Mikhail, Prince of Chernigov and Grand Prince of Kiev, 1224-1246 by Martin DimnikReview by: Charles J. HalperinThe American Historical Review, Vol. 87, No. 4 (Oct., 1982), pp. 1078-1079Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1857954 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.52 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:56:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1078 Reviews of Books

ly in Russian trade with the West. It was a period of blossoming artistic activity, and the Novgorodian churches, icons, and frescoes were the proudest achievemenlt of the Russian arts between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. 'The end of' its indepen- dence-which, as Birnbaum stresses, resultecl from feuding among the leading boyar famnilies-came in 1478 when this still economically powerful republic was integrated into the growing Muscovite state.

'This first volume of' Birnbaum's study is an outstanding scholarly achievement that is most use- ful for the understandinig of' medieval Russia. Excel- lent maps and a vast ref'erence apparatus f'urther enhance the value of the work.

SERGE A. ZENKOVSKY

Vanderbilt Univerwit? Emeritus

ELLEN S. HURWITI Z. Pnrnce Andrej Bogo1jubskij: The Man and the Myth. (Studia Historica et Philologica, number 12; Sectio Slavica, number 4.) Florence: Licosa. 1980. Pp. 123.

Ellen S. Hurwitz divides her study of Andrei Bogoliubskii into two parts: the first presents Andrei's efforts to rule Rus and his relationship with the church, the second analyzes the religious and literary tracts that formed the myth of Andrei. Unfortunately the study is marred by unexplained paradoxes and vague terminology that confuse more than clarify Andrei's reign.

To cite but a few of the problems: we are told that Kiev was sacked in 1 169 (p. 18) and then in 1 168 (p. 46); that the white stone needed to build the churches in Vladimir could be cut off by the Volga Bulgars (p. 15), but was also readily accessible (p. 16). Hurwitz mentions the tribute payments collect- ed from Novgorod and the termination of pay- ments sent to Kiev, but we do not learn what the tribute consisted of (p. 16). She notes that Andrei had the support of the aristocracy (p. 13) and wealthy citizens (p. 14), but then lost their allegiance. Yet nothing is said about who these people are, and the social dynamics of twelfth-century politics are lost in ambiguities. Hurwitz presents an interesting discussion of Andrei's efforts to free Vladimir from the metropolitanate of Kiev, but she finds his grow- ing involvement in the politics and wars over Kiev perplexing (p. 17). Hurwitz takes to task those historians who have minimized Andrei's Kievan roots and have seen him as a break with the past and a precursor of Muscovite autocracy. Nevertheless, she accepts the charge-echoed by many histori- ans-that Andrei sought autocracy (samovlastie). But

Hurwitz f;ails to give us an analysis of what samovlastie in twelfth-century Russia could be. No conceptual framework of Kievan politics is present-

ed so that Andrei's rule can be judged in its histori- cal context. Andrei is often described as a crusader in his campaign against the Bulgars, but Hurwitz confuses the historical concept of' a crusader with a Christian warrior.

Hurwitz's analysis of the myth of Andrei is on the whole convincing. She describes how Andrei hoped to transf'orm Vladimir into a "new Jerusalem" com- plete with churches, a new Holy Day of the Interces- sion, the miraculous icon of the Mother of God, and a new saint, Leontius, to rival the saints of' Kiev. Andrei himself became a holy prince, def'ender of the faith, and his death transformed him into a passion-sufferer in the tradition of' Boris and Gleb.

Hurwitz's study suffers from a failure to discuss the social and economic dimensions of' twelf'th- century Russia or the function of' the princely myth in other principalities, which would make her analy- sis of Andrei's reign intelligible. Very little is given to explain Andrei's murder and the social upheavals that followed. Trhe non-Russian reader will not be helped by untranslatecl terms, and my copy coIn- fused pages 1 and 9.

LAWRENCE LANGER

University of Conntecticut

MARTIN DIMNIK. Mikhail, Printce of' Cherni'ov atnd Grand Prince of Kiez, 1224-1246. (Studies and TIexts, number 52.) foironto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 1981. Pp. xvi, 199. $14.00.

Martin Dimnik contends that historians have under- estimated the significance of Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich, who is best remembered for his execution by the Mongols in 1246 and subsequent canonization. rhe body of this monograph consists of an introduction on the limited historiography and Mikhail's life before 1224, three solid thematic (and hence chronologically partially overlapping) chapters on Mikhail's policies in Novgorod, Kiev, and Galich respectively, a brief chapter on Mikhail's death, a conclusion that recapitulates the detailed summaries at the close of each chapter, and an epilogue tracing the development of Mikhail's cult. All of this material fills 155 pages. The remaining quarter of the book is occupied by four genealogical tables, a glossary, a chronological table of events designed to show the relationship among occur- rences in the various regions of Russia (which I found superfluous), four maps, a selected bibliogra- phy, and author, source, and general indexes. There are five glossy black-and-white illustrations.

Dimnik set out to write a princely political history on the basis of often conflicting or confused chroni- cle information, and in this he succeeds. He has obviously mastered the data in the chronicles and the relationships among the chronicles. He has

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.52 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:56:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Medieval 1079

surmounted the obstacles to a coherent chronology created by the chroniclers' use of three calendars. He does provide a generally credible picture of Mikhail as an influential prince of Chernigov and grand prince of Kiev, who challenged other Riurikids for supremacy in Novgorod and southern Rus in the first half of the thirteenth century. Mikhail's ultimate undoing was not caused by a rival Russian prince but by the machinations of the Mongols, who executed him for political, not reli- gious, reasons.

But by immersing himself so deeply in the chroni- cles in order to construct his political narrative, Dimnik seems to have assimilated their conception of politics too well. Nests of princes from the same dynastic-regional line, such as Mikhail's Ol'govichi, competed for control of the "golden throne" of Kiev or cities like Novgorod for prestige and the profits of international commerce. Success in the political game depended upon family cohesion and leader- ship. Luck also helped; it was better if one's enemies were troubled by rebellious nobles, famines, or droughts. This perspective has its merits, but Dimnik makes no attempt to look outside it for relevant matters. Paucity of data would preclude definitive discussion, but Dimnik might at least have posed the question of the economy, society, and political structure of Mikhail's principality to explain his ability to carry out his political stratagems. 'rhis is very much political narrative in a contextual vacu- um.

Although he is aware of the dangers, Dimnik is not entirely consistent in his use of such suspect sources as Tatishchev or the sixteenth-century Nikon chronicle. But more serious is the problem posed by the silence of the chronicles on motivation. In compensating for this omission he sometimes falls into unpersuasive speculation. For example, his most controversial conclusions derive from the cred- ibility he accords a unique sentence in two mid- fifteenth-century chronicles that Daniil of Galicia- Volynia, among other princes, concluded a peace with the Mongols in 1239. Dimnik utilizes this agreement to explain Daniil's failure to fortify his lands against a possible Mongol invasion and his absence from them when that invasion occurred, among other things. His whole line of reasoning rings false, although the "peace" of 1239 itself requires further study.

Finally, in my opinion Dimnik overplays Mikhail's status as the last and most consistent opponent of Mongol rule, whose cult served as a symbol of resistance to hated foreign oppression. Mikhail did, after all, flee the Mongols in 1239-40, and he did submit to them in 1245-46 rather than risk losing Chernigov. In his vita Mikhail acknowledges that Batu's power as ruler is from God, a Pauline note on which Dimnik does not comment. Although Dimnik

appreciates the difference between history and hagi- ography (or even history written by a chronicler), he adheres too much to the traditional interpretation of unbridled medieval Russian hostility toward the infidel Tatars.

This soft-covered book is quite well produced, although there are more typographical errors than I would have expected. Dense princely political narra- tive does not make for light reading, but Dimnik handles it well. Indeed, one welcomes the repetition and summary throughout the text, which do genu- inely aid understanding of the complex genealogical and political relationships discussed. I would have preferred a comprehensive bibliography because a number of relevant studies are not mentioned in the notes. These criticisms aside, Dimnik has fulfilled his intended purpose competently, justified putting Mikhail in the limelight, and made a useful contri- bution to early Russian history.

CHARLES J. HALPERIN

Columbia University

DANIEL H. KAISER. The Growth of the Law in Medieval Russia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1980. Pp. xii, 308. $25.00.

Although far from being nationalistic, I once pledged not to review any more American books whose authors totally disregard German-language publications on their subject. I am sorry to have to depart from this stand because by now simply too many American scholars seem to be convinced that the study of Russian history is possible without the knowledge of German (or French). In Daniel H. Kaiser's case the dust jacket of his book promises that "he challenges . . . the pioneering Western studies of medieval Russian law," but his bibliogra- phy fails to list a single German title on Russian history, not Goetz, Hellmann, Sacke, Jakovliv, Koneczny, or even the pioneering work that was done by German church historians. Oddly enough, G. F. Ewers's book on Old Russian law written in 1816 was used in its Russian translation of 1835, and L. K. Goetz's two volumes on the Russkaia Pravda (1910-11) are only mentioned in the disguise of Presniakov's review in the Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia (42 [1912]). This is all the stranger since the author is using a model of legal change extracted from the comparative literature of sociology, anthropology, and law, and his list of studies on African tribal legal institutions is well- nigh complete.

Having started out with criticism, contrary to the usual composition of a review, it is now time to speak about the strengths and positive qualities of Kaiser's book. The author has written an intelligent and readable history of the growth (not of the

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.52 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:56:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions