Collection of historical documents in 2 volumes. Author of the project, introduction, biographies of khans, scientific commentaries, comp. and ed. by I. V. Yerofeyev. Almaty: ABDI Companies JSC, 2014.

The famous Kazakh historian I. V. Yerofeyeva initiated and was the main executor of a large research and publishing project to search for and publish letters compiled in the chancelleries of the Kazakh nobility on the eve and after the entry of the Kazakh Junior and Middle Zhuzs into the Russian Empire. The result of this large-scale long-term work was two volumes of publication of the epistolary heritage of the nomadic elite of the last quarter of the XVII - first quarter of the XIX centuries.

I. V. Erofeeva is the author of fundamental monographs devoted to various aspects of the history of Kazakhstan in the XVIII-XIX centuries, mainly its higher social strata (khans, sultans, batyrs, etc.), their domestic and foreign policy, social status, management organization, relations with the Russian imperial center, etc. The peer-reviewed publication is in line with the same main line of research interests of I. V. Erofeeva. It contains 811 letters from 26 representatives of the highest Kazakh aristocracy to Russian rulers and provincial administrators. Most of these documents have not been published before, and even such documents themselves have not received special study. I. V. Erofeeva reasonably decided, in addition to textual comments on the letters, to preface the texts of sources with a detailed source study article on this category of written monuments. In addition, the biographies of most of the 26 recipients are also little known, and their names do not mean anything to the general reader. Therefore, the publication is accompanied by essays describing the life path of the respective khans and sultans. For the sake of completeness, the publication also contains brief reference articles about those addressed by the nomadic elite: royalty, court dignitaries, governors-general, military leaders, etc. The first volume contains an appendix in the form of several articles by the publisher, as well as M. B. Kozhinsky, A. E. Rogozhinsky and E. R. Usmanova, covering some aspects of the history of the Kazakh elite: about Khiva khans, khan's clerks, attributes of Khan's power, Kazakh cities and villages of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

More than half of the published documents are preserved only in Russian translations. But the publishers managed to find the originals of some of the messages in the languages of Chagatai and Ottoman Turki, Central Asian Farsi, Oirat and Manchu. Such texts are also included in the publication and are provided with facsimile copies of the texts and translations - both simultaneous and, in some cases, made anew.

The value of published sources lies primarily in their authenticity, their "first-hand" origin. The texts written by the Khan's scribes reflect the events that took place directly at the time of their writing, and they are also not burdened with ideological distortions and reinterpretations typical of chronicle works written in the past.-

Vadim Vintserovich TREPAVLOV-Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Center for the History of the Peoples of Russia and Interethnic Relations. E-mail: trepavlov@yandex.ru.

usually placed after a long period of time. At the same time, I. V. Erofeeva emphasizes [Epistolary Heritage..., vol.I, p. 34] that the scribes themselves - as a rule, they were Tatar and Bashkir mullahs - did not exert a noticeable influence on the content of the epistles (contrary to the statements of some historians). Kazakh rulers independently formulated and dictated their appeals to the addressees. Well-established terminology, the same style and label formulas indicate that the Kazakh political culture itself has been formed. Scribes, on the other hand, showed themselves only in finding adequate speech patterns for accurate and coherent transmission of the message that the khan or sultan orally expounded to them.

The published correspondence is important as a historical source both for the history of Kazakh society itself (mainly in the XVIII century), and for certain important events. The researcher will find in the two-volume book, for example, unique documents about the "Torgout escape" of 1771 (the mass migration of Kalmyks from the Volga to Dzungaria), the movements of Yemelyan Pugachev and Srym Dat-ula. The published texts contain information about the armament of Kazakhs, legal proceedings and punishments, the organization of trade and the range of goods, and much more. In addition, the epistolary heritage of the Kazakh elite is of fundamental importance for studying the process of Zhuzs ' entry into the Russian Empire, their legal and actual position, and the understanding of the status of Kazakh lands in the empire by the Russian and Kazakh sides.

Historically, Russia, freed from the Horde yoke, was forced to build ties among the first with its steppe neighbors in the south and east. This circumstance, as well as a kind of continuity in relation to the Golden Horde, made it relevant to take into account the norms of relations adopted in the nomadic environment. First of all, we are talking about the peculiarities of understanding the obligations that a subject bore in relation to the sovereign. Historiography has repeatedly expressed the opinion that there are fundamental differences in the interpretation of citizenship (or already-contracts between rulers) between the Russian authorities and the steppe rulers. If the former, starting from the second half of the XVI century, saw in the treaty agreements the beginning of unconditional submission and submission to the tsar with all the duties that followed from this, then the latter interpreted the treaties with the Russians as a military alliance (even with a senior suzerain), which did not imply eternal compliance, but just allowed for termination, rupture and search a new political partner / patron (see, for example: [Kappeler, 2000, p. 24, 36; Sabyrkhanov, 1965, p. 68; Trepavlov, 2007, ch. 4]).

I. V. Erofeeva once made a detailed analysis of this discrepancy, taking as a basis the situation in the Kazakh Junior Zhuz of the first half of the XVIII century. She rightly sees the root cause in the "civilizational heterogeneity of the political systems" of the Russian state and the nomadic steppe. Regarding the understanding of citizenship, this heterogeneity was expressed, firstly, in the discrepancy between the objects of state power and public policy: in Russia, as in any settled society, this is "a geographical territory developed by ethno - cultural communities", and among nomads-the ethno-social groups themselves (i.e., clans and tribes). Accordingly, in Russia, the power of the state permeated vertically the entire society from the center to remote regions, and in the steppe, the khan's power extended only to those groups of pastoralists who were in the sphere of his seasonal movements and needed his patronage and protection.

Secondly, in Russia, power was exercised through a whole hierarchy of social institutions that maintained an anonymous connection between each member of society and the monarch. In the nomadic world, the Khan exercised his authority through " episodic, discrete, and personalized contacts... with the ruling elite groups." It was in the form of such habitual contacts that nomads (in particular, Kazakhs) represented the relations between their leaders and the Russian tsars (Erofeeva, 1999, pp. 227-230). Add to this a religious barrier: recognition of the supremacy of an "infidel" ruler, and even one who did not belong to the royal family of Genghis Khan, was achievable for patriarchal Muslim societies of Eurasia either under the impression of military victories, or due to exceptional political circumstances.

With this approach, the nomadic rulers left no room for Russian authorities to interfere in their internal affairs. It is clear that the clerks of the Moscow, St. Petersburg, and provincial chancelleries viewed the status of subjects quite differently.

From the messages placed in the peer-reviewed publication, it is clear in what forms these differences were manifested. Although the steppe aristocracy constantly declared loyalty to the Russian throne, it did not consider itself completely submissive to the Russian authorities. The khans recognized their nominally inferior position in relation to the monarchs reigning in St. Petersburg, but still remained the same monarchs, albeit of a lower rank. This is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that Khan Abulkhair repeatedly presented himself in his letters as the" younger brother "of Empress Anna Ioannovna, and her, respectively, as his" bigger brother "(and not "sister" - this was required by ancient etiquette). [Epistolary heritage..., vol. I, pp. 117, 118]. I. V. Erofeeva expresses the opinion that union-protectorate relations were established between the two sovereigns [Epistolary heritage..., vol. I, pp. 55, 56].

The elevated status of Kazakh "subjects" is noticeable against the background of the then relations of the central government with the Kalmyks. The ruler of the semi-autonomous Kalmyk Khanate, Donduk Dashi, in the 1740s signed himself "Your younger brother" in his messages not to the highest name at all, but only to the Astrakhan governor [Suseeva, 2009, p. 625, 626, 631, 632, 642, 645, 646, 651, 652].

From the published texts of the letters, it is clear that the Kazakhs recognized themselves as the heirs of powerful nomadic empires and carriers of original culture. Sometimes, when they communicated with the Russian authorities, a heightened sense of self-esteem broke through. Khan of the Middle Zhuz Ablay in 1769 asked the Orenburg governor to convey to Catherine II, " so that her padishah majesty considers all of us equal-Russians, Kazakhs and other peoples..."[Epistolary heritage..., vol. I, p. 317]. And four years earlier, the khan of the Younger zhuz Nurali wrote to the Vice-Chancellor A. M. Golitsyn: "Although the Russian Empire has long been glorious in the whole world, however, the Kyrgyz-Kaisat people were not among the thieves before her Imperial Majesty became a subject, but were a noble people" [Epistolary Heritage..., vol. II, p. 150].

It was not only the Kazakhs who emphasized their special place among those who recognized the supremacy of the Russian tsar. The Bashkirs also did not miss the opportunity to recall the voluntary intention of their ancestors in the XVI century to become Russian subjects: "We, the Bashkir peoples, our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers of the great sovereign became subjects by their own will, leaving their khans, and the great sovereigns supported us according to our will... "[Asfandiyarov, 1982, p. 23].

One of the important aspects of intra-imperial relations, reflected in the presented correspondence, was the establishment of direct communication between the Kazakh ruling elite and the supreme authorities and directly with the Russian monarchs. The government was considering the rules for admitting representatives of Kazakhs to court. For deputations who arrived with the purpose of "bringing thanks and reporting on their various needs", conditions were put forward: a small number (no more than three or four "reliable sultans or elders" with the most necessary companions - "in order to avoid unnecessary expenses from the treasury" and "so as not to disturb many"), non-involvement in robberies and robberies Russian subjects; permission of the border authorities; extraordinary circumstances - riots, riots, disobedience of subordinate nomads [Gramota..., 1899, p. 3, 4; Dokumenty..., 2012, p. 382; Levshin, 1996, p. 233; Epistolarnoe nasledie..., vol. II, p. 438, 440]. In any case, to visit St. Petersburg, it was necessary to obtain permission from the court administration.

As for the khan, his appearance at court was considered not obligatory at all: "although the khan is not obliged to come for an annual meeting, but he must send letters annually" (cit. by: [Bykov, 2006, p. 135]). Catherine II established the frequency of khan's visits (later confirmed by Paul I) no more than once every three years [Epistolary Heritage..., vol. II, p. 313].

It is known that in St. Petersburg Kazakhs were settled in apartments (addresses on Vasilievsky Island are known) and given fodder. Curious steppe dwellers were allowed to travel around the capital and its environs in order to inspect "curiosities" at the Academy of Sciences, Peterhof, Kronstadt, etc.

The publication is made in compliance with the basic requirements for publishing documents of this kind, provided with a list of sources and literature and detailed indexes (however, an index of ethnic names would also be useful).

The publication of "Epistolary Heritage" provides extensive new material for studying the history of Kazakhstan and Russia. The work of I. V. Erofeeva and her colleagues will undoubtedly help to enrich historical science with fresh ideas and concepts in understanding the past of the peoples of Eurasia.

list of literature

Asfandiyarov A. Z. Bashkir sources on the voluntary annexation of the region to the Russian State // Historical significance of the voluntary annexation of Bashkiria to the Russian state. Editorial Board: R. G. Kuzeev et al. Ufa: Bashkir Book Publishing House, 1982, pp. 19-25.

Bykov A. Yu. Khanskaya vlast 'u kazakhov: zagvan' i postitut ' [Khan's power among Kazakhs: title or position]. 2006. N 3. pp. 127-148.

The letter of Emperor Paul I to the Khan of the Small Horde Aychuvak / / Turgai regional Vedomosti. 1899. March 12, pp. 3-4.

Dokumenty i materialy po istorii bashkirskogo naroda (1574-1798) [Documents and materials on the history of the Bashkir people (1574-1798)]. Ufa: Institute of History, Language and Literature, UNC RAS, 2012.

