'Ukrainian' and 'Russian' Chroniclers on the Mongol Invasion (28.12.2024)
A monologue by Vitaliy Dribnytsya based on V. Rudakov’s article “The Ruin or Captivity of the Russian Land” (the collection The Many Faces of Everyday Life, RAS, 2014). The article draws on the segment about the source base of chronicle-writing (no originals survive; the oldest copies date to the 15th c.; four main redactions) and about the difference in assessments of the Mongol invasion: the “southern” Hypatian chronicle (conventionally Kyivan/Ukrainian) presents the invasion as the devil’s machinations to be resisted, whereas the “northern” Laurentian and Novgorod chronicles present it as God’s punishment to be humbly accepted. Mykhailo of Chernihiv, Danylo of Halych, and Danylo’s alliance with the Pope of Rome are mentioned. A source for the article on Moscow’s appropriation of the legacy of Rus’.
Key moments
- 03:17 No original chronicles survive; the oldest copies date to the 1420s (15th c.)
- 03:43 Four main sources: the Novgorod chronicles (older/younger redaction), the Laurentian, the Hypatian
- 04:45 The Hypatian (Kyivan) — the viewpoint of southern Rus'; the Novgorod/Laurentian — the north-west and north-east
- 07:15 V. Rudakov's article (RAS, 2014): two conceptions of the invasion — 'repentance' vs 'resistance'
- 08:08 The Kyivan princes (Mykhailo of Chernihiv, Danylo of Halych) and Danylo's alliance with the Pope of Rome
- 08:45 Hypatian chronicle: the invasion is the devil's machinations to be resisted; Laurentian/Novgorod — God's punishment to be accepted