A. G. YURCHENKO. GOLDEN HORDE: BETWEEN YASA AND KORAN (BEGINNING OF THE CONFLICT). The book is a synopsis.

St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2012, 368 p. (1);

A. G. YURCHENKO. KHAN UZBEK: BETWEEN EMPIRE AND ISLAM (STRUCTURES OF EVERYDAY LIFE). The book is a synopsis.

St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2012, 400 p. (2).

The peer-reviewed books are a single project dedicated to finding an answer to a question that seems to have been solved long ago: was the Ulus of Jochi, better known to modern readers as the Golden Horde, an Islamic state? Therefore, it is no coincidence that the author pays the closest attention to two historical figures: Berka (reigned in 1257-1266) and Khan Uzbek (reigned in 1312-1341). Usually, the Islamization of the Jochi Ulus is associated with the latter. In Muslim sources, both are portrayed as zealous Muslims, and with the filing of medieval historians, they are usually considered them in modern historiography. But was this really the case? The author rightly points out that our knowledge of the religious situation in this part of the Mongol Empire is actually captured by the information provided by Egyptian and Syrian sources, and this information contributes to the formation of a far from objective picture. The written heritage of the Golden Horde itself, which has come down to us, alas, is quite insignificant, and does not allow for correct reconstructions. Here, auxiliary historical disciplines and the ability to read Muslim sources "between the lines"come to the rescue.

The two-volume book is written in a living language; however, it is positioned as a scientific publication and has almost all the necessary features as such. What is clearly missing is a conclusion that summarizes the results of the author's studies and more or less concisely formulates the conclusions. Unfortunately, there are no pointers either. In total, it has 12 chapters, divided or not divided into paragraphs, which are independent plots. In the first book, A. G. Yurchenko discusses the problems of religion and ideology of the Mongols of the XIII century. In the second, he pays more attention to the symbols of power, in particular, known in the Ulus of Jochi already in the XIV century. Questioning Berke's claims about Islam, the author describes in detail the details of the worldview of the medieval Mongols, from magical prohibitions to ways of predicting the future. This theme also comes up in the final chapter of the first book, which tells about the receptions of the rulers of the Golden Horde of Russian princes, which did not always go well for the latter. In the second book, much is said not only about the Uzbek himself, but also about the religious situation in the ilkhanate. In addition to the author's text, the books include articles by Z. V. Dode, V. P. Kostyukova, P. O. Rykina, E. Y. Goncharova, P. V. Basharin, I. Vashari, D. DeViiza. Each volume is provided with a reference apparatus, a list of sources, and a selected bibliography.

The limited scope of the review does not allow us to discuss all aspects of the problem raised by A. G. Yurchenko, especially since it is possible to state a certain redundancy of information contained in books (for example, on the religious preferences of ilkhans). We will focus only on some points related to the worldview of the medieval Mongols and the ideology that dominated the minds of the Mongolian elite.

The books are interesting not only in terms of the key questions they raise about the religious policies of the leaders of the Golden Horde, but also to no lesser extent in terms of raising the topic of Mongol imperial ideology, which has not yet been sufficiently covered. The author approaches this topic from different angles, drawing on narrative, archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic and other data.

The methodology is based on the study of everyday structures: the calendar, symbols of power, public holidays, funeral and marriage customs, imperial fashion, tax practices, etc., which can be regarded as a promising and fruitful approach. Indeed, it is the structures of everyday life that fairly reliably show the nature of society, its way of life and mentality, its ideals, goals, fears and antipathies. This is where the discrepancies between reality and the declarations of third-party observers become apparent.

The author puts forward a noteworthy thesis, according to which the Mongols created history, and imams, bakhshs and Christians copied it (1, p.12). As a result, we have a distorted view of the situation. However, it is not surprising that medieval writers who encountered the Mongols directly or learned about their deeds from others described this new reality in terms of their own culture. Could it be otherwise? And how was it possible to avoid erroneous interpretations?

However, it's not just about mistakes. In addition to misunderstanding, there were also direct manipulations that pursued various goals. Political gain is quite an understandable motivation for deliberate distortion of information, but in addition to it, as the author shows, an unconscious desire to recode this information also played a role in order to somehow mitigate the cultural shock from the collision with the all-destroying hordes of nomads: "The saving power of myth compensated for the horror of history" (1, p.43). Christian and Muslim contemporaries soon found the cause of the disaster in their own transgressions before God; the corresponding prophecies were not long in coming to light in the ancient scrolls. In this case, there was an inner reconciliation with the situation, and those who wanted to use disasters as an incentive for their own improvement.