Erofeeva I. V. Khan Abulkhair: commander, ruler and politician. Almaty: Sanat Publ., 1999.

Kappeler A. Russia - multinational Empire. Appearance. History. Moscow: Traditsiya; Progress-Traditsiya, 2000.

Levshin A. I. Description of the Kirghiz-Cossack, or Kirghiz-Kaysak, hordes and steppes. Almaty: Sanat Publ., 1996.

Sabyrkhanov A. S. Russian citizenship of Kazakhs in the view of the Kazakh feudal nobility and the tsarist government // Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR. Series of Social Sciences. Issue 6. Alma-Ata, 1965, pp. 65-70.

Suseeva D. A. Letters of the Kalmyk Khans of the XVIII century and their contemporaries (1713-1771). Izbrannoe. Elista: B. ed., 2009.

Trepavlov V. V. "The White Tsar". Obraz monarcha i predstavleniya o poddanstvo u narodov Rossii XV-XVIII vv. [The image of the monarch and the idea of citizenship among the peoples of Russia in the XV-XVIII centuries].

Epistolary heritage of the Kazakh ruling elite 1675-1821. Collection of historical documents in 2 vols. Author of the project, introduction, biographies of khans, scientific comments, comp. and ed. by I. V. Yerofeyev. Almaty: ABDI Company, 2014. T. I. Pis'ma kazakhskikh praviteley [Letters of Kazakh rulers]. 1675-1780; vol. II. Letters of Kazakh rulers. 1738-1821

REFERENCES

Asfandiiarov A.Z. Bashkirskie istochniki о dobrovol'nom prisoedinenii kraia k Russkomu gosudarstvu. Istoricheskoe znachenie dobrovol'nogo prisoedine-niia Bashkirii k Russkomu gosudarstvu, ed. R.G.Kuzeev e.a. Ufa: Bashkirskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1982, pp. 19-25.

Bykov A.Iu. Khanskaia vlast' u kazakhov: zvanie ili dolzhnost'. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie, 2006, no. 3, pp. 127-148.

Erofeeva I.V. Khan Abulkhair: polkovodets, pravitel' i politik. Almaty: Sanat, 1999.

Erofeeva I.V. (ed.) Epistoliarnoe nasledie kazakhskoipraviashchei elity 1675-1821 gg. Sbornik istoricheskikh dokumentov. Almaty: ABDI Kompani, 2014. T. I. Pis'ma kazakhskikh pravitelei. 1675-1780 gg.; t. II. Pis'ma kazakhskikh pravitelei. 1738-1821 gg.

Gramota imperatora Pavla I khanu Maloi ordy Aichuvaku. Turgaiskie oblastnye vedomosti, 1899, March 12, pp. 3-4.

Gvozdikova I.M. e.a. (comp.). Dokumenty i materialypo istorii bashkirskogo naroda (1574-1798). Ufa: Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ural Scientific Centre RAS, 2012.

Kappeler A. Rossiia - mnogonatsional'naia imperiia. Vozniknovenie. Istoriia. Raspad. Moscow: Traditsiia; Progress - Traditsiia, 2000.

Levshin A.I. Opisanie kirgiz-kazach'ikh, ili kirgiz-kaisatskikh, ordistepei. Almaty: Sanat, 1996.

Sabyrkhanov A.S. Rossiiskoe poddanstvo kazakhov v predstavlenii kazakhskoi feodal'noi znati i tsarskogo pravitel'stva. Izvestiia Akademii nauk Kazakhskoi SSR. Seriia obshchestvennykh nauk, 1965, no. 6, pp. 65-70.

Suseeva D.A. Pis'ma kalmytskikh khanov XVIII veka i ikh sovremennikov (1713-1771 gg.). Izbrannoe. Elista: S. p., 2009.

Trepavlov V.V. "Belyi tsar". Obraz monarkha i predstavleniia о poddanstve и narodov Rossii XV-XVIII vv. Moscow: Vostochnaia literature, 2007.

Permanent link to this publication: