2025, vol. 13, no. 1. Halperin Ch.J.

2025, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 8-16

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22378/2313-6197.2025-13-1.8-16

EDN: https://elibrary.ru/DAGBSS

   A NOTE ON RECENT RESEARCH ON THE TERM
THE ‘TATAR YOKE’ (TATARSKOE IGO)

Charles J. Halperin
Indiana University Bloomington
Indiana, USA
chalperi@iu.edu

Abstract. Research objectives: This essay analyzes and critiques recent research on the genealogy of the expression “Tatar Yoke” (Tatarskoe igo), the standard term for the period of Mongol rule of Rus’, in both Slavic and Latin.
Research materials: This essay is based upon publications from 1984 to the present by Halperin, Ostrowski, Keenan, Rudakov, and Seleznev.
Results and novelty of research: In 1984, Halperin identified the discovery of the earliest appearance of Tatarskoe igo in Slavic dated to the second half of the seventeenth century, made by Lev Dmitriev who did not appreciate its significance. Therefore the term was an anachronism if projected onto thirteenth- to fifteenth-century Rus’. This conclusion remained unchallenged until now. At that time, Halperin did not address the genealogy of the expression in Latin. Ostrowski and Keenan found theoretically the earliest Latin usages (jugum tartarico) in foreign texts from 1521 and 1575. Apparently Ostrowski’s and Keenan’s contributions to the topic escaped the attention of historians in Russia. Rudakov himself found Keenan’s source but failed to notice that it referred not just to the “yoke” but the “Tatar Yoke.” Seleznev has discovered two Latin references from the thirteenth century, one supposedly a translation from a no longer extant Slavic text. Seleznev concludes that the expression “Tatar Yoke” was therefore known at the time and is not an anachronism. The present essay reinterprets the significance of Seleznev’s findings for our understanding of the Latin genealogy of “Tatar Yoke.” The existence of the term in Slavic is suspect, but in Latin clearly it is as old as Tatar rule. However, the significance of both Rudakov’s and Seleznev’s brilliant depiction of how writers both Catholic and Orthodox interpreted the Tatar conquest of Rus’ via analogy with Old Testament narrations of the enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians and the Babylonian Captivity of the Hebrews lies elsewhere. This essay argues that we have to consider that any author familiar with Scripture could easily independently have made the leap from “Yoke” to “Tatar Yoke,” which renders a genealogy of the evolution of the term moot. Historians still need to address how Catholic writers in the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries made that conceptual link, but no Rus’/Russian author did so until the second half of the seventeenth century.

Keywords: Tatarskoe igo, Donald Ostrowski, Edward Keenan, Vladimir Rudakov, Iurii Seleznev

For citation: Halperin Ch.J. A Note on Recent Research on the Term the ‘Tatar Yoke’ (Tatarskoe igo). Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie=Golden Horde Review. 2025, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 8–16. https://doi.org/10.22378/2313-6197.2025-13-1.8-16

REFERENCES

  1. Dmitriev, L.A. Book of the Battle of Mamai, Tatar Khan, with Prince Dmitrii of Vladimir and Moscow. Works of the Sector of Old Rus’ Literature, 1979, no. 34, p. 61–71. (In Russian)
  2. Gal’perin, Ch. Tatar Yoke. The Image of the Mongols in Medieval Russia. Translated by M.E. Kopylova, ed. Iu. V. Seleznëv. Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2012, 230 p. (In Russian)
  3. Halperin, C.J. Rewriting History: The Nikon Chronicle on Rus’ and the Horde. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. 2010, no. 17, pp. 11–26.
  4. Halperin, C.J. Russia and the Mongols. Slavs and the Steppe in Medieval and Early Modern Russia. ed. V. Spinei and G. Bilavschi. Bucarest: Editura Academiae Romane, 2007, 329 p.
  5. Halperin, C.J. The Tatar Yoke. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, Inc. 1986, 231 p.
  6. Halperin, C.J. The Tatar Yoke and Tatar Oppression. Russia Mediaevalis. 1984, no. 5, pp. 20–39. Reprint [4, p. 168–81].
  7. Halperin, C.J. The Tatar Yoke: The Image of the Mongols in Medieval Russia. 2nd corrected edition. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, Inc., 2009. viii +239 p.
  8. Keenan, E.L. Ivan III, Nikolai Karamzin, and the Legend of the ‘Casting off of the Tatar Yoke’. V. Kivelson, K. Petrone, N. Kollmann, and M. Flier, ed. The New Muscovite Cultural History: A Collection in Honor of Daniel B. Rowland. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, Inc, 2009, pp. 237–51.
  9. Maciej z Miechowa (Maciej Karpiga), Chronica Polonorum. 1519; Cracow, 1521.
  10. Ostrowski, D. Muscovy and the Mongols. Cross-cultural influences on the steppe frontier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. xvi +329 p.
  11. Tales of the Battle of Kulikovo. Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences Publ., 1959, 501 p. (In Russian)
  12. Prinz, D. Moscoviae ortus, et progressus, Gubenae, Christopher Gruber, 1681, reprint, Scriptorus Rerum Livonicarum, 2 vv. Riga and Leipzig, Eduard Franken, 1853, vol. 2, pp. 687–728.
  13. Rudakov, V.N. Conception of the Horde ‘Yoke” and Relations with the Horde in Russian Social Consciousness of the Second Half of the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries. Annals of MGIMO: Muscovite State Institute of International Relations, 2012, no. 4, pp. 24–32. (In Russian)
  14. Rudakov, V.N. Dependence on the Horde in Russian Historical Terminology. Kirillin, V. M., ed., Ancient Rus’. Range of Bookish Words. Historical-Philological Studies. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury, 2015, pp. 437–53. (In Russian)
  15. Collection of the Russian Historical Society, no. 71. St. Petersburg: Tipografiya V.S. Balasheva, 1892. (in Russian)
  16. Seleznev, Iu.V. Reception of the Understanding of ‘Yoke’ in the Epoch of the Establishment of the Mongol/Horde Sovereignty. Quaestio Rossica, 2024, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 1127–1140. https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.3.927 (In Russian)

INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Charles J. Halperin – Ph.D. (History), Research Fellow of the Russian and East European Institute, Indiana University (Bloomington, Indiana, USA). E-mail: chalperi@iu.edu

Received  09.09.2024
Revised  27.12.2024
Accepted  10.01.2025