The author's key message: the imperial ideology, based on the cult of the Eternal Sky — Tengrianism - and protected by the Great Yasa, excluded the possibility of Islamization of the Mongolian elite of the Jochi Ulus. It excluded them not because it forbade Mongols to become adherents of any religion, but because such treatment promised them absolutely no advantages. Prayers offered to Allah in Khwarezm or the Caliphate of Baghdad did not help the Muslims to cope with the Mongol invaders; how could Allah help the Mongols themselves? On the contrary, Eternal Heaven has blessed them to govern the whole earth, to guide all nations "to the right path." Everyone decided which religion to adhere to individually, but at the state level, the imperial structures had to remain unshakable. Using numerous and diverse examples, A. G. Yurchenko demonstrates the validity of this thesis. I will touch only on some issues that seem to be fundamental, primarily Tengrianism.

As is now well known to any Mongol scholar, the spiritual life of the Mongols of the imperial period cannot be reduced only to" classical "shamanism: among these nomads, as well as among other" imperial nomads", as L. Kwon-ten aptly called them, the function of the supreme deity was performed by the Eternal Blue Sky. The role of the Sky in political events was highly regarded by the Mongols themselves. Therefore, A. G. Yurchenko quite reasonably asks the question: "Did they have an incentive to convert to the religion of one of the peoples they conquered, if the Eternal Sky commanded them to rule the whole earth?"(1, p. 36). Nevertheless, the Mongols did not mind if the priests of various gods prayed for their khagan: this increased his potency as a world ruler.

In the XIII-XIV centuries. The sky of the Mongols behaved like the God of monotheistic religions, in particular sanctioning the absolute power of the Mongol clan chosen by him, which was not observed in earlier steppe empires. Less well-known is what exactly caused this transformation. Some historians are of the opinion that the Mongols borrowed a "world-building", universalist ideology from China during the period of their consolidation, others speak of an ancient steppe tradition passed down from one nomadic ethnic group to another, and others speak in favor of the symbiosis of Chinese and steppe ideas. Finally, some are inclined to attribute the development of imperial ideology to the genius of Genghis Khan, who, according to Rashid al-Din, was inspired with the ideas of world domination by the shaman Teb-Tengri. There is some reason to believe that the Khitan advisers of Genghis Khan, who served as transmitters of some Chinese political and philosophical concepts, played a significant role in this process (1, pp. 274-314).

It can be said that the Mongols of Genghis Khan's time successfully reproduced the" religious revolution " of the founder of the doctrine of the Heavenly Mandate, Zhou-gong (Ji Dan), who lived in the XI century. He served as regent to his young nephew Cheng-wan. Zhou-gong was the brother of Wu-wang, the founder of the Zhou dynasty, which ruled in China from 1027 to 256 BC. e. Having thrown off the Yin yoke, the Zhou people were forced to solve a serious ideological problem: Yin power was considered legitimate because it was sanctified by the supreme deity of the Yin people, Shangdi, who personified their deified ancestors and was recognized by other peoples who were located in China. under the rule of this dynasty. The little-known first ancestors of Zhou could not compete with Shangdi, and then Zhou-gong brought to the forefront of the ideological struggle.

The sky where both the Shandis and their own dead ancestors lived. Heaven dispassionately gives the right to rule to any dynasty that has accumulated enough virtue and good power of te. It also justly denies a dynasty its Mandate to rule if it has squandered its grace by sinking into vice. Thus, it should have been obvious to contemporaries that Heaven stripped Yin of its Mandate and handed it over to Zhou (Vasiliev, 1989: 22-31).

A. G. Yurchenko emphasizes that in Rashid al-Din's "Collection of Chronicles" there is not a word about Tengri and about the Heavenly Mandate received by Genghis Khan, and believes that the Islamic world in the person of this historian deliberately denied the Mongol mythology of power (2, p.123). But there is no "conspiracy"here. The mandate of Heaven is a concept of Chinese political and philosophical thought, and Rashid ad-Din, who was formed in the Muslim environment of Iran, was not at all obliged to operate with this concept, especially since the work he edited was intended for the Mongol-Persian elite of the Ilkhanate. Chinese authors, whose task was to prove the legitimacy of China's submission to the Mongols, have written enough about the Mandate. It should be noted that for the Mongols themselves, the idea of the Mandate was also not native, they did not use this term (at least in the imperial period). As for Tengri, Rashid ad-Din, like other Muslim authors, replaces it with the word "Lord" (Juwayni in such cases directly refers to Allah), and this substitution became widespread long before the Mongol invasion. Persian historians only follow the established tradition that "Tagpu is' Allah, He is All-powerful and Great!'... The disbelievers-may Allah, the Exalted, destroy them! they call the word tapri sky. They also use the word tapri to refer to everything that they think is great, such as a high mountain or a large tree" (Makhmud al-Kashgari, 2005, p. 1022; Borovkov, 1963, p. 285; Clauson, 1972, p.523-524).

In recent decades, when the concept of Tengrianism was established in science, a number of authors, including A. G. Yurchenko, took an irreconcilable position in distinguishing shamanism and Tengrianism, trying to prove that there was no shamanism among the Mongols in the XIII century, but only the cult of the Eternal Sky. More cautious historians develop J.-P.'s ideas. The article tells about the coexistence of two religious aspects in nomadic empires-folk and elite, the latter, in fact, and it is appropriate to call Tengrianism. However, it fully included all shamanistic ideas.

In the worldview of medieval nomads reconstructed by some modern apologists of Tengrianism, the Sky completely eclipses the images of other deities and spirits, such as, for example, the fire deity Gal-tengri or the deity of the native nomad Nutugai, often mistakenly identified with Etugen (Bertagaev, 1976, p. 28), as well as innumerable spirits-the" masters " of nature. It seems that the nomads did not believe in them, but only recognized the spirits of their ancestors. This picture is only partially true and is confirmed by the fact that the disintegration of nomadic empires led to the disintegration of the idea of the Eternal Sky, which was transformed into a host of heavenly deities, the number of which could be counted in dozens. However, this does not mean that apart from Tengri and the earth goddess Etugen, the Mongols did not recognize other deities.

At the same time, the presence of shamans under the Khan's horde seems to be not denied by anyone. The question is, what did they do then, since contact with spirits was their first duty? And the well-known custom of purifying ambassadors with fire and bringing them gifts for the Khan, isn't it a reflection of the shamanistic worldview? If you can still doubt the classification of this rite, then the fact that special Mongolian "magi" gave pieces of offerings to the cleansing fires puts everything in its place. A. G. Yurchenko's two-volume book repeatedly tells about the ritual of purification by fire of ambassadors and gifts brought by them. A similar ritual is described in the case of the ancient Turks, i.e. it fits perfectly into the traditional picture of the world, called shamanistic. And this ritual does not conflict with imperial doctrine. No matter how tempting it might seem to someone to make a revolution in nomadic studies, rejecting shamanism among the Mongols as an outdated invention of N. I. Veselovsky, D. Banzarov and their followers, the facts accumulated by science do not give such an opportunity.

Shamanism is sometimes not considered a religion on the grounds that it does not even correspond to this concept purely terminologically, since the Latin religio means a connection between a person and God in this case, and in shamanistic soteriology there is no such connection due to the lack of soteriology as such. Religion, which promises salvation to man and to some extent mitigates the natural fear of death for a living being, was not of particular interest to most Mongols, who in those years did not have hell and heaven in their worldview and did not have the idea of posthumous retribution. According to John de Plano Carpini, the Mongols represented

"They do not know anything about eternal life and eternal damnation; they believe, however, that after death they will live in the other world, multiply their flocks, eat, drink, and do other things that people living in this world do" [Plano Carpini, 1997, p. 37].

From the point of view of the nomads themselves, what useful things could the preachers of monotheism have brought to this picture? Infect them with the fear of eternal damnation, and then offer them a cure for it? Here it is appropriate to recall the almost insurmountable difficulties that stood in the way of Orthodox priests who tried to convey the word of God to the indigenous inhabitants of Siberia and the North, in whose language there were not even concepts adequate to the Christian concept of sin, and the posthumous existence was thought of as a mirror image of earthly existence: if he died here, then here it is morning, here it is summer, there it is winter, and so on. The penalty for violations of the order sanctified by tradition came directly during the earthly life of a person, and the punishment did not come from a certain supreme entity, but from a specific spirit. In the" next world", no punishments, as well as rewards for earthly virtues were supposed (see a very interesting selection of materials in the book: [Christianity and Lamaism..., 1979]). At the same time, the Northern peoples adapted some elements of the Christian faith that found common ground with their own views. For example, almost all over Eurasia, the figure of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker was positively received and integrated into existing pantheons.

The author denies the Mongols ' fear of the evil spirits of the countries where they were led by fate. He does not believe in "primitive fears" at all and, like H. L. Borges, considers them to be a product of the imagination of anthropologists (1, p. 49). However, in this connection, it is not clear why he inserted in his "book-synopsis" an article by P. O. Rykin, which examines in detail the machinations of various categories of evil spirits according to Mongolian beliefs. Scary fantasies turned out to be peculiar not only to today's anthropologists. Here is what Guillaume de Rubroucq tells us about his journey to the court of Hagan Mongke:

"On the second Saturday of Lent, in the evening, we were passing through a place among very terrible rocks, and our guide sent to ask me to say some words of prayer (bona), so that they could put the demons to flight, since at this crossing the demons usually suddenly carried people away. And it was unknown what was being done to them. Sometimes the demons stole the horse, leaving the man behind; sometimes they extracted the entrails of the man, leaving the horse's body on the horse (busto), and many similar things were often done there. Then we sang with a loud voice, "I believe in one God," and, by the grace of God, we passed through unharmed with all our companions. From that time on, they began to ask me to write them papers so that they could carry them over their heads, and I said to them: "I will teach you the word that you will carry in your heart and through which your souls and your bodies will be saved forever" [Guillaume de Rubrouck, 1997, p. 131].

It seems that Rubruk and his companions took the guide's words quite seriously.

At the same time, the author readily recognizes the Mongols ' belief in malicious magic and builds a completely stable and harmonious building on this foundation. However, the only agent that reacts to the magic effect is again the Sky, which incinerates the place where the magic act was performed with lightning. What is interesting is that we are well aware, thanks to Rashid al-Din and European missions, of the punishment of death for trampling the threshold of the Khan's yurt, washing clothes in the river, and other "sins" that are incomprehensible to representatives of other cultures, but, alas, nothing is known about the reaction of ordinary nomads to such violations of prohibitions. If someone decided to go into the river near the camp of an ordinary medieval Arat, did they have the right to take that person's life? Or if someone stumbled on the threshold of his home? If we use analogies from ethnographic modernity to solve these issues, then, of course, no. It is well known that if someone accidentally touched the threshold of the yurt with his foot when leaving, he was obliged to return and throw some fuel into the hearth, so that the grace would not leave the yurt. That's all.

Thus, in the books of A. G. Yurchenko, magic is brought literally to the imperial level. This is not surprising, because the sources speak precisely about the powerful of this world, and the Mongolian khagan, like the supreme rulers in many cultures of the globe, personified the axis of the world, in our case, was under the heavenly favor of Pax Mongolica, and, as a world pillar, he had to protect himself from all sorts of negative influences. First of all, he had to be protected from the wrath of heaven, since he was directly connected with Heaven.

According to A. G. Yurchenko, "The doctrine of Eternal Heaven has nothing to do with shamanic practices" (2, p. 203). Yet both are part of the same picture of the world; the great Khan and the ordinary shaman spoke the same language of symbols, except that their functions were different. Academician of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences Sh. Bira, who has spent decades studying Mongolian history and ideology, comes to the conclusion that Tengrianism was the result of the development of shamanic ideas [Bira, 2011, p.26, 48, 57]. As one of the arguments, A. G. Yurchenko points out that "there are no elements of shamanism in the texts reflecting the imperial doctrine of Heaven, just as there is no fear of evil spirits and not the slightest sign of political calculation" (1, p.51). And what would it have to contain in order for us to have the right to speak about the presence of a shamanic spirit in the texts? Intimidating your opponents with" your " evil spirits?

Of course, the Mongol great khans put forward foreign policy demands based on a universalist, imperial ideology, and did not speak only on behalf of their ancestral spirits (they referred only to the charisma of Genghis Khan), and the Mongol ambassadors did not convey these demands to the roar of a shamanic tambourine. But does this deny the existence of a powerful layer of ancient ideas and beliefs in the culture of the Mongolian elite? Let us recall what is said in the "Hidden Legend" about the illness of Hagan Ogedei. After all, this is the voice of Mongolian culture itself, almost in sync with the event being described. I will allow myself to reproduce the quote from S. A. Kozin's translation in full, since it is thoroughly imbued with the shamanistic attitude of its author. Presumably, the worldview of the audience to whom this work was addressed was similar.

"Ogodai Khan himself, in the year of the Hare (1231), set out on a campaign against China, Zhebe was sent to the forefront. Ogodai Khan immediately defeated the Kitad army and, breaking it like dry twigs, crossed the Chabchiyal pass and sent out detachments in different directions to besiege various Kitad cities. But then Ogodai Khan fell ill and lost his tongue. In great anxiety, the Kitada shamans were called together and ordered to perform divination. Divination has shown that it is the spirits, the lords of Kitada's lands and waters, who are violently raging because of the capture of their people and homes, as well as because of the destruction of their cities and villages. They tried to ask the spirits, by means of divination from the entrails of animals, whether they would like to accept as a ransom dzolik - gold and silver, or cattle and all kinds of food. But they were told that under these conditions they would not only not be satisfied, but would rage even more violently day and night. When the question was then raised, by the same divination, whether the spirits would accept a relative of the sick man as a ransom, the Khan opened his eyes and asked for water. He drank and asked: "Well, what happened?" Then the shamans reported to him:

"The spirits, the lords of the Kitada lands and waters, are violently rampaging because of the capture of their people and homes. We offered them everything they could possibly want as a ransom. But they agree to stop only for the ransom of a loved one, otherwise they threaten to raise an even more ferocious frenzy. We will report this matter at His Majesty's discretion." When they reported this, the emperor asked: "And who is one of the princes with me?" Then Tolui was with him, and he said to him: "Our sire, Genghis Khan, of blessed memory, having chosen you, my elder brother and king, having chosen you as one chooses a gelding, and having felt you as one feels a ram, he personally pointed out to you the great royal throne and laid a national burden on your majesty. And I am only commanded to be near the Khan, the elder brother, to wake him from his sleep and remind him of what he has forgotten. And if I didn't protect you now, who else would I wake up from their slumber and remind them of what they've forgotten? And right now I will intercede for my brother and the sovereign, when in fact nothing has happened to him yet, but all the Mongols are already full of orphan grief, and the Chinese are already full of exultation. I broke the spine of the taimen, I broke the spine of the sturgeon. I have won before your face, and I have fought behind your eyes. I am tall in stature and handsome in face. When he said this, the shamans, having uttered the incantations, spoke the water, and Tsarevich Tolui drank and said, after sitting for a while in silence:

"I got drunk right away! So take care, my lord and my elder brother, take care until I wake up, take care of your younger brother's little orphans and his widow Beruda, take care until I come to my senses. Everything I wanted to say, I said. Drunk!" And when he had said these words, he went out. The fact was that in reality (the end of Toluius) not followed" [Kozin, 1941, § 272; The Secret History, 2004, p. 200-205].

It is strange that neither the sick Hagan nor his entourage thought to raise a prayer for healing directly to the Eternal Sky, but instead arranged a banal shamanic session!

Shamanism serves the needs of tribal groups, which is clearly seen from the above quote: angry spirits do not care about a specific person, they are satisfied with another rodovich, in this case Toluy, who, contrary to S. A. Kozin's erroneous translation, nevertheless died. As a Gens, the Genghisids also had the right, so to speak, to have their own specialists to meet their spiritual needs, and presumably they had such specialists. It is known about them from the "Hidden Legend" and other sources. Genghis Khan himself, his ancestors, and his descendants resorted to the services of shamans. And in those cases when the tasks they faced went beyond the competence of shamans, they acted independently. Thanks to the research of recent decades, perhaps there is no longer any doubt about the separation of functions of secular rulers and clerics in the Mongolian society of the XIII century. L. N. Gumilyov wrote quite definitely about this. Later, T. D. Skrynnikova in a series of works convincingly showed that the prerogative of the Mongolian khagan was direct contact with the Sky, while the shaman acted "on the sacred periphery". Similar sacred rights were granted to the Turkic khagans.

The well-known fact that in the traditional nomadic culture of the peoples of Central Asia, including the Mongols, the ruler was perceived as a protege of Heaven and the recipient of its good power, allows historians to speak about the sacred nature of supreme power in nomadic empires, and to regard the khagan as a sacred figure. This terminology is quite firmly established in science, but A. G. Yurchenko disputes its validity, adhering to the views of the French researcher R. Caillois [Caillois, 2003, p. 170]. Truly sacred for him are the South Sung emperor in the description of Marco Polo and the Japanese Mikado, i.e. those persons whose deification went very far - so much so that it completely excluded the possibility of contact with ordinary mortals not only themselves, but also the objects they used. However, he leaves some sacredness for all the Genghisids as a whole, depriