightened by the advance of the "Tatars." (3) Even the most extensive biography of the prince to date, the detailed study by Martin Dimnik, advances a similar understanding of his motives by stressing that his vulnerability in Mazovia pushed him to rush further to the West. (4) After almost 200 years of scholarly discussion, historians have still not fully decoded the motive behind Mikhail's "Silesian adventure."
In this article I argue that a precise identification of the town of Sereda and new sources, which are practically unknown to historians of Rus', make the prevailing view of Mikhail improbable. These include the Vita of St. Hedwig in Middle High German and The History of Duke Henry in Latin. Both sources shed a new and, to a large extent, unexpected light on the actions of Mikhail of Chernigov. In particular, they clarify the mysterious report of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle that described the robbery of Mikhail's suite and the murder of his granddaughter by the German dwellers of a town named Sereda. I argue here that Mikhail's presence in Silesia provides decisive confirmation of his intention to participate in what he hoped would be a decisive battle against the Mongols.
The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle
The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle assigned unfavorable general characteristics to Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich, and these have shaped views of him for centuries. It suggested that he panicked at the sight of Mongols (Tatars). For this reason, Mikhail allegedly followed his son in running away from the Tatars, then did not dare go to Kiev: "bezha ot s(y)nou svoem" pered" Tatary Ougry" (he [Mikhail] fled from the Tatars to Hungary, following in the footsteps of his son), and "za strakh" Tatar'skyi ne sine iti Kyevou" (he did not dare go to Kiev because of his fear of the Tatars). (5) It goes on to portray him as dogged by misfortune and reports that in the Vorotislavian land Mikhail "came to a German city called Sereda." There local Germans attacked him, took his property and killed his people, including the prince's unnamed granddaughter: "ouzrevshi zhe Nemtsi, iako tovara mnogo est', izbisha emou liudi, i tovara mnogo o(t)iasha, a ounoukou ego oubisha" (When the Germans saw [his long wagon train], they killed his people, took away [many of his wagons], and killed his granddaughter). (6) This laconic report begs a number of extensive questions about his motivations and intentions. Was he fleeing from the Tatars or toward prospective allies? Where was Sereda, and what was its significance in the 13th century? Was it more than just a convenient place of refuge?
In spite of its key importance as asource, the publishers and commentators of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle have not identified Sereda and have not evaluated the Central European parallels to its report about Mikhail. The index to the 1871 edition of the Hypatian text erroneously identifies Sereda as a village in Galicia. In his 1973 English translation of the chronicle G. A. Perfecky only commented "Polish 'Sroda,' German name unknown." (7) In the commentary to his 2005 edition of the chronicle Nikolai (Mykola) E Kotliar insisted that "the Silesian adventure" of the fugitive Chernigov prince, when the citizens of a certain town robbed Mikhail's train and killed his granddaughter, "is found neither in other Russian sources nor in foreign ones known to us." (8) Even the 2010 Czech edition of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle leaves the location of the murder of Mikhail's granddaughter by the Germans without comment and does not mention any Central European parallels to its report. (9)
Before decoding the significance of Sereda, it is important to consider the larger context of Mikhail's westward movement. On the eve of the Mongolian invasion into Rus' its strongest princes, Daniel Romanovich of Galicia and Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, had been fighting each other for power over Kiev and Halych. As the Mongols advanced, both fled their native lands and came to Mazovia. (10) The first to find refuge with Conrad, the prince of Mazovia, was Mikhail. Conrad was his maternal uncle. On the very eve of the Tatar invasion of Poland, Daniel and Vasilko, Roman's sons, came to Bolestaw, the son of Conrad of Mazovia. They were given refuge too. Moreover, according to the Chronicle of Daniel of Galicia, "Prince Boleslaw gave him the city of Vysegorod" (11) (nowadays the city of Wyszogrod in Plock County, Masovian Voivodeship, Poland).
In sharp contrast to Daniel, who remained in Mazovia, Mikhail headed for the Vorotislavian/Wroclaw land ("zemliu Vorot'slav'skou") with his family and the treasury. (12) While the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle is purposefully silent about his motives, the very location of Sereda provides a major clue.
N. M. Karamzin's erroneous identification of the chronicle's town of Sereda as the Polish town of Sieradz on the Warta River tended to reinforce his view of Mikhail as a fugitive. (13) His view is still supported by several contemporary scholars. (14) The Warta is a tributary of the Oder River and nowadays Sieradz is a powiatowy (county) center in the Lodz Voivodeship. This erroneous identification cast doubts upon Mikhail's motives by placing him nearly 200 kilometers away from the site of the decisive battle between Polish forces and the advancing Mongols.
Although the names Sereda and Sieradz are phonetically similar, the identification is dubious. The chronicle clearly states that Mikhail headed for the "Wroclaw land" and therefore, the town called Sereda must have been located in the general vicinity of Wroclaw. Furthermore, Sereda is called in the chronicle "a German place," which suggests that it was mainly inhabited by Germans, but extant evidence does not confirm the presence a substantial German population in the town of Sieradz during the Middle Ages.
The identification of the town of Sereda mentioned in the chronicle has also been hindered by the chronicler's cultural encoding of the name. The chronicle provides a literal translation of the name of the city rather than its precise Polish name. Sroda in Polish means "Wednesday," and the chronicle simply provides its Rus' equivalent. Similar cases of direct translation of foreign toponyms occur in the same source. For example, the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (col. 830) does not provide the actual name of the city of Salzburg. Instead it translates the name literally into Rus'ian as Solem (i.e., salty place).
The only German town near Wroclaw associated with the word "Wednesday" is the existing town of Sroda Sl^ska in the Lower Silesian Voivodeship. Its German name is Neumarkt in Schlesien. This town was one of the centers of German colonization that gained its impetus after the Silesian Duke Henry I the Bearded married Hedwig of Andechs. (15) Invited by Henry, German colonists settled in Sroda in the first quarter of the 13th century and received significant privileges. By the 1230s, the Magdeburg Law had already been adopted in the town, or, more precisely, one of its variants named the Neumarkt Law after the town (Neumarkter Recht). (16) Remarkably, several oral traditions recorded in the vicinity of the town in the 19th century told of the ambush and killing of a foreign woman by Germans on the eve of the Mongol advance into Poland.
Folk Songs and Forgeries
Since the first half of the 19th century, historians have been aware of the possibility that sources from Central Europe could confirm the Galician-Volhynian Chronicles report. As early as 1842, the prominent Czech Slavist Frantisek Palacky argued for the probability of such a connection. (17) For a time his view became widely accepted in subsequent literature. (18) Unfortunately, the most promising lead, a poetic tale about the murder of the Tatar tsarevna Kublaevna by the Germans, turned out to be a forgery. This discovery dampened scholarly enthusiasm for further investigations for most of the 20th century.
This tale is contained in the Queen's Court manuscript/Manuscript of Dvur Kralove (Czech: Rukopis kralovedvorsky; German: Koniginhofer Handschrift), which was first published by Vaclav Hanka in 1818, with a German translation by Vaclav A. Svoboda. According to the tale a young beauty, Kublai Khan's daughter, set off on a journey to the West escorted by ten young men and two young girls. A group of Germans, attracted by her treasures and precious dress, laid an ambush on the road that Kublaevna traveled. They attacked the travelers, robbing and killing the tsarevna. When Kublai heard about it, he gathered innumerable forces and turned his arms against the West. (19)
As a result of heated discussion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most researchers concluded that the manuscripts of Dvur Kralove and of Zelena Hora are forgeries made by Vaclav Hanka and Josef Linda ca. 1817 and presented as parts of more extensive manuscripts of the 13th century. (20) Nevertheless, even the most skeptical scholars agreed that the tale about Kublaevna and a number of other episodes were created on the basis of ancient legends found in Silesian folklore and medieval manuscripts. (21)
One of these was a song about the murder of a Tatar princess in Sroda/ Neumarkt. It was first published in 1801 in the weekly Der Breslauische Erzdhler by the philologist and folklorist Georg Gustav Fiilleborn (1769-1803). The song actually tells about the victory of Neumarkt citizens over the Tatars, who fell into a trap. The story of the murder of the princess concludes the song, which became widely known after it appeared in the third volume of the famous collection of old German songs Des Knaben Wunderhorn: Alte deutsche Lieder, published in 1808 in Heidelberg by Achim von Arnim and Clemens Brentano. (22)
In 1818, a similar story appeared in Archivfur Geographie, Historie, Staatsund Kriegskunst published by Joseph von Hormayr. The owner of the Divin Castle, near Mikulov (nowadays Podivin town in Breclav District, South Moravian Region, Czech Republic), hosted two of Kublai Khan's daughters who were traveling in western countries. He could not resist the temptation to appropriate their unheard-of treasures and killed both girls and threw their bodies into a precipice. However, the girls rose from the dead and from the abyss, calling for revenge. They turned into two huge rocks resting against the castle. That was how Khan Kublai was able to find the murderer easily and inflict a terrible revenge on the whole of Moravia. (23)
As far as we know, no Slavic medieval source recorded the name of Kublai (Qubilai) Khan. The image of Kublais daughter (Kublaevna) could have appeared in the Silesian and Moravian folklore only after Kublai Khan's name became a common noun that was used to denote a Mongolian supreme ruler in general. In Western Europe it could have occurred primarily under the influence of the Book of the Marvels of the World by Marco Polo, who described Kublai's court in the second part of his book, or some later source derived from it.
After the Manuscript of Dvur Kralove was denounced as a forgery, interest in Central European parallels to the report of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle diminished. Even if the folkloric materials recorded in the 19th century indeed preserve distant memories of a historical fact--the murder of a Rus' princess by the Germans, which was reimagined in oral tradition and transformed into a legend about the killing of a Tatar princess--the problems of using problematic sources recorded in an era of Romanticism to reconstruct a 13th-century event appeared to be insurmountable.
The Life of St. Hedwig of Silesia and the History of Duke Henry
Fortunately, the Manuscript of Dvur Kralove is not the only Central European source that provides parallels to the chronicle report in question. Two underappreciated sources provide narratives that confirm central aspects of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle's testimony about the ambush of Mikhail's suite in 1241.
Soon after Hedwig of Silesia (Hedwig of Andechs, the wife of Henry I the Bearded and the mother of Henry II the Pious) was canonized in the late 13th century, her life story was compiled, known as the Life or the Legend of St. Hedwig (Latin: Vita Sanctae Hedwigis or Legenda de vita beate Hedwigis quondam ducisse Slesie, German: Das Leben der Hedwig von Schlesien). Two Latin versions of the manuscript exist--a short one (Legenda minora) and a long one (Legenda majora). They have survived in numerous copies of the 14th-18th centuries. (24)
There are also several German translations of the Life of St. Hedwig. One of them became the basis for the first printed edition that saw the light of day in Wroclaw in 1504 in the printing house of Konrad Baumgarten. This edition contains seven additional stories that are not found in any of the now known copies of the legend. All these stories are thematically related to the Tatars' invasion. (25)
The original additions to the printed edition of the legend reveal the reasons for the Tatar incursion into Poland and describe the route that the invaders took through Silesia. Along with descriptions based on folk tales, they contain many real details that are directly or indirectly confirmed by other sources. Primarily, this concerns the descriptions of the battle at Legnica, the death of Henry the Pious, and the subsequent siege of Legnica by the Tatars. These accounts are rendered in the 1504 edition based on sources that are older than the main body of the German version of the legend. (26)
The existence of the initial Latin version of the original reports about the Tatars, later reproduced in the German edition of 1504, can be proved by a recently discovered medieval source--the History of Duke Henry (Latin: Historia ducis Henrici). This Latin text, written in a hand of the late 15th century (known as late Gothic cursive), was found by Stanislaw Solicki on three blank pages of the Latin edition of Hartmann Schedel's Nuremberg Chronicle (fol. 259v-60v), which is now kept in the Wroclaw University Library (Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wroclawiu, inkunabul sygn.: XV F 142). (27) Solicki performed a comparative analysis of the texts and showed that the History of Duke Henry could be one source for the additions about the Tatars in the German edition of the Life of St. Hedwig. (28)
It is important to note that the newly found History of Duke Henry tells the same story about the murder of the Tatar empress by the citizens of Neumarkt that led to the devastation of Silesia by the Tatars. This story can now be considered the first known written record of the Latin original of the Tale about the Murder of the Tatar Tsarevna. The German version of the tale contained in the printed edition of the Life of St. Hedwig of Silesia is a somewhat extended version of the same story.
The Original Reports of the German Edition of 1504. One of the stories supplementing the eighth chapter of the Life of St. Hedwig in the edition of 1504 is titled "How the burgers and the community of Neumarkt town killed the Tatar empress with her lords, knights, and knechts, and no more than two girls from her maids went alive from there."
Unlike the Manuscript of Dvur Kralove, in the German version of the Life of St. Hedwig, the Neumarkt citizens kill the wife rather than the daughter of the Tatar ruler who is called the "emperor" (keyszer).
They listened to this evil and thoughtless advice and killed the lords, the knights, and the knechts together with the empress and her girls and maids, and left nobody alive except for two of her girls who were hiding in a dark basement and in holes and thus with much caution and difficulties returned home to their country. And when they had thus returned home, they told their lord the emperor with much weeping and grievance about the sad death of his spouse, how and where it happened ... As soon as the emperor had heard of the sad lot of his wife and about his lords and knights, he became utterly horrified, and driven by anger he said that there will be no peace in his head until this murder that was committed against his wife was paid back to the Christians by a great bloodshed and the devastation of their country. After that he turned to rich people, who had to help him settle scores with the Christians for the death of his lords and the emperor's spouse. Some time later, about 500,000 people gathered. (29)
Turning to the rich for help is not in keeping with the political environment of the Mongol Empire. On the contrary, it reflects the circumstances of medieval Europe, where rulers regularly borrowed money from their rich subjects to wage war and pay mercenaries.
From the subsequent narration it becomes clear that the Tatar emperor whose spouse was murdered by the citizens of Neumarkt was called Bathus, and this murder triggered the Tatar invasion into Hungary, Rus', and Poland.
Then this Tatar emperor, called Bathus, gathered evil people and divided his army into two parts, and with one army he personally arrived in Hungary. It was in the time of King Bela, in 1241 after the birth of Christ, in the time of the Roman pope Honorius the Third and the emperor of the Roman Empire Frederick. And much blood was shed in Hungary, which cannot be described, and great lords, bishops, and prelates were killed, as was Duke Colmanus, the kings brother. After that, he sent another army through Rus' and Poland. It was headed by a certain king named Peta, who with his army also caused much grievance, robbery, and fires in these lands, so unthinkable that they are impossible to describe. The complaints thereof often reached the noble duke of Poland and Silesia Henry II the Bearded, the son of the holy woman St. Hedwig. He wanted to ask questions about it and heard about the great atrocities of the Tatars that they committed against girls, women, children, and churches. (30)
The name of King Peta, who led the Mongol army that attacked Rus' and Poland, is not found in other medieval sources. However, King Peta could very well be a distorted reference to Batu Khan: the consonant gradation b/p and vowel substitutions are common in medieval sources, and Peta would be more familiar as a potential name in Central Europe than Batu. The focus on gender above--the emphasis on violence disproportionately directed at women--is intriguing. It suggests a gendered reimagining of Mongol violence as retribution for killing an elite woman.
The beginning of the story about the journey of the Tatar empress to the Christian countries and her visit to Silesia is told in the previous story of the German edition of the Life of St. Hedwig published in 1504. That story is called "What happened after the Tatar empress prepared with her lords, counts, and knights [for the journey], after the emperor allowed her and her lords to see the countries and the towns of the Christians and to meet their rulers and knights." Many details appear to be later repetitions and amplifications of a rather small kernel of factual information. The text reads:
When the emperor saw that his wife was going to see the Christians' land, he ensured that she was conveyed by the strong and worthy company of his princes, counts, and knights supplied with gold, silver, and precious stones in abundance and of unspeakable beauty, and with letters of protection so that they could safely move in and out, avoiding any obstacles as befits the empress of the great state. Thus she and those lords to whom the emperor granted such gifts gladly observed the Christians' countries where she and her knights were received with honor and honored with great gifts from knights, lords, counties, and towns, as befits the reception of such a mighty empress. Finally she arrived at the Silesian border, at the place called Zobtenberg or Fiirstenberg. About those mountains the old chronicles say that they are the homeland of the ancient noble princes of Silesia and Poland, and at that time two strong castles had been laid here--that is, Fiirstenberg and Lewbes--that have now been converted into the ordered Cistercian cloister of St Benedict, and at that time the best-known town in Silesia was Neumarkt, which the princes had built higher than the said castles; the above-named empress came with her lords and knights to see this town of Neumarkt. (31)
Then we find out why the Neumarkt citizens murdered the Tatar empress: "As soon as the citizens saw and noticed such great and indescribable treasures as those the empress carried, they gathered to hold a council and said to one another that it would be absurd to let that woman of a different faith go with such great riches, with silver, gold, and precious stones; therefore we have to attack her and her lords and servants, to kill them and to divide her treasures between us and our citizens." (32)
The Evidence of the History of Duke Henry. All the main details of the story of the murder of the Tatar empress in the German edition of the Life of St. Hedwig of Silesia agree with the story in the newly discovered History of Duke Henry in Latin, which mainly describes how the Tatars conquered Silesia, and how Henry the Pious perished in the battle on Legnica Field, designated by a later German name Wahlstat (Polish: Legnickie Pole). It is evident that the author used an earlier source, which he supplements with his own comments and suppositions. The story begins with the description of the event that caused the enemy invasion--the murder of the Tatar empress by the Neumarkt citizens.
The history [of the battle] of Duke Henry, St. Hedwig's son, with the Turks' or Tatars' emperor in the place called Wahlstat. In the heathen land a Tatar emperor lived who had a lawful spouse in accordance with the customs of those lands and pagan rites. This empress had [once] heard a story told by some noble people about the habits, location, and condition of these [i.e., Christian] lands and about the praiseworthy institutions of the Christian kings, princes, barons, knights, and citizens; these people at that time visited remote countries repeatedly to acquire military skill and practice military science for the protection of the Christian faith. These frequent stories excited zeal and love in the empress--I do not know under what spirit's influence. She unceasingly besieged her emperors ears with pious and insistent requests, and although time and again she was left in confusion, as she had not been listened to, she did not give up her request and would not rest until she was listened to. (33)
Finally, she was able to persuade him: "Having received from the emperor this and other royal distinctions, she began her journey to the Christians' lands gladly and cheerfully, and wherever she came, she encountered high respect and gifts everywhere." Then the account of the events in Neumarkt follows. "At last she arrived in Neumarkt. Having noticed the great wealth around her, its citizens began a discussion and said to each other: 'We cannot let this pagan woman leave our land, therefore let us kill her and her suite and divide the riches among us.' And having attacked and defeated her and her suite, they spared nobody except the two girls who hid in the storerooms and secret places, and with the help of interpreters were able to reach their land." (34) The murder of the empress by the Neumarkt citizens became the immediate cause for the Tatars' invasion of Poland and Hungary.
The emperor, having stopped washing his head, questioned them [the surviving girls] anxiously and insistently about the fate of their lady. They answered: "Oh, most invincible emperor! We tell and announce the bad news to you. For we have traveled the entire Christian land, and our lady and all the suite were received so graciously that it is impossible to describe, and granted precious jewelry, gold, and silver, except for one town called Neumarkt where our lady and all her warriors were killed cruelly." On hearing that bad news, the emperor was outraged and, burning with fury, he declared the great three-year campaign, saying, "My mind will have no rest and I will gladly make the Christians pay for their cruelty and perfidy." (35)
Then the author of the History of Duke Henry describes the tragic events of the Tatar invasion.
Connections and Divergences
As we can see, the narratives of the Rus' Chronicle, the German version of the Life of St. Hedwig and the History of Duke Henry in Latin concur about four major aspects of the event: the time (on the eve of the Tatars' invasion in Silesia), the place (the town Sereda/Neumarkt), the culprits of the incident (the Germans), and the motive of the committed murder (plunder). Furthermore, in all cases the victim is a noble and rich foreign woman, a relative of a strong ruler, who is accompanied by a comparatively small retinue. One can agree with Benedykt Zientara and Stanislaw Solicky that the Russian and European sources undoubtedly reflect a real event. It is highly probable that the robbery of the train of the Rus' prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich and the murder of his granddaughter were committed by the German citizens of Neumarkt/ Sroda and subsequently reimagined as the killing of a Tatar princess. (36)
We know from other evidence that a similar murder of a high-ranking individual had occurred previously in the area. The German dwellers of Sroda Slqska behaved quite independently even with Polish princes. Under the year 1227, the Cistercian chronicler Alberic from Trois-Fontaines Abbey in Champagne reports the death of the Gniezno prince Wladislaw, who was stabbed by a German girl whom he allegedly tried to rape.
And this Wladislaw, who became the prince of Gniezno after his uncle, the great Wladislaw, having killed the said Lesek and captured Duke Henry of Wroclaw, who was a true believer, died eventually by God s order because of his own licentiousness as follows. At night he lay down writh a German girl who could not bear to be forced and bravely stabbed him in the belly with a dagger that she secretly had on her and he died. (37)
Because of the vague character of this report, for a long time it was impossible to identify the prince stabbed by a German girl. Oswald Balzer believed that it was Wladyslaw Odonic, the duke of Greater Poland. (38) Kazimir Jasinski and contemporary authors conclude that the French chronicler gives an account of the death of another duke of Greater Poland, Wladyslaw Spindleshanks, in Sroda on 3 November 1231, which is reported in other Polish sources. Wladyslaw was killed when he stopped for the night on his way to Wroclaw to visit his ally--the Silesian Duke Henry I the Bearded. (39)
Such a pattern of violent behavior by the German citizens of Sroda was caused by the distinctive features of colonization policy carried out by Silesian princes in the early 13th century. "The settlers were recruited among people of a special type," Zientara writes, "brave, able to act decisively, resourceful, easily adjustable to new conditions. Among them there was no lack of various fortune hunters, who were seeking gain by any means, as well as of notorious malefactors who had fled their previous places to avoid retribution or a court sentence." (40) As we saw above, subsequent generations reimagined these "malefactors" as civic-minded "citizens."
The Neumarkt Germans therefore displayed a tendency to plunder first and ask questions later. They could not have contused the subjects of the Rus' prince with the Mongols, because dress, language, and the wearing of crosses would have identified them as Christian Rus' rather than unknown or pagan Mongols. The residents of Neumarkt may, however, have mistaken the detachment of a Russian prince for a Mongol vanguard or intelligence-gathering unit. According to Jan Dlugosz, during the Mongol attack on Poland in 1241 in some cases Rus' avant-garde forces guided the Mongols and were among the first to engage in battle with the Poles. (41) Evidently later generations of Neumarkt citizens decided to justify their ancestors' pillaging by embellishing the legend of the murder as an early act of resistance against the Mongols rather than a greedy act of plundering an ally of their own king. They eventually forgot the murder of Prince Wladyslaw, but they remembered this particular event for ages because of its perceived connection to Mongol depredations.
Although the murder of a Rus' princess by the Germans was not the only incident of its kind to take place in Sroda/Neumarkt, it must have been perceived as an event of major historic importance due to its near simultaneity with the devastating Mongol invasions. In our opinion, the main reason why the German citizens of Neumarkt reimagined the murder of a Rus' princess as the relative of a Tatar emperor was the cruel retribution that followed the murder--the devastating invasion of the Mongol forces, the defeat and death of Henry the Pious.
In addition, a physical artifact reinforced memories of an elite woman's murder. The Legnica councilman and author of the town's history Georg Thebesius (1636-88), who was critical of the legend about the murder of the Tatar empress by Neumarkt's citizens, as set forth in the German edition of the Life of St. Hedwig of 1504, had nevertheless seen the chemise said to belong to the empress, which was kept in the parish church in Sroda Slaska, and recalled that "many years ago" (probably before the Thirty Years' War) her dress and coat were displayed in the basement of the Sroda town hall. (42)
The chemise of the Tatar princess/empress survived until the mid-18th century. A certain Assmann, a Sroda councilman, mentioned it as a local attraction in his Chronicle (1748). Even in the 19th century the locals could identify the exact house in which the unfortunate empress was killed. The old and new addresses of this house in Neumarkt are given in a German description of Silesia published in 1834. (43) All traces of it were subsequently lost.
The emphasis in Silesian narratives on the indiscriminate violence against women enacted as vengance for the killing of a woman suggests that the Neumarkt citizens themselves may have constructed a cause-and-effect relationship between two discrete events. Alternatively, those who knew about the villainy committed in this town may have blamed the countless misfortunes that fell upon Silesia and all of Poland on the perfidious and greedy German dwellers of Neumarkt. In either case, the transformation and reimagination of an actual murder into folkloric legend merits further study and explanation by specialists in literature and oral tradition.
Mikhail of Chernigov and the Struggle against the Tatars
By putting the Rus' and Central European sources together, it is possible to advance a new view of Mikhail. The new evidence presented here complicates the view of Mikhail as a fugitive prince desperately searching for shelter. Mikhail of Chernigov arrived in Silesia on the very eve of the Tatar invasion by design, not accident. The Tatar army was practically treading on Mikhail's heels. Having ascertained the approximate location of Polish forces gathering to confront the Mongols, he stopped in Neumarkt/Sroda. Mikhail's presence at Sroda Sl^ska provides clear evidence of his intention to join the army of Henry II the Pious (the son of Henry I the Bearded). The town is only 30 km to the west of Wroclaw, halfway between Wroclaw and Legnica. The road connecting the two towns passed through Sroda. The route usually took two days, and travelers usually stopped for the night in Sroda. (44)
The army of Henry II the Pious had amassed at Dobre Pole near Legnica for the battle against the Tatars. Mikhail must have learned of this, otherwise there would be little reason to stay with his retainers and supplies at roughly a day's distance from Legnica on the eve of the decisive battle between the Polish and the Tatars. Mikhail was not retreating but instead was moving decisively toward the center of the coming struggle.
Forces from various Polish counties were arriving to fight under the banners of the prince of Silesia and Greater Poland. Foreigners also joined--first and foremost, the German and Moravian knights (Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights). Trey may have totaled 8,000 warriors. According to some testimonies, the Bohemian king Wenceslaus I was also on his way to join Henry but arrived only a day later. (45) This suggests that there was a general call to arms of which Mikhail would have been aware.
Only an unforeseen contingency--the unexpected assault of the Germans in Neumarkt against his retinue and supply wagons--prevented the Rus' prince from implementing his plan to join the battle. Instead he returned to Mazovia after the defeat and the death of the Silesian duke.
Like the Central European sources (the Latin History of Duke Henry and the German version of the Life of St. Hedwig), the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle connects the Germans' attack on an elite woman to the subsequent, but from the perspective of hindsight almost simultaneous, battle at Legnica between the Mongols and Henry the Pious. At the end of its story about the misfortunes of the Chernigov prince in Silesia the chronicle speaks of Mikhail's "great grief" when he had to go back after failing in his objective, because he had heard that the Tatars defeated Henry on 9 April 1241. "Mikhailou, izhe ne doshedshiu, i sobravshiusia, i by(st') v pechali veliche, ouzhe bo biakhou(t') Tatari prishli na boi ko ln'drikhovichiu" (Mikhail, who had not yet reached [the city] but was just setting out, was seized with grief. The Tatars had already come to do battle with Indrikhovich). (46)
The attempt, although unsuccessful, to ally with Henry the Pious's troops in the struggle against the Mongols later had tragic consequences for the prince. In particular, it appears to have contributed in some way to the cruel retribution against the Rus' prince at the Horde in September 1246.
Since the Chernigov chronicles have not been preserved, it is impossible to trace Prince Mikhail's actions between his return to Rus' from Poland and before his fatal trip to the Horde. The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle notes only the facts pertaining to the relationship of the Chernigov princes to Daniel and Vasilko Romanovich: "Mikhail" zhe ne pokaza pravdy voz dobrodean'e Danilou zhe i Vasilkou, no proide zemliu ego, i poslav" posla ide v" Kiev", i zhiviashe pod" Kievom" vo ostrove, a s(y)n" ego ide v Chernigov" Rostislav"" (Mikhail, however, broke his promise, [thus] repaying Danilo and Vasilko for their kindness: he crossed [Danilo's] land without even sending a courier [to him], went to Kiev, and settled on an island near Kiev, while his son Rostislav went to Chernigov). (47)
I think the most likely explanation for the behavior of Mikhail should be linked to the relations Rus' had with the Tatars. After December 1240, the governor of Batu Khan remained in Kiev; Kiev was thus under the direct control of the Mongols. In 1243, Batu gave Kiev to Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodovich of Vladimir-Suzdal' after Iaroslav swore allegiance to the khan. (48) Mikhail could not enter Kiev without the khans permission. At the same time, Mikhail did not want to give up all claim to Kiev. For a time, he lived on the island, probably in the Dnieper River, in the expectation that developments would take a favorable turn for him.
There are many historical examples of rulers hostile to the Mongols hiding on islands out of fear. For example, Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad II of Khwarezm lost his war with the Mongols and fled to an island in the Caspian Sea, where he soon died. Bachman, a leader of the Kipchaks, resisted the Mongols, then hid on an island on the Volga after his defeat, only to be captured and executed. (49) King Bela IV of Hungary escaped Mongol persecution by retreating to the islands of the Adriatic Sea. (50)
The selection of an island as a refuge can be explained by the Mongols' inability to cross great bodies of wrater. They tackled even large ponds only in winter, when the ice was solid. (51) Mongols swam only in exceptional cases, with great difficulty and at risk to themselves. By settling on the island near Kiev, Mikhail showed not only fear but also his hostility to the Mongols. He could enjoy relative safety on the island before the winter frosts hardened the ice on the Dnieper. After that, Mikhail apparently had to leave his island refuge, and it is likely that he returned to Chernigov. Anyway, Mikhail no longer had a reason to continue living on the island after the khan handed Kiev over to Iaroslav.
It is significant that Mikhail Vsevolodovich delayed his journey to the Horde as long as possible. He was the last among the senior Rus' princes to travel there. The Chernigov prince appears to have believed that Batu was unaware of his attempt to fight with the Polish duke against the Mongols, which explains the paradox of why he returned. Despite the possibility that reports of his motives for advancing toward Silesia would eventually reach the Horde, Mikhail hoped to maneuver his way back into favor. However, one of his rivals must have learned of his secret. A Galician prince (Daniel?) visited the Horde in early 1246--that is, before the prince of Chernigov--and had a personal audience with Batu where he could have informed the khan about his rival's misdeeds.
It seems highly unlikely that Mikhail Vsevolodovich traveled to the Horde to sacrifice himself for his faith. Like other Rus' princes, he undoubtedly intended to pledge obedience to the khan and thus confirm his rights to Chernigov. This can be proved by a detail mentioned in early versions of the hagiographic Tale about Mikhail of Chernigov. The prince arrived in the Horde with his young grandson Boris, who apparently was supposed to stay there as a hostage guaranteeing his grandfather's loyalty. (52) Similarly, Grand Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodovich left one of his sons in the Horde. According to Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, Iaroslav tried to persuade Mikhail to obey the Tatars' demands and perform the prescribed ritual. (53)
At the same time, there is no doubt that Mikhail in the end demonstratively refused to perform an important Mongol court ceremony. According to Pian del Carpine, the prince underwent purification by fire but did not want to bow to the idol of Genghis Khan because doing so would violate his Christian belief. (54) We should not assume that this story was made up out of whole cloth to glorify the holy martyr's heroic act of faith. If we do, we have to admit that the pious myth about Mikhail came into being immediately upon his death, because as early as the spring of 1247 it was transmitted intact to Pian del Carpine, who did not doubt its trustworthiness.
Evidently, Mikhail changed his mind while visiting the Horde. There he would have met both Mongol courtiers and Rus' people who lived in Batu's camp. In explaining the ceremonies and rituals awaiting him, one of them could have informed him that his actions in Poland had caught up with him. Unable to maneuver further, the Chernigov prince decided to act defiantly. He refused to perform the prescribed ritual and thus provoked a new conflict. Mikhail's behavior not only demonstrated a rejection of Mongol dominion but turned the incident into a religious confrontation, which the Mongol rulers tried to avoid in their relations with new subjects. His death would be commemorated for centuries.
According to the Rus' sources, Batu ordered Mikhail beaten, then commanded one Doman from Putivl' to "cut off [the prince's] head." (55) Pian del Carpine describes the execution the same way, noting that Mikhail's "head was cut off with a knife" and that the boyar Fedor, who accompanied the prince, also had his "head cut off with a knife." (56)
Obviously, beheading was a common form of punishment at that time. It was deployed on multiple occasions against foreign rulers who had openly taken up arms against the Mongols. Grand Prince Iurii Vsevolodovich of Vladimir suffered a similar death when Mongols crushed his force at the Sit' River. The Laurentian Chronicle reports that Iurii's beheaded body was found on the site of the battle and buried. His head was found and put in the coffin later. (57) According to Al-Nasawl (early 13th century), the sons of Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu, the last ruler of the Khwarezmian Empire, who, like their father, strongly opposed the invaders, were taken captive and beheaded. "The Tatars returned with the heads of both on their spears and carried them about the country to spite the nobles and hurt those who saw them. On seeing those two heads, the people were in dismay." (58)
One also cannot help but note that the same punishment befell Mikhail's ally in the struggle against the Mongols--Duke Henry the Pious of Silesia. The Fifth Continuation of the Annals of St. Panteleimon's Abbey in Cologne (Chronica regia Coloniensis) (mid-13th century) says that "the duke Henry [of Wroclaw! bravely resisted them [the Tatars] together with another duke [his cousin Boleslaw, the son of Margrave Dipold III of Moravia] but was defeated. The dukes and many other brave knights perished, while the duke's head was cut off by the enemy and carried away." (59) One of Pian del Carpine's companions--Benedict of Poland--reported the details of the execution of the Silesian duke. "Then, having caught Duke Henry, the Tatars undressed him completely and made him kneel in front of the dead [Tatar] prince who was killed in Sandomir. Then they sent Henry's head, as if it was a sheep's head, via Moravia to Batu in Hungary, then threw it among the other heads of the slain." (60) According to another version, having put Henry's head on the spear, the Mongols came up to the walls of Legnica Castle (its inhabitants burned the town and hid in the castle) and demanded that those inside open the gate. This episode is described in the German version of the Life of St. Hedwig of Silesia and is depicted in one of the miniatures of the Ostrov Codex of 1353.
The Galician-Volhynian chronicler obviously knew more about Mikhail's motivations than he chose to include in his text. By casting him as a fugitive, the chronicler decisively shaped interpretations of him for centuries. The later pious legends of Mikhail's death and tales of his martyrdom purposefully obscured his efforts to ally with Henry the Pious by omitting mention of any intention other than flight. Silesian narratives in German and Latin preserved memories of the event that prevented him from joining the decisive battle, the ambush of his supply train and the murder of his female relative, but consigned him to oblivion by reimagining the murder.
This analysis makes it highly probable that Mikhail Vsevolodovich went to Sereda/Sroda/Neumarkt with the intention of fighting the Mongols. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain why he arrived near the epicenter of the decisive battle in April 1241. In contrast to his Rus' rivals, he took an incredible risk in leaving behind the relative safety of Mazovia, which remained untouched by the Mongols.
Dept. of Museum Studies
St. Petersburg State University
Universitetskaia naberezhnaia, 7/9
199034 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
The study was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Science Foundation (Rossiiskii nauchnyi fond), Project 16-18-10137. 1 express my sincere thanks to Brian Boeck for his help in preparing this article for publication.
(1) A. G. Iurchenko, "Kniaz' Mikhail Chernigovskii i Batu-khan (K voprosu o vremeni sozdaniia agiograficheskoi legendy)," in Opyty po istochnikovedeniiu: Drevnerusskaia knizhnost' (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1997), 123-25; Iurchenko, "Zolotaia statuia Chingiskhana (russkie i latinskie izvestiia)," in Tiurkologicheskii sbornik 2001: Zolotaia orda i ee nasledie (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 2002), 253; A. A. Gorskii, "Gibel' Mikhaila Chernigovskogo v kontekste pervykh kontaktov russkikh kniazei s Ordoi," Srednevekovaia Rus' (Moscow: Nauka, 2006), 6:138-54; Charles J. Halperin, The Tatar Yoke: The Image of the Mongols in Medieval Russia, rev. ed. (Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2009), 47-52.
(2) N. M. Karamzin, Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskogo, 12 vols. (St. Petersburg: Voennaia tipografiia General'nogo shtaba, 1816-29), 4:21.
(3) Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy (New York: Knyho-Spilka, 1954), 3:56.
(4) Martin Dimnik, Mikhail, Prince of Chernigov and Grand Prince of Kiev (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), 113; Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1146-1246 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 358; Frantisek Adamek, Talari na Morave (Prague: Neklan, 1999), 12. See also D. G. Khrustalev, Rus': Ot nashestviia da "iga"(30-40-e gody XIII v.), 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg: Evraziia, 2008), 175.
(5) Polnoe sobranie russkikh U'topisei (hereafter PSRL), 2: Ipat 'evskaia Utopis', ed. A. A. Shakhmatov (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1998), col. 782, 783; The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, trans. George A. Perfecky (Munich: W. Fink, 1973), 47, 48.
(6) PSRL 2, col. 784; Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 48.
(7) Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 136 n. 76.
(8) N. F. Kotliar, "Kommentarii," in Galitsko-Volynskaia letopis': Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie, ed. Kotliar (St. Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2005), 253.
(9) See Jitka Komendova, ed., Halicsko-volynsky letopis (Prague: Argo, 2010), 72, 152-53.
(10) A. V. Maiorov, "The Mongol Invasion of South Rus' in 1239-1240s: Controversial and Unresolved Questions," Journal of Slavic Military Studies 29, 3 (2016): 473-99.
(11) PSRL 2, col. 788; Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 49.
(12) PSRL 2, col. 784; Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 48; "But when the Tatars approached [Poland], he could not endure staying there and went to Silesia."
(13) Karamzin, Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskogo, 4:21.
(14) A. Iu. Karpov, Batyi (Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 2011), 188; V. B. Perkhavko, E. V. Pchelov, and lu. V. Sukharev, Kniaz 'ia i kniagini Russkoi zemli IX--XVI vv. (Moscow: Russkoe slovo, 2002), 228.
(15) See Stanislaw Smolka, Henryk Broduty: Ustqp z dz'tejdw epoki piastowskiej (Lwow: Gubrynowicz i Schmidt, 1872), 12, 22, 85, 90; and Benedykt Zientara, Henryk Brodaty I jego czasy (Warsaw: Trio, 2006), 223-38.
(16) See Colmar Grunhagen, ed., Regesten zur schlesischen Geschichte (Breslau: Max, 1866), 1 (Codex diplomatics Silesiae 7, 1), 80-81, no. 128; 119-20, no. 265; 127, no. 285; 144-45, no. 329; 151-52, no. 343; 172, no. 425- See also Benedykt Zientara, "Walloons in Silesia in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries," Quaestiones Medii Aevi, no. 2 (1981): 127-50.
(17) Frantisek Palacky, "Der Mongolen-Einfall im Jahre 1241," Abhandlungen der Kiiniglichen Bohmischen Gesselschaft der Wissenschaften 5, pt. 2 (1842): 402--5.
(18) See Josef Jirecek and Hermenegild Jirecek, Die Echtbeit des Koniginhofer Handschrift (Prague: F. Tempsky, 1862), 1 58-60; K. J. Erben, "Pri'spevky k dejepisu ceskemu, sebrane ze starych letopisu ruskych, od nejstarsi doby azdo vymreni' Premyslovcu," Casopis Ceskeho Musea 44 (1870): 84-85; N. P. Nekrasov, Kraledvorskaia rukopis ' v dirukh transkriptsiiakh teksta (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1872), 343; Colmar Griinhagen, GeschichteSchlesiens (Gotha: Perthes, 1884), 1:67; A. I. Stepovich, Ocherk istorii cheshskoi literatury (Kiev: Izdanie Kievskogo slavianskogo obshchestva, 1886), 12; GustavStrakosch-Grassmann, Der EinfallderMongolen in Mitteleuropa in den Jahren 1241 und 1242 (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1893), 65 n. 5; H. Jirecek, Bdsen "'Jaroslav" Rukopisu krdladvorskeho: Studie historicko-literdrni (Prague: n.p., 1905), 14-15; and Vaclav Novotny, Ceske dejiny (Prague: n.p., 1930), 1:721 n. 1.
(19) Viktorin Vojtech and Vaclav Flajshans, Rukopisy Krdlovedvorsky a Zelenohorsky: Dokumentdrnifotografie (Prague: Ceska Graficka LJnie, 1930), 13 (24-35): Frantisek Mares, Pravda o Rukopisech zeknohorskem a kralovedvorskem (Prague: Tiskem A. Wiesnera, 1931), xlviii-xlix.
(20) JosefKoci, "Spory o Rukopisy vceske spolecnosti," in Rukopisy krdlovedvorsky a zelenohorsky: Dnehiistavpoznant, ed. Mojmir Otruba and Zdenek Fiala (Prague: Academia, 1969), 1:25-48: L. P. Lapteva, "Kraledvorskaia i Zelenogorskaia rukopisi i ikh otsenka v Rossii XIX i Nachala XX vv.," Studia Slavica 21 (1975): 67-94. See also Miroslav Ivanov, Tajemstvi rukopisu Kralovedvorskeho a Zelenohorskeho (Trebic: Blok, 2000).
(21) Jaroslav Goll, Historieky rozhor basni Rukopisu Kralovedvorskeho: Oldricha, Benese Hermanova a Jaroslava (Prague: n.p., 1886), 75; E. Boguslawski., "'Jaroslav,' poemat staroczeski, z Krolodvorskiego rukopisu z punktu widzenia historycznego," Przeglad Historyczny 3 (1906): 319; Josef Letosnik, Dejepisny rozhor Rukopisu krdlovedvorskeho (Brno: n.p., 1910), 25 n.; Vaclav Flajshans, "Zazrak hostynsky a basen 'Jaroslav,'" Casopis Cesky Historicky 38 (1932): 78-79.
(22) Richard Kuhnau, Mittelschlesische Sagen geschichtlicher Art (Breslau: Ostdeutsche Verlagsanst, 1929), 473-74.
(23) Benedykt Zientara, "Cesarzowa tatarska na Slasku--geneza i funkejonowanie legendy," in Kultura elitarna a kultura masowa w Polscepoztiego sredniowiecza, ed. Bronislaw Geremek (Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliriskich, 1978), 178-79.
(24) A. Semkowicz, ed., "Vita Sanctae Hedwdgis," in Monumenta Poloniae Historica (Lwow: Lwowskie grono czlonkow komisyi historycznej Akademii Umiejetnosci w Krakowie, 1884), 4:509-10.
(25) Joseph Gottschalk, ed., Die grosse Legende der heiligen Frau Sankt-Hedwig geborene Furstin von Memnien und Herzogin in Polen und. Schlesien: Faksimile naeh Originalangabe von Konrad Baumgarten, Breslau 1504 (Wiesbaden: G. Pressler, 1963), vols. 1-2.
(26) J. Klapper, "Die Tatarensage der Schlesier," Mitteilungen der schlesisehen Gesellschaft fur Volkskunde 31-32 (1931): 178-81.
(27) Stanislaw Solicki, "'Historia ducis Henrici'--odnalezione zrodlo legendy tatarskiej z baumgartenowskiej edycji 'Zywota sw. Jadwigi,'" Slaski Kwartalnik Historyczny Sobotka 47, 3-4 (1992): 449-55.
(28) Stanislaw Solicki, "Geneza legendy tatarskiej na Slasku," in Bitwa Legnieka: Historia i tradycja, ed. Waclaw Korta (Wroclaw: Volumen, 1994), 125-50.
(29) "Vita Sanctae Hedwigis," 562; Klapper, "Tatarensage der Schlesier," 185.
(30) "Vita Sanctae Hedwigis," 562-63.
(31) Ibid., 561; Klapper, "Tatarensage der Schlesier," 184.
(32) "Vita Sanctae Hedwigis," 561; Klapper, "Tatarensage der Schlesier," 184.
(33) Solicki, "Historia ducis Henrici," 452.
(36) Zientara, "Cesarzowa tatarska na Slasku," 177; Solicki, "Geneza legendy tatarskiej na Slasku," 132-35.
(37) P. Scheffer-Boichorst, ed., "Albrici monachi Triumfontium Chronicon," in Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptorum, ed. Georgius Heinricus Pertz (Hannover: Hahn, 1874), 23:921.
(38) Oswald Balzer, Genealogia Piastow (Cracow: Avalon, 2005), 386, 961.
(39) K. Jasinski, "Uzupelnienia do genealogii Piastow," Studia Zrodloznawcze 5 (1960): 97-100; Zientara, Hernyk Brodaty i jego czasy, 324; Slawomir Pelczar, Wladyslaw Odonic--ksiaze wielkopolski, wygnaniec I protector Kosciola (ok. 1193-1239) (Cracow: Avalon, 2013), 257-58.
(40) Zientara, "Cesarzowa tatarska na Slasku," 177.
(41) Alexander Przezdziecki, ed., Joannis Dlugossii seu Longini Historiae Polonicae, 12 vols. (Cracow: Typographia Kirchmayeriana, 1873-78), 2:267; A. V. Maiorov, "Mongol'skoe zavoevanie Volyni i Galichiny: Spornye i nereshennye voprosy," Rusin, no. 1 (2015): 19.
(42) Kuhnau, Mittelschlesische Sagen geschichtlicher Art, 472.
(43) Ibid.; Zientara, "Cesarzowa tatarska na Slasku," 176.
(44) Tadcusz Kozaczewski, Sroda Slaska (Wroclaw: Ossol., 1965), 6.
(45) Waclaw Korta, Najazd Mongolow na Polske i jego legnicki epilog (Katowice: Slaski Instytut Naukowy, 1983), 112-38.
(46) PSRL 2, col. 784; Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 48.
(47) PSRL 2, col. 789; Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, 50.
(48) PSRL 1: Lavi-ent 'evskaia letopis', ed. E. F. Karskii (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1997), col. 470.
(49) Rashiduddin Fazlullah's Jami'u't-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles. A History of the Mongols, Pt. 1, trans. Wheeler M. Thackston (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 1998), 252, 326.
(50) Archdeacon Thomas of Split, History of the Bishops of Salona and Split, ed. Olga Peric et al. (New York: Central European University Press, 2006), 294-95.
(51) A. V. Maiorov, "The Mongolian Capture of Kiev: The Two Dates," Slavonic and East European Review 94, 4 (2016): 702-14.
(52) N. I. Serebrianskii, Drevnerusskie kniazheskie zhitiia: Obzor redaktsii i teksty (Moscow: Imperatorskoc obshchestvo istorii i drevnostci rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete, 1915), 57,61.
(53) Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, Storia dei Mongoli, ed. Enrico Menesto (Spoleto: Centro itaiiano di studi sull'alto Medioevo, 1989), 237, 238.
(55) PSRL 2, col. 795; Serebrianskii, Drevnerusskie kniazheskie zhitiia, 58, 62.
(56) Pian del Carpine, Storia dei Mongoli, 238.
(57) PSRL 1, col. 467.
(58) Shikhab ad-Din Mukhammad an-Nasavi, Zhizneopisanie sultana Dzhalal ad-Dina Mankburtiy, trans. Ziia M. Buniiatov (Baku: Elm, 1973), 107.
(59) "Annales sancti Pantaleonis Coloniensis," ed. Hermann Cardauns, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptorum (Hannover: Hahn, 1872), 22:535.
(60) Alf Roland Onnerfors, ed., Hystoria Tartarorum C. de Bridia monachi (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967), 21.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Mikhail Vsevolodovich|
|Author:||Maiorov, Alexander V.|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2017|
|Previous Article:||On the centenary of revolution.|
|Next Article:||"Pillars of the nation": the making of a Russian Muslim intelligentsia and the Origins of Jadidism.|