"YOUR HIGH HONOR." RUSSIAN STATEHOOD IN THE SYSTEM OF TRADITIONAL IDEAS ABOUT MONARCHY AMONG THE PEOPLES OF EURASIA OF THE XV-XVIII CENTURIES. 1

Russian historiography of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Soviet and foreign historiography of the 20th century focused mainly on the consequences of the annexation of peoples to Russia (Russian historians wrote mainly about the positive consequences, Western historians - about the negative ones). Many authors in the former Soviet republics and partly in the modern Russian republics negatively assess the government's policy towards the peoples of the XV-XVIII centuries, to the detriment of its objective analysis.

One of the little-studied aspects of this range of issues is the study of ways to attract national elites to cooperate with the government; elites ' understanding of their place and responsibilities in a single state; and various interpretations of the legitimacy of Russian rule in the annexed territories. In particular, on the basis of written and folklore sources, it is advisable to analyze how the non-Slavic peoples of Russia in the XV-XVIII centuries perceived the supreme power, how they interpreted Russian citizenship, what were their ideas about the functions and prerogatives of the monarch, and the limits of their subordination to him.

Historically, the Russian state has begun a planned territorial expansion in the eastern direction. Both the specific circumstances of the 15th and 16th centuries and the peculiar geopolitical traditions of the Turko-Mongol (Golden Horde) statehood had an impact here. In relation to its eastern and later southern neighbors, Russia objectively appeared as a victorious participant in the struggle for the inheritance of the Golden Horde. Establishing relations with the former Horde subjects-Tatars, Bashkirs and Nogais-took place according to their usual ideological and administrative canons. This helped them to adapt less painfully to life within the Moscow State [for more details, see Trepavlov, 2004]. For the annexed peoples, the main personification of the Russian state was the image of the Russian "white tsar".

The thesis about the continuity of Muscovite Russia in relation to the Golden Horde, formulated by the Eurasian school of historians, has many adherents. However, an unbiased review of the sources ' material shows that this idea does not reflect the real state of affairs, but rather represents a speculative interpretation of the results of Russian expansion in the late Middle Ages. Te issle-

1 This work was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, project No. 03-01-0561a.

page 26

readers who study the past of the peoples of Russia not from historiosophical and journalistic treatises, but from adequate documentary evidence, recognize that if the "Horde trace" is noticeable in Russian statehood, it is not as a substratum, fundamental and long-term beginning. In the literature of recent years, one can find indications of the transitory nature and gradual extinction of Tatar political traditions [Khodarkovsky, 2002, p. 222], of the unreality, impossibility for Muscovy of "collecting Horde lands", since the borders of the Golden Horde were unstable and, moreover,did not coincide at all with the borders of the Grand Duchy of Moscow [Galperin, 2003, p. 222]. p. 69, 70]. On the contrary, the formation of a young Russian state had in its ideological foundation the image and legacy of the not alien Tatar "kingdom"-the enslaver, but the lost co-religionist Byzantium. A kind of compensation for the fall of the "second Rome" in 1453 was Moscow's defeat of its neighbors - the Muslim khanates, and in these conditions, conscious imitation of the Horde statehood and adoption of Horde ideological attitudes was unthinkable [Bokhanov, 2002, p.187, 188; Uspensky, 1996, p. 213].

However, we cannot ignore the obvious fact that in practice the Russian authorities used Tatar administrative techniques in their relations with the annexed peoples. This conflict is most succinctly and adequately explained by N. S. Borisov: the Moscow government adopted not an ideology, but a technology of power [Borisov, 2003, p.11]. Let us add to this the observation of I. V. Erofeeva: such "technological" borrowings were primarily directed to the needs of the eastern policy of the government [Erofeeva, 1993, p. 274] 2 . In fact, Russian politicians in the era of territorial expansion of the state had to deal not with the Golden Horde that had sunk into oblivion, but with its "fragments". Therefore, it was more relevant to determine the place of Russia in the system of these hereditary khanates. Galperin, who categorically opposed the idea of the succession of the Muscovite Kingdom from the Golden Horde, nevertheless believes that in its policy towards the Volga peoples, "Muscovy recognized itself as the successor of the power of the Kazan and Astrakhan khans" (Galperin, 2003, p. 70). And these are already incomparable values with the huge Ulus of Jochi of the XIII-XIV centuries.

As the Austrian ambassador A. Mayerberg remarked in 1661 about the presence of the kingdoms of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia in the royal title, "these countries probably do not deserve the name of empires or kingdoms (excluding Siberia), because apart from the cities from which they received their name, hardly a few small towns are considered under the title of empires." by its own political power "[Mayerberg, 1873, p. 117]. He was echoed by the Danish envoy to Peter I Yu. Yul:"...It goes without saying that these small states (Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia ) could not have been empires. ...After the conquest of these insignificant states, the Russian grand dukes received the title of tsar, and unwise flatterers, out of ignorance of the language and yielding to self-deception in relation to the word "tsar", decided to change this title into the title of "emperor" (Keiser)" [Yul, 1899, p. 157].

We should point out, however, that when contacts with the Eastern rulers concerned the possession of the former Golden Horde lands, the Russians found reasons to defend their rights to them. Thus, the order to A. Nagy, sent by the ambassador to the Crimea in

2 This thesis is expressed by I. V. Yerofeyev regarding the use of genealogical traditions under Ivan IV. Typologically, this could be attributed just to the sphere of state ideology, but in reality, manipulations with the" Tatar ancestors "of the tsar served as a tool for short-term politics. S. Lemercier-Kelkezhe sees the "Genghisid model" in the Russian policy of the XV-XX centuries. on the annexation of neighboring peoples, when it was enough to persuade the elite stratum to Russian citizenship, and the people already followed him automatically [Lemercier-Quelquejay, 1992, p. 20].

page 27

1563, read: "If they remember (the Tatars - V. T. ) in any case about the Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich Kalit and about the tsar of Uzbekistan (Khan of the Golden Horde in 1312-1341 - V. T.)..., then answer that such talk will not go to a good cause... now, by God's will, the Uzbek yurt is in someone's hands, you know yourself; it is known from whom messengers and voivodes sit in that yurt, and you know who should send a memorial service to whom in the Uzbek yurt " (cit. by: [Solov'ev, 1989, p. 577]).

But so far we have been talking about the attitude of Russians to the Horde heritage. The purpose of this article is to try to determine the view of this problem from the "opposite" side, i.e., Russia's eastern and southern neighbors, many of whom later became its subjects.

First of all, we note that the real military and political power of the Muscovite state was realized in the surrounding possessions, and the gradual annexation of territories inhabited by Turks was perceived as a consequence of this power. Even the most powerful ruler of the East and later the head of the Muslim world, the Ottoman Padishah, already at the end of the XV century. recognized the right of the Grand Duke to own nomadic steppes. In repeated appeals to Ivan III, he used the formula "all Russia of the Eastern and Polsk lands prince", "all Russia of the Eastern and Polsk and Desh and other many lands prince", "By God's command of the Russian and Eastern and Desh sides of the Kolka cities sovereign", etc. ., vol. 41, pp. 244, 245, 247, 289]. "Polskoy"," Deshskoy " here means Desht-i Kipchak ("Kipchak steppe") - an area of nomadic steppes (in the first case with the translation: "field" - steppe)3 .

This was all the more obvious for Russia's immediate neighbors. The establishment of Russian hegemony was perceived by the inhabitants of the Volga region and the Southern Urals as a transition of power from the Turkic khans to the Moscow ruler. After the conquest of Kazan by Ivan IV, "lugovaya cheremisa "" came to Kazan to the tsar autocrat with great humility and submission, and surrendered everything to him, and called herself a new tsar "[Complete..., vol. 29, stb. 169]4 . The memory of these events has been preserved for centuries. Back in the XVIII century Bashkirs recalled how "our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers came to the great sovereign by their own wills, leaving the former khans", "their grandfathers and their fathers from the ancestors of the Masulman and Nagai khans owned patrimonial lands and waters and, having found the grand dukes-sovereigns, came under the protection of their majesty by themselves" [cit. by: Istoriya..., 1996, p. 146].

Ivan IV himself, when organizing power over the conquered Kazan and Siberian Khanates, was guided in some aspects by the pre-Russian administrative canons. The local population was ordered to pay taxes (yasak) to the royal treasury in the same amount, "as the former Kazan tsar", once even with clarification

3 I. V. Zaitsev suggests that in this case the sultan's recognition of Ivan III's title "Prince of Bulgaria", which appeared after the capture of Kazan by the Moscow army in 1487, may have been reflected [Zaitsev, 2004, p.183]. It is characteristic that in the same period, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Giray addressed Ivan Vasilyevich without listing the territories subject to him - simply "bow to my brother" or "our word is that". This can be explained by the claims of the Crimea to seize the former territory of the Golden Horde. Subsequently, the name "Desht-i Kipchak" became part of the title of the Crimean khans, and the magnificent titulature of the Moscow rulers was perceived with irritation. In 1658, Muhammad Giray IV reprimanded Alexey Mikhailovich: "Do you put yourself above your ancestors? Do we not know that your fathers, content with the Kingdom of Moscow, wrote letters to the neighboring padishahs in accordance with this? And you claim to be above them, write yourself... Padishah of the West and East... " (cit. by: [Faizov, 2003, p. 143]).

According to the observations of A. L. Khoroshkevich, the inclusion of Desht - i Kipchak in the list of territories subject to the Grand Duke corresponded to the Ottoman tradition, "which assimilated the claims of the Russian sovereign to all the lands of pre-Mongol Russia and generously included the Trans-Volga Desht within its power" (Khoroshkevich, 2002, p. 107).

4 In all quotations, the italics are mine.

page 28

a specific period in the history of the khanate - the era of the Moscow protectorate: "as it was under the Magmedelim tsar "(i.e., Muhammad-Amin, khanate in 1487-1496 and 1502 - 1518) [Complete ..., vol. 13, part 1, pp. 221, 222; 1965, p. 205]. For more information, see also: [Alishev, 1990, p. 177; Bakhtin, 1998, p. 135; Grishkina et al., 1983, p. 38; Istoriya..., 1996, p. 137] 5 .

Thus, the preservation of the principle of yasach taxation established in the Tatar "yurts" served not only as a tool for exercising the power of the Russian government over the newly united territories, but also as a means of least painful involvement of their population in the system of Russian citizenship. In addition, the initial adaptability of the Yasak to the algorithm of state taxation (at that time the most expedient in the conquered lands), the level of socio-economic development of local peoples (the yasak system corresponded to this level), and the psychological need of Tatars, Bashkirs and others to preserve some basic traditional institutions were taken into account [see: Dimitriev, 1986, p. 57; Skobelev].

When discussing the problem of perception of the prerogatives of the Russian tsar by the surrounding peoples, yasach taxation appears as one of the main signs of his monarchical powers. These powers, in the new historical circumstances, have now passed to the Muscovite sovereign. Only he had the right to determine the amount of taxes and demand their payment. In the course of the struggle for hegemony on the ruins of the Golden Horde, Moscow was inevitably involved in organizing the redistribution of the once-harmonious tribute payment system. There is a well-known correspondence between the Crimean khans and Ivan III and Vasily III regarding the fact that "levies" from those parts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that the Russians annexed to their state in the late 15th and early 16th centuries should continue to be collected in favor of Bakhchisarai and delivered there, just as under the rule of the Lithuanians [see: Solovyov, 1989, p. 82; Khoroshkevich, 2001, p. 236, 237].

After the" capture of Kazan", the recognition of such prerogatives for Ivan IV began to spread even more intensively - even outside the conquered Volga khanate. In 1555, the Siberian beks Yadgar and Bek-Pulad, anticipating the approach of a brutal war with Sultan Kuchum, turned to Moscow with a request for patronage and protection. Exactly following the Golden Horde canons, which are familiar to these new partners, Ivan gave them a label for reigning (bek), imposed a tribute on their "yurts" and appointed his deputy there-da rgu, in whose favor a "road toll" was assigned [Miller, 1999, p. 204, 205; Complete..., vol. 13, part 1, pp. 248, 276, 285]. When Kuchum defeated the Beks (1563), he confirmed the vassalage obligations of the Siberian Tatars and their willingness to pay tribute. The tsar sent to Siberia "his friend Ilya Lachinov with his salary certificate" [RGADA, d. 8, l. 91]. However, Khan soon broke off relations with Moscow.

The appointment of daruga had clear analogies in the Golden Horde, and there was a precedent in Russian-Tatar relations. In 1376, the troops of Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod and Prince Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow set out on a campaign "against the Bulgarians, Reksha against Kazan". The enemy's army was defeated by them, the Russians took the "okup "" and all their will to eat, and the road and the customs officer posadish in Kazan, and vzvratisya v svoyasi "[Complete..., vol. 11, p. 25]. "Customs officer", presumably, was intended to control the collection of tamga-trade duties. Vee again-

5 However, Sh. F. Mukhamedyarov notes that although the initial amount of yasak (half-salary from the yard) established by the government did not really exceed the previous one, local voivodes soon introduced a number of fees - including in their favor - which turned out to be several times more than the yasak norm established by the tsar [Istoriya..., 1968, p. 103].

page 29

dim orientation on the Horde samples, but after all, the city was occupied by the Tatar one. So the management in it was arranged as usual for Kazan residents.

In addition to the right to collect taxes, the suzerain had the power to make land grants. And just as in the case of Yasak, the Russian monarchs had to take over the settlement of land ownership rights. Moreover, in many cases they dealt with the archaic phenomenon of tribal ownership of land. Accordingly, grants were often granted to clans and tribes (represented by their leaders-representatives). This situation was clearly manifested in relations with the Bashkirs. Their western part was part of the Kazan Khanate until the middle of the 16th century, and it was once the Khan of Kazan who, in response to the request of the Bashkir delegation, gave his Bashkir subjects the right to use the lands [Lossievsky, 1881].

Note that in this case we are not talking about the allocation of new possessions. The Khan confirmed the right of subjects to use their ancestral lands inherited from their ancestors. Simply, it was possible to legally own them only with the permission and consent of the highest authority. It is clear that the population of the annexed territories mostly continued to live in their former places, and the change of power (in this case, Tatar to Russian) required updating such permission and consent. In one of the historical legends, Bashkir envoys say to Tsar Ivan: "Fix us on the lands that belonged to our ancestors from time immemorial "[Bashkir..., 2001, p. 231]6 .

Thus, even in this case, the Moscow government objectively inherited the administrative powers of its predecessors. The literature describes the situation when, during the surveying of Mordovian lands in 1690, the inhabitants of two villages presented two right-affirming documents: the charter of the Kazan khan "Safai"(obviously Safa-Giray, who ruled intermittently in 1524-1549) and the charter of Tsar Boris Godunov. The second certificate was most likely issued on the basis of the first one, and both were accepted by Russian officials for consideration [Heraklitov, 2000, p. 142].

The intervention of a strong state power was also required, of course, in conflicts over land. Thus, in the middle of the 17th century, the Khorin Buryats recognized themselves as subjects of the tsar and regularly brought yasak to the Nerchinsk prison; but over time, the Russians began to drive them out of good lands. Then the Khorintsy sent a deputation to Peter I, who issued them a charter of salary for the right to own their own nomads, "breed lands". After that, relations with the Russians improved [Tulokhonov, 1973, p. 99; Tsydendambaev, 1972, p. 51, 53, 58].

Even more urgent was the consolidation of newly occupied territories. In the legends, they usually appear as empty or abandoned by the former inhabitants. Such cases were recorded among the Vyatka Tatars (Ivan IV granted their ancestor the "Nukrat country" - a locality in Vyatka, along the Cheptsy River) [Usmanov, 1972, p. 182, 183], Gorno-Okinsky Buryats (received from Peter I a sanction for possession of the Burangol Valley [Dugarov, 2002, p. 20, 21]), as well as several Bashkir tribes that occupied vast steppes after the migration of the bulk of the Nogai, the former rulers of those places (Trepavlov (2), 2003).

The organization of taxation in the newly united regions also had a downside: exemption from dacha payments as a benefit or reward. In the Turkic-Mongolian state tradition, those who received such an exemption were called tarkhans. This term also entered the Russian social terminology of the late Middle Ages. Judging by the folklore display of acceptance

6 The king's answer: "I, the white king, accept you as my free subjects, attach you to the lands that have always belonged to your ancestors, your Bashkir families."

page 30

As a rule, the tsar granted tarkhanism to nobles who initiated the annexation to Russia or had special merits before it (for example, participation in the suppression of popular movements). Obviously, there was also a confirmation of the old, pre-Russian tarkhanism granted by the Khans [Dimitriev, 1986, p. 345]. Receiving tarkhan benefits from the tsar was especially memorable for Bashkirs. In their pedigrees, the shedger repeatedly describes the receipt of this rank by the leaders of clans [see, for example: Bashkir..., 2002, p. 151, 156] 7 .

Tarkhan is generally a status, not a title. But the distribution of titles and titles also belonged to the exclusive rights of the overlord. Popular memory associated the award of such titles with the Russian monarch. The Bashkir-Yurmaty shedger describes how simultaneously with the establishment of the yasak norm and the permission to occupy the nomads of the departed nogais, Ivan IV granted the main Yurmatyn leader the rank of murza, and made the other three "foremen" (biys) [Istoriya..., 1996, p. 141]. According to the historical legend of the Khakass, as a reward for the decision to become a Russian citizen, the "white khan" presented the head of the Beltirov tribe with the signs of princely power: a whip for punishing the disobedient, a saber for reprisals against enemies and a banner to demonstrate their belonging to Russia. The display of the banner was intended as a warning to the Mongol yasach collectors, who also claimed taxes from beltirov [Butanaev and Butanaeva, 2001, p.46] (see historical prototypes of the situation described here). Peter I granted banners to the families of the Khorinsky and Selenginsky Buryats (Tsydendambaev, 1972, p. 169).

In the last example, an interesting phenomenon is observed: there is a kind of investiture with a corresponding ritual. Such cases are not uncommon in Russian administrative practice. Even in the first half of the XVI century, the planting of vassal khans dependent on Russia in Kazan was carried out with the help and supervision of boyars and voivodes specially sent for this purpose [see, for example: Bitnaya..., Book 1, p. 165, 166; Book 2, p. 321]. In the same way, the Horde khans acted in the old days, sending their ambassadors for the introduction of princes into office after receiving labels. In 1606, Tsar Vasily Shuisky informed the Berezovsky voivode that he favored the Koda Ostyak prince Onzhu Yuryev "with his former volosts, which were previously behind him for Onzhu... with all the land and yasak, and our salary certificate is given to him." The voivode was ordered to present the certificate to Onzhe, so that on its basis he could "own and collect yasak for himself." At the same time, it was necessary to hand over to the Ostyak prince paltysh, who was kept by the Berezovsky authorities - some kind of idol ("according to their faith... blockhead"), which obviously served as a kind of sacred generic symbol (Miller, 1999, p. 407). By order of the government in 1784, the Caucasian commander P. Potemkin presented the Kumyk shamkhal with a sable coat and a saber along with a certificate of citizenship (Gadzhiev, 1965, p.148).

Among the examples of investment actions that I know of, the most striking and obvious ones seem to be those related to Nogai. In their relations with the Nogai Horde, Moscow politicians were sometimes so keen on inventing ways to "tie" the steppe people to Moscow that they allowed themselves to ignore the restrictions and conventions adopted in the nomadic steppe.

From the beginning of the 17th century, the tsar's charter confirmed the election of a new ruler by nomadic Mirza aristocrats, and the Astrakhan voivodes developed a solemn ceremonial of his introduction to office. In 1600, the newly elected biy Ishterek, together with the most prominent mirzas, was invited to come to Astrakhan to study with his family.

7 R. G. Kuzeev, a leading researcher and publicist of Bashkir shejere, believed that the institute of tarkhans became widespread among Bashkirs only after joining Russia [Bashkirskiye..., 1960, p. 201].

page 31

presentation of letters of commendation from the capital. Upon arrival, the nomads learned that they would have to perform an act of real enthronement, "raising to the khanate." The voivodes decided that the mirzas should raise Ishterek on white felt, just as they proclaimed the Genghisid khans in the independent nomadic states of the Golden Horde and the Tatar Khanates. Among the Nogais, such a rite was never used: they did not have the right to it, since they were led by biys, and not khans. The Mirzas thought hard: "And they didn't know that Evo, Ishterek Murza, was to be raised to the throne on the epanche... And that hasn't happened in Nicola's old days." However, after consulting for a whole day, they finally decided, and Ishterek was raised on felt [RGADA, D. 5, l. 30-34]. The next and last biy, Kanai, in 1622 accepted this act without any doubts.

The solemn ritual of the "coronation" in Astrakhan included not only the main ceremony of "raising on the epanche". The behavior of all participants was described in detail - up to ostentatious massiveness on the streets: "streletsky and posadsky and all Zhiletsky people should be told to walk around the square and along the streets so that it is crowded" [Sobranie..., pp. 465-471].

The Nogai did not remain in debt and came up with their own versions of rituals that would show the dependence of their Horde on the Moscow sovereign: "the Turian saltans put tsars and them on the Crimean yurts... send sanjaks, and in Russian spears with a banner"; the appointment of the Nogai biya was proposed to be marked with another symbol - to send " your sovereign's salary gyrfalcons, and them... those gyrfalcons in the principality... banner". Trapping trained birds were highly valued and belonged to the "reserved" goods (prohibited for export bypassing the treasury). The embassy clerk, with whom the Nogai ambassadors in Moscow shared this idea, at first coldly retorted that, they say, "the sovereign's letters of grant with the seal have already been sent to the murzas-that's what the banner is for them... And now the sovereign has very few gyrfalcons in the gyrfalcon factory." But when Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich found out about this initiative, he considered it not burdensome and ordered to send two gyrfalcons to the highest Nogai dignitaries (the future biy and Nuradin, already scheduled for election) .8

The "Nogai" examples are also interesting in that they demonstrate the contacts of the government with the people who did not yet belong to the number of sovereign subjects ("direct serfs"). In this case, the recognition of the corresponding rank of the tsar and his authority for investiture, resulting from this rank, affected. The population of the North Caucasus has long had similar relations with Russia.

In 1614, a royal charter established the dependence of the border Kabardins and Chechens ("Tersk Okochans") from the Kabardian Prince Sunchaley "for his service" [Bliev, 2004, p. 67, 68]. The event was purely formal, since in fact the lands of the mountain peoples were not part of the Moscow Kingdom at that time, and Mikhail Fyodorovich only demonstrated his monarch's prerogatives. And Sunchaley, for his part, recognized the hierarchical supremacy of the "white tsar", his right to regulate the relations of domination and subordination in relation to the rulers, "junior" in rank.

Thirty-two years later, the same Mikhail Fyodorovich, after long and persistent requests, issued a letter to shamkhal Surkhai: "And they granted you according to your petition, they made you in Kumyks to a high rank in the shevkalstvo... "[cit. according to: Istoriya..., 1988, p. 345] (before that, the Shamkhal title was conferred by the Persian Shah).

When the nomads passed "under the high hand of the sovereign", they-due to the peculiarities of their economy and social life - were ready to entrust him with the main function of the steppe overlord-regulating the seasonal movements of the population.-

8 For the continuation and funny ending of this story, see [Trepavlov (1). 2003, p. 74].

page 32

research institutes and herds. From the Nogai side, risky initiatives were sometimes put forward, the implementation of which would lead to the complete subordination of the Horde to Moscow. In 1564, the Nogai ambassador Biya Din-Akhmed informed Ivan IV that the recently deceased biy Ismail had bequeathed to his children to entrust the distribution of nomadic ulus to the tsar: "whoever you tell to live in any ulus, they will rely on you." During the period of decomposition and disintegration of the Nogai Horde, in the 1620s, Mirza Jan-Muhammad, in an undated letter, also asked Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich to "indicate where the kochevati" Tinmametev and Ishterek mirzam with the ulus, i.e., to take on the main duty of nomadic overlord.

And in December 1628, a high-born delegation came to the Astrakhan voivodes with an unprecedented proposal in the history of Nogai-Russian relations. She came up with the idea "in their quarrels, what will they and their ulus people do ahead of time, according to their former Busurman custom, they (Nogai. - V. T.) do not manage anything, but want to... they, the Kanai prince and the Murzas, and all their ulus people, were protected in advance by your royal righteous judgment and defense - just like the Russian people; and not as it happened in advance: in all their enemies they were guided and managed among themselves... And to you, the great sovereign, welcome them... - to correct the punishment with your royal gracious decree and guilty ones, depending on the wines-just like the Russian people." The reason for the sensational undertaking was declared to be the inability to keep the Horde from collapse with the help of nomadic traditions: "But really... thine is the sovereign's mercy will not be, and lead them in their grievances and govern them among themselves according to their former custom - and them... dostal (i.e. finally. - V. T. ) among themselves razoritsa, and ulus people from them rozbreduttsa".

The government was not going to take direct control of the numerous nomads spreading across the steppes, not wanting, as A. A. Novoselsky writes, to embark on a new, unusual path for it [Novoselsky, 1948, p. 149] (although the Astrakhan Khanate and South-Western Siberia, populated largely by nomads, were freely included in the territory states!). Bolshye Nogai were traditionally perceived as foreigners, neighbors of Russia, not belonging to its population. Therefore, the voivodes, referring to the instructions received from the capital, replied to biy and Mirzam that the king "did not order their duties to be taken away from them," but indicated, "so be it for them... live freely and in peace according to their custom, as has been the custom from time immemorial. And their captivity... the sovereign did not order anything from their previous customs" [for more details, see Trepavlov, 2001, pp. 642, 643].

The authorities almost faced a similar situation in 1639, when one of the rebellious Siberian Kuchumovich tsarevichs, Devlet Giray, decided to stop the armed struggle with the Russians and asked: "Would the sovereign accept him with the children of Evo and with all evo ulus under his royal high hand and ordered him to wander wherever he could." he, the sovereign, will come, tells him to roam "[cit. by: Ustyugov, 1947, p. 47]. However, later the prince changed his mind and struck up a friendship with the Kalmyks.

The listed land and title grants were documented. In this case, folklore stories also sometimes contain Golden Horde reminiscences. Such acts were referred to by the well-known word "label" for the Turks and Russians: label aldyk, yarlukashlar aldilar - "received a label, labels" (after a petition to Tsar Ivan); in one legend about the events of the second half of the XVIII century, there is a "label written on a dog's skin" (et tirehene yazylgan ber label), which gave the right to the nobility and exempted from taxes [Bashkir..., 1960, p. 33, 111; Bashkir..., 2001, p. 231].

R. G. Kuzeev noted that any written document for Bashkirs was a "label" (from yar - to write) [Bashkir..., 1960, p. 182]. However, it is known that the term "label" comes from the Turkic-Mongolian jarlyg - "command, prescription, order"

page 33

[Drevnetyurkiy..., p. 242; for terminology, see Usmanov, 1979, p. 7, 8]. In addition, other names of royal charters are found in shezhera and legends - khitabnam and iska charotka kagizi (lit. "old paper-literacy") [see, for example: Asfandiyarov, 1982, p. 20; Bashkir..., 1960, p. 212].

The autocracy of the Moscow sovereign was manifested in his relations with the serving Tatars - first of all with the rulers of the Kasimov kingdom. Much has been written about these relations in detail, and the dependence and complete submission of the Kasimov residents to Moscow is beyond doubt. The literature has long expressed fair judgments that Ivan III, for example, "considered himself a complete master over the khans and sultans of Kasimov", and under Ivan IV, the latter " as if clearly expressed the power and completeness of tsarist power and the political successes of the Moscow sovereign... being his servants, but at the same time enjoying a certain degree of political independence" [Lileyev, 1891, p.9-10; Kobeko, 1893, p. 336]. The very appointment to the throne in Kasimov, and since the 1560s, the granting of the khan's rank [Velyaminov-Zernov, vol. 2, pp. 25, 26] was entirely in the hands of the Russian monarch. I will not elaborate on the status of the Kasimov Kingdom because of its prominence. I will only point out that the words of a Tatar chronicler of the early 17th century can serve as the quintessence of this status. Kadir Ali-bek on his patron, King Uraz-Muhammad: he "acted according to sharia law with his right hand, and with his left hand, according to the highest decree (label) of Sovereign Boris Fedorovich Khan, he beat thieves, robbers and the ungodly with a whip" [cit. by: Usmanov, 1972, p. 90]. Consequently, the source of the vassal khan's power here is also (in addition to Muslim law) the label issued in Moscow.

In their contacts with the service members, the sovereigns sometimes did not disdain to show their special favor to them, especially in comparison with other foreigners. There is a well-known case from the time of Ivan III, when the above-mentioned Sharia and the autocratic will of the Grand Duke of Moscow were intricately intertwined. In 1483, a visiting German physician Anton undertook to treat and "healed" to the death of Bek Kara-Khoja, an approximate servant of Tsarevich Danyar Kasimovich. There was a suspicion of deliberate poisoning. Although there was no proof, the Grand Duke issued a doctor for the execution of the son of the deceased. Anton was tortured, but in the end the aggrieved party got the German to pay a ransom for himself, and released him to freedom (this is how Sharia canons allowed to operate). However, Ivan Vasilyevich still ordered Anton to be captured and executed ("slaughtering him with a knife like a sheep") [Velyaminov-Zernov, vol. I, p. 89; for an analysis of the situation described, see also Borisov, 2003, p. 594]. In this case, the Grand Duke acted as the highest judicial and punitive authority in relation to his subjects, including non-believers who have their own legal provisions.

In general, the subordination of the Tatar dynasties to the Russian autocrat also had an indubitable ideological connotation as the supremacy of former tributaries over former conquerors .9

It seems that there are already enough facts given above to suggest that the Russian tsar (grand duke) in the hierarchical structure of the organization of power in a certain sense replaced the former Tatar khans. This thesis seems paradoxical, since the new khan is the head of the Orthodox Moscow state. However, the paradigm of relations with non-Slavic subjects indicates the use of their usual institutions of power just for inclusion in the number of subjects of this state. In particular, the Kazan Khanate is formal-

9 According to B. A. Uspensky, as the last stage of the three-hundred-year-old confrontation, one can interpret the deposition of Simeon Bekbulatovich on the Moscow throne by Ivan the Terrible in 1576 - as a self-appointed, illegal, costumed tsar [Uspensky, 1996, p. 156].

page 34

but it did not cease to exist, just the khan was now considered the Moscow tsar. This seemingly quite obvious idea, as far as I know, was first formulated quite recently by B. N. Florey [Florya, 2003, p. 42]. Ivan IV himself wrote in his first epistle to Kurbsky about the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan: "those kingdoms are obedient to our state in all things, and they obey us" [cit. according to: Florya, 2003, p. 42] - i.e. not destroyed, but preserved, turning into "obedient" parts of the state. In fact, both of these territorial formations survived until the Petrine regional reforms of the early eighteenth century, when they gave way to provincial and provincial divisions.

Foreign observers in the second half of the sixteenth century understood the situation in this way: "The people of Kazan and Astrakhan near the Volga River in former times had their own kings... Then they were conquered by Ivan Vasilyevich... The title of their Moscow tsar was used for himself and calls himself the tsar of both countries "[Daniel of Bukhov, pp. 59-60] .10 That is, the tsar of Kazan and the tsar of Astrakhan are exactly the Tatar titles adopted by the winner, and the tsar here is the khan.

By the way, the possession of Kazan was taken into account by the Eastern rulers when determining the rank of the tsar. In 1669, Khan Anush-Mukhammed of Khiva addressed Alexey Mikhailovich: "Great Russians to the great sovereign, the white tsar, and the Grand Duke of Moscow and Bulgaria..." [Materials..., p.210]. "Bulgarian" is a clear reminder of Volga Bulgaria, or rather of the Bulgarian Vilayet formed in its place in the Golden Horde-the historical predecessors of the Kazan Khanate.

The situation is somewhat similar with Siberia. However, Ch. Galperin claims that " the bloody history of Muscovy's advance to Siberia suggests that the local Tatars did not welcome the appearance of a new "khan" at all and did not consider him the heir to the Golden Horde power" (Galperin, 2003, p.70). However, even Yermak, after Kuchum's exile, considered himself the mayor of the capital city of Isker, and as such he was recognized by representatives of a number of Turkic and Ugric principalities of Western Siberia (Nesterov, 2003, p. 120). Yes, and the consent of former Kuchumov subjects to pay yasak to the state treasury later repeated the situation after the conquest of Kazan and, in general, still demonstrated the recognition of tsarist power in the place of the khan's 11 . In addition, as is known, the Siberian Kingdom also continued to exist in the administrative structure of Russia until the XVIII century.

The relations of the tsar with his Eastern subjects and neighbors were sometimes formed accordingly, "in the Khan's way". Thus, from the 1620s to the beginning of the XVIII century, messages to the rulers of India, Iran, Crimea, Khiva, Bukhara, as well as non-Muslim Mongolia, China, and the Kalmyk Khanate were decorated with tugra, a kind of symbol of power, a calligraphic figure made of Arabic letters made in a special manner [Faizov, 1977; Faizov, 2002, p. 27 - 29]. In the texts of letters to the uncrowned Genghisids during the time of Vasily III, the typically "Khan" expression "Vasiliev's word" and "my word" began to appear [Usmanov, 1979, p.197, 198] - formulas of appeals to lower-level addressees borrowed from Horde diplomacy.

Another interesting indicator of the "eastern" component of the supreme power of the Russian sovereign was the use of the formula "Great Ulus"in appeals to him. It once served as one of the official designations of the Golden Horde. Then it "by inertia" remained for the Lower Volga, domenial part of Dzhuchiev

10 Cf. the above-quoted Yule: "after the conquest of these minor states, the Russian grand dukes received the title of tsar."

11 In the Khanty language, the Russian tsar-khon( see [Martynova, 2002, p. 89]) is an obvious borrowing from the Turkic-Mongolian political vocabulary and a reminder of the times of the Siberian Khanate. The same southern borrowing is Khanty matur (i.e. bagatur). [Martynova, 2002, p. 87]. Along the way, we also note the designation of the Russian tsar in some Ket legends-kan [Myths..., p. 215]

page 35

Ulus - the "Great Horde" of Russian sources 12 (although the Tatars themselves sometimes used the expressions "Takht eli" and "Takht memleketi" - the Throne possession). After the final defeat of the Great Horde by the Crimeans in 1502, the Crimean Khan Mengli-Giray included its name in his title, becoming "The Great Horde of the Great Khan" [see, for example: Collection..., vol. 95, pp. 41, 314, 397, 646 (letters of Mengli-Giray and his successor Muhammad-Giray) for more information about the history of this title among the Girei, see: Grigoriev, 1987, pp. 48, 49]. The presence of the Horde in the Crimean title is understandable and understandable. But almost simultaneously, the similar expression "Great Ulus" begins to appear frequently in the appeals of Tatar aristocrats to the Grand Dukes of Moscow.

As a rule, this is a stable phrase "Grand Ulus to the Grand Duke", sometimes accompanied by minor additions ("grand honors of the Grand Ulus to the Sovereign of the Grand Duke's Majesty", "Grand Ulus to the Grand Duke of Vasiliev's Majesty", "the tsar's brother of the Grand Ulus to the sovereign of the Grand Duke" , etc. [see: Collection..., vol. 95, p. 39 - 41, 166, 172, 174, 240, 308, 309, 312 - 314].

Somewhat later, a similar appeal appears in Nogai charters. Can it be considered an indicator of the Horde's heritage, the Eurasian continuum, or Moscow's taking over the baton from Sarai? This point of view is sometimes found in the literature, including in some early works of the author of these lines [Trepavlov, 1993, p. 306; Trepavlov, 1994, p. 56]. Consideration of the initial protocol of some of the mentioned certificates does not allow this to be done. Here are the messages of the Crimean tsarevichs to Vasily III in 1517 and 1519: "The Great Hordes of the great Tsar from Magmet Gireev tsarev's son from Bogatyr soltan of the great ulus to the sovereign of the Moscow Prince Vasily Ivanovich", "The Great Hordes of the great Tsar Magmed Gireev Tsarev to the brother of the great ulus to the sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich" [Collection..., vol. 95, pp. 397, 646]. As we can see ,the "Great Horde" as undoubtedly the former Golden Horde is present in the title of Khan and does not coincide with the "Great Ulus" attached to the Moscow prince. Consequently, the latter concept does not mean any "khan" powers of Basil III. Perhaps here his possessions are meant as just a vast ("great") ulus among other ulus (possessions)? In favor of this interpretation, some appeals can serve, for example, the letter of the Crimean bey Muhammad Shah to Vasily III in 1508: "The Great Hordes of the great tsar Menli Gireev to the tsar's brother, mnogovo to the ulus sovereign, Grand Duke to the son of Ivanov, Grand Duke Vasily"; the letter of Nogai mirza Aisa to Ivan IV in 1553: "Ulusnoi ecu sovereign prince are great"[RGADA, d. 4, l. 188; Collection..., vol. 95, p. 41]. As you can see, the Moscow sovereign appears here as the ruler of the ulus, without any elevated status (especially in comparison with the "king of the Great Horde").

These nuances of the Turkic-Russian correspondence drew the attention of A. L. Khoroshkevich, who rightly noted that, firstly, the "Great Ulus" is found only in the recipients of letters of Tatar nobles and princes, but never in the khans themselves; secondly, Russia was also a "tsarev ulus" in the Golden Horde times, so what is the difference?-there is no special honor in relation to the Moscow ruler here. In addition, the Crimeans repeatedly stressed that the true monarch is their khan, which was expressed in the phrase " free man "("free tsar"), which they never used in relation to their Moscow partner [Khoroshkevich, 2001, p. 197, 198].

Only in the first half of the 17th century did the Crimean-Russian correspondence replace the " Great Ulus "with the"Great Horde". According to S. F. Faizov, this could mean-

12 is first found in the chronicle narration of the events of 1460 [Gorsky, 2004, p. 302].

page 36

It is important to recognize the suzerainty of the Moscow autocrats over most of the former Golden Horde [Faizov, 2003, p.30].

So, the "Great Ulus" in the appeals can hardly be considered a demonstration of some Horde heritage in Moscow. Probably, the same can be said about another expression, most likely associated with its origin in the East. We are talking about the "happy threshold", "happy doors", "High Port". Muslim addressees sometimes referred to the Moscow courtyard and the Grand ducal (royal) residence as such. An example from the XVI century: "And to your (Ivan IV. - V. T. ) happy threshold, the ambassador was sent to talk much with you ..." [Posolskie..., p. 185]; an example from the XVIII century:"...To your high Porte of the lowest worshipper of your Adil-Giray Budaykhanov's son, former shavkal, a petition... Our fathers and forefathers have served you faithfully, and in all your services they have served you wholeheartedly, being in the service of your Port... We ask all the wishes of the executor on behalf of your high Porte, so that the feed salary is determined for us... "[Russko-dagestanskiye..., pp. 225-226].

As you know, the Port is a Europeanized name of the Ottoman government and court: bab - i ali, pasha kapisi (main, highest gate), bab-i saadat (gate of happiness), dergyah-i Ali, dergyah-I saadat (highest threshold, threshold of happiness)13 . The same expressions were used to refer to the court of the Girei [see, for example: Turanli, 2000, p. 45, 180] and other eastern lords. Interestingly, the threshold was also adopted by Ivan the Terrible. Here is his address to King Johan III of Sweden: "Divine... natures... by the grace and power and desire of the Scythian ruler of the Russian Kingdom, the Great Sovereign and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia... obadatelya vysokoshestago our royal threshold, our honest degrees of majesty terrible this command... "[Monuments..., p. 116]. In this translation into modern Russian, the highlighted expression is translated as "the owner of the highest royal dignity" [Monuments..., p. 117].

It seems that this interpretation is quite adequate to the meaning of the royal charter. Moreover, twelve years earlier, the tsar concluded his first message to A. M. Kurbsky as follows:" A strong commandment and word that summer from the creation of the world on July 7072, July 5, was given in the universal Russian Orthodox city of Moscow and honest threshold " [Monuments..., p. 72]. Commentators ignored and in the translation generally omitted the "word that". Meanwhile, this is a typical "khan" expression, showing the high monarchical rank of the addressee - at least in relation to the one to whom he addresses the message (see above). This confirms the interpretation of the "threshold" as a designation of the highest aristocratic degree of the king in relation to Johan III. Figuratively understood, the threshold is, according to the authors of the commentary, "that high place from which the king speaks to less high-ranking persons", and at the same time similar to the Turkish Port [Monuments..., p.590].

A very special question is how much the Russian monarchs themselves correlated with the khan's power. There is an opinion in the literature that after liberation from the "yoke", the royal title was understood, among other things, as an indicator of complete independence, the absence of tributary duties [Lobacheva, 1998, p.26]. But at the same time, the" Tatar " semantics of the royal title and status coexisted with the Byzantine one and hardly prevailed over it [see: Uspensky, 1996, p.174; Cherniavsky, 1961, p. 74]. The correlation of these two cultural and ideological components of the Russian concept of supreme power is analyzed by B. A. Uspensky. He traced how, after the Mongol conquest, the tsarist title, originally associated in Russia with Byzantium, was also transferred to the Horde Khan, and as the rule of the Golden Horde weakened

13 For the relevant terminology, see, for example: [Zaitsev, 2003, p. 238].

page 37

The Horde increasingly regained its Greek "content". For Moscow as the Third Rome, the New Tsargrad in the XVI-XVII centuries, it was more important to emphasize its continuity from the collapsed Byzantine Empire than from the conquered Tatar khanates. After Peter I became emperor, the Horde's geopolitical heritage was only discerned in the titular formulas "tsar of Kazan, tsar of Astrakhan, tsar of Siberia", i.e., he officially remained "tsar" in relation to the former khanates and only to them.

The further development of statehood demonstrates the decline of this approach. The conquered Crimea was present in the grand title no longer as "the Kingdom of Crimea", but as "Chersonis of Tauris", and now the "kings of Chersonis of Tauris" demonstrated continuity from Hellenic-Byzantine predecessors. In the middle of the 19th century, the "king of Georgia" was added to the formulas of the grand title, and this showed an even greater distance from the understanding of the tsar as a khan. At the same time, the" tsar of Poland "stood in front of the" tsar of Siberia", breaking the two-century continuity in the enumeration of the triad of Tatar"kingdoms". In general, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, the understanding of tsarist power in Russia increasingly revealed a cultural orientation towards Western Europe [Uspensky, 2000, p. 4]. 35, 50 - 52, 77, 78].

But these interpretations, born in the minds of the elite ideologists of the empire, largely diverged from the ideas of tsarist power in the popular environment, including among the non-Slavic population of the state. Our materials show that the person and prerogatives of the Russian monarch were understood by residents of the eastern regions of Russia in the context of their traditional ideas of supreme power. No matter how hard the Russian autocrats tried to establish themselves in the consciousness of their continuity from Byzantium and equality with the European crowns, in the eyes of the vast mass of their subjects, they took the place of the former rulers. In the territories east of the Volga, the most powerful and memorable of these rulers were the Tatar khans. It was with them that the peoples of the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia and partly the Caucasus were connected by the historical continuity of Russian tsars and emperors.

This continuity was expressed in the idea of the powers of the Russian sovereign, firstly, to impose taxes on subjects and through his officials collect yasak in their favor; secondly, to endow land (this was manifested both in the confirmation of ancestral rights to ancestral territories, and in granting new lands to individuals and entire peoples for merit); third, to grant honorary titles and positions of ownership 14 . All this was bound to be issued with special royal letters-analogues of the former Horde labels. Such documents (and, if lost, memories of their existence) have been carefully preserved for generations. The place of the tsar in the world was often understood in the same conceptual categories as the images of ancient and modern Eastern rulers, who played the role of archetypes in the system of traditional ideas about monarchy among many peoples of Eurasia of the XV-XVIII centuries.

14 A. I. Filyushkin believes that the title of tsar in Russia in the 15th and 16th centuries meant " equating the Russian ruler in the European hierarchy with the emperor; this was manifested in the fact that the Russian monarch began to act as a ruler, distributing lands and titles to princes and tsarevichs from neighboring powers, like a real emperor." However, to confirm this thesis, A. I. Filyushkin gives examples exclusively from the practice of relations between Moscow sovereigns and Tatar khans and tsarevichs [Filyushkin]. Thus, after all, the Khan's, and not the imperial model of government served as the primary basis here.

page 38

list of literature

Historical destinies of the peoples of the Middle Volga region. XVI-the beginning of the XIX century. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1990.

Asfandiyarov A. Z. Bashkir sources of the XVI-XIX centuries. on the voluntary annexation of the region to the Russian State // Historical significance of the voluntary accession of Bashkiria to the Russian state / Ed. by R. G. Kuzeev et al. Ufa: Bashkir Publishing House, 1982.

Bakhtin A. G. XV-XVI centuries in the history of the Mari region. Yoshkar-Ola: Mariisk. polygr. - ed. kombinat Publ., 1998.

Bashkir shezhere / Comp. by R. G. Kuzeev. Ufa: Bashkir Publishing House, 1960.

Bashkir folk legends and legends / Comp. by F. A. Nadrshina. Ufa: Kitap Publ., 2001.

Bashkir genealogies / Comp. R. M. Bulgakov, M. Kh. Nadergulov. Issue 1. Ufa: Kitap Publ., 2002.

Bliev M. M. Russia and the highlanders of the Greater Caucasus. On the Way to civilization, Moscow: Mysl', 2004.

Borisov N. S. Ivan III, Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya Publ., 2003.

Bokhanov A. N. Autocracy. The Idea of Royal Power, Moscow: Russkoe slovo Publ., 2002.

Butanaev V. Ya., Butanaeva I. I. Khakass historical folklore. Abakan: Ed. Khakas State University univers., 2001.

Velyaminov-Zernov V. V. Research on the Kasimov tsars and tsarevichs. T. I. St. Petersburg: tip. Akademii nauk, 1863; Vol. II. SPb.: tip. Academy of Sciences, 1864.

Gadzhiev V. G. The role of Russia in the history of Dagestan. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1965.

Halperin Ch. Fictional relationship. Muscovy was not the heir to the Golden Horde//Homeland. 2003. N12.

Geraklitov A. A. Rol ' Saratov i Samary XVII v. v zhizni mordvva [The role of Saratov and Samara in the life of the Mordovians]. Sbornik materialov i dokumentov [Collection of materials and documents]. Samara: Samar Publishing House. Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000.

Gorsky A. A. Rus': ot slavyanskogo rasseleniya do Moskovskogo tsardva [Rus: from Slavic settlement to the Moscow Kingdom].

Grigoriev A. P. The time of writing Akhmat's "label" // Historiography and source studies of the history of Asian and African countries. Issue 10. L., 1987.

Grishkina M. V., Ivanova M. G., Pavlov N. P., Trefilov G. N. 425 years of voluntary joining of Udmurtia to Russia. Izhevsk: Udmurtia Publ., 1983.

Daniel from Bukhov. The beginning and rise of Muscovy / / Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1876. Book 3.

Dimitriev V. D. Chuvashia in the era of feudalism (XVI-early XIX centuries). Cheboksary: Chuvash. kn. izd., 1986.

Drevnetyurkskiy slovar ' [Ancient Turkic Dictionary] / Ed. by V. M. Nadelyaev et al.

Dugarov B. S. The legend of the first settlers of the Oka River and their trip to Peter I / / Parody Buryatii v sostave Rossii: from opposition to consent (300 years to the decree of Peter I). Part III / Ed. by E. M. Egorov. Ulan-Ude: Rep. tipografiya Publ., 2002.

Erofeeva N. V. Russkaya impererskaya ideya v istorii (k probleme zapadno-vostochnogo kul'turno-ideologicheskogo sinteza) [Russian Imperial Idea in History (on the problem of Western-Eastern cultural and ideological synthesis)]. Part 2 / Ed. by S. A. Panarin, Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1993.

Zaitsev I. V." Volnaya gramota turetskogo sultana "" nekoemu rusinu " ["Free letter of the Turkish Sultan" to a certain Rusin]. 2002 / Ed. by S. G. Klyashtorny et al. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2003.

Zaitsev I. V. Between Moscow and Istanbul. The Jochid states, Moscow and the Ottoman Empire (early 15th - first half of the 16th century). Essays, Moscow: Rudomino Publ., 2004.

Istoriya Tatarskoi ASSR (s drevneyshikh vremeni do nashim dny) [History of the Tatar ASSR (from ancient times to the present day)]. Kazan: Tatar. kn. izd., 1968.

Istoriya narodov Severnogo Kavkaza s drevneyshikh vremen do kontsa XVIII V. [History of the peoples of the North Caucasus from ancient times to the end of the 18th century].

Istoriya Bashkortostan s drevneyshikh vremeni do 60-kh godov XIX veka [History of Bashkortostan from ancient times to the 60s of the XIX century]. Ufa: Kitap Publ., 1996.

Kobeko D. F. [Review: Lileyev N. V. Simeon Bekbulatovich, Khan kasimovsky. Tver, 1891 / / Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society. Vol. VII. Issues I-IV. St. Petersburg, 1893.

Lileyev N. V. Simeon Bekbulatovich, Khan of Kasimov, Grand Duke of All Russia, later Grand Duke of Tver. 1567-1616 (Historical sketch). Tver: tip. Guberniya pravda Publ., 1891.

Lobacheva G. V. Representations of Russians about monarchy: lexico-semantic aspect. Saratov: Sarat State Technical University. univers., 1998.

page 39

Lossievsky M. V. Iz neizdannykh araby i tatarskikh khronik Orenburgskogo kraya [From the unpublished Arab and Tatar Chronicles of the Orenburg Region]. 1881. N 8. February 22.

Mayerberg A. Journey to Muscovy of Baron Augustin Mayerberg and Horace Wilhelm Calvucci, ambassadors of the Emperor Leopold, to the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich in 1661 / / Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1873. Book 4.

Martynova E. P. Religious representations of the Yugans-Balyk Khanty II Materials and research on the history of North-Western Siberia. Ed. by G. P. Vizgalov. Yekaterinburg: Ed. The Urals. univers., 2002.

Materials on the history of the Uzbek, Tajik and Turkmen SSR, Part I / Ed. by A. N. Samoilovich, L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1932.

Miller G. F. Istoriya Sibiri [History of Siberia]. T. I. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 1999.

Myths, legends, and fairy tales of the Kets. Comp. by E. A. Alekseenko, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 2001.

Nesterov A. G. Formirovanie gosudarstvennosti u tyurkskikh narodov Urala i Zapadnoy Sibiri v XIV-XVI vvakh [Formation of statehood among the Turkic peoples of the Urals and Western Siberia in the XIV-XVI centuries]. Edited by D. M. Nasilov, Moscow: ISAA pri MSU, 2003.

Novoselsky A. A. Bor'ba Moskovskogo gosudarstva s tatarami v pervoi polovinei XVII veka [The Struggle of the Moscow State with the Tatars in the first half of the 17th century].

Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia. The second half of the XVI century / Comp., general ed. by L. A. Dmitriev and D. S. Likhachev. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1986.

The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. Vol. 11 / Ed. by S. F. Platonov, Moscow: Nauka, 1965; Vol. 13. Part 1. Ed. by S. F. Platonov, St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorokhodov, 1904; Vol. 19 / Ed. by G. Z. Kuntsevich, Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul'tury, 2000; Vol. 29. Ed. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1965.

Embassy books on Russia's relations with the Nogai Horde. 1489-1549 / Ed. by V. I. Buganov et al. Makhachkala: Dagest. kn. izd., 1995.

Bitnaya kniga 1475-1605 gg. Vol. 1. Kn. 1, 2 / Sost. N. G. Savich. Moscow: In-t. History of the USSR, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1977.

Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA). F. 127. Op. 1.

Russian-Dagestan relations of the XVII - first quarter of the XVIII century. Documents and materials / Ed. by M. M. Ikhilov. Makhachkala: Dagest. kn. izd., 1958.

Collection of the Russian Historical Society. Vol. 41 / Ed. by G. F. Karpov. St. Petersburg: F. Eleonsky and Co., 1884; Vol. 95. St. Petersburg: Pechatnya SP. Yakovleva, 1895.

Skobelev S. G. Demography of indigenous peoples of Siberia in the XVII-XX centuries. Архив 1998- 1999. http://www.zaimka.ru/to_sun/skobelev_4.shtml

Collection of state documents and agreements stored in the State Collegium of Foreign Affairs, Part 3 / Comp. by A. F. Malinovsky, Moscow: Selivanovsky, 1822.

Solov'ev S. M. Sochineniya, Kn. III. Moscow: Mysl', 1989.

Trepavlov V. V. Status of the Grand Duke: from the Horde "ulusnik" to the "White Tsar" / / Russia and the East: problems of interaction / Ed. by S. A. Panarin. Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Inst. Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Nauch. - inform. Turan Firm, 1993.

Trepavlov V. V. Russia and nomadic steppes: the problem of eastern borrowing in Russian statehood // East (Oriens). 1994. N 2.

Trepavlov V. V. Istoriya Nogayskoy Horde [History of the Nogai Horde]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 2001.

Trepavlov V. V. (1). The White Padishah//Homeland. 2003. N 12.

Trepavlov V. V. (2). Establishment of Russian hegemony in the Southern Urals (second half of the XVI-beginning of the XVII century). Istoriya i kul'tura [History and Culture]. Ufa: GUP UPK Publ., 2003.

Trepavlov V. V. Tyurkskie narody Povolzhya i Priural'ya: ot Zolotoy Horde k Moskovskomu tsardu (problemy adaptatsii) [The Turkic peoples of the Volga Region and the Urals: from the Golden Horde to the Moscow Kingdom (problems of adaptation)]. Die Geschichte Russlands im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert aus der Perspektive seiner Regionen (Forscungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte.B. 63) / Herausgegeben von A. Kappeler. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 2004.

Tulokhonov M. I. Buryat historical songs. Ulan-Ude: Buryat. kn. izd., 1973.

Туранли Ф. Г. Літописні твори М. Сенаи та Г. Султана як історичні джерела. Київ, 2000.

Usmanov M. A. Tatar historical sources of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Kazan: Ed. The cauldron. univers., 1972.

Usmanov M. A. Chartered acts of the Dzhuchiev ulus of the XIV-XVI centuries. Kazan: Ed. The cauldron. univers., 1979.

Uspenskiy B. A. Izbrannye trudy [Selected works]. T. I. M.: Languages of Russian Culture, 1996.

Uspensky B. A. Tsar i imperator [Tsar and Emperor]. Anointing on the kingdom and semantics of monarch titles, Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kul'tury, 2000.

page 40

Ustyugov N. V. Bashkir uprising of 1662-1664 / / Historical Notes. Vol. 24, Moscow, 1947.

Faizov S. F. The Eastern coat of arms of the Tsars // Coat of arms and flag of Russia. X-XI centuries. / Ed. by G. V. Vilinbakhov, Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1977.

Faizov S. F. Tugra and the Universe. Mohabbat-nameh and shert-nameh of Crimean khans and princes in ornamental, sacred and diplomatic contexts. Bakhchisarai: Drevlekhranilishche Publ., 2002.

Faizov S. F. Letters of Khans Islam-Giray III and Muhammad-Giray IV to Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich and King Jan Kazimir. Krymsko-tatarskaya diplomatika v politicheskom kontekste postpereyaslavskogo vremya [Crimean Tatar diplomacy in the Political context of the Post-Pereyaslav time].

Filyushkin A. I. Origin of categories of political practice of the Moscow state in the XV-XVI centuries. http://eu.spb.ru/history/doc1.doc

Florya B. N. Ivan the Terrible, Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya Publ., 2003.

Khoroshkevich A. L. Otrazhenie predstavleniy o regionov Gosudarstva vseya Rus ' i Rossiiskogo tsardva v velikoknyazheskoi i tsarnskoy titulaturei XVI V. [Reflection of ideas about the regions of the State of All Russia and the Russian Kingdom in the Grand-ducal and Royal titulature of the XVI century]. Herausgegeben von A. Kappeler, Die Geschichte Russlands im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert aus der Perspektive seiner Regionen (Forscungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte.B. 63), Moscow: Izd. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 2002.

Khoroshkevich A. L. Rus ' i Krym [Russia and the Crimea]. From alliance to confrontation. The end of the XV-beginning of the XVI century. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2001.

Tsydendambaev Ts. B. Buryat historical chronicles and pedigrees. Historical and linguistic research. Ulan-Ude: Buryat. kn. izd., 1972.

Zapiski danskogo posolnik pri Petre Velikom (1709-1711) [Notes of the Danish Envoy under Peter the Great (1709-1711)]. 1899. Book 3.

Cherniavsky M. Tsar and People. Studies in Russian Myths. New Heaven-L.: Yale University Press, 1961.

Khodarkovsky M. Russia's Steppe Frontier. The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500 - 1800. Bloomington (Indianapolis): Indiana University Press, 2002.

Lemercier-Quelquejay Ch. Cooptation of the Elites of Kabarda and Daghestan in the Sixteenth Century // The North Caucasus Barrier. The Russian Advance towards the Muslim World / Ed. by M. Bennigsen Broxoup. L.: Hurst & C°, 1992.

Permanent link to this publication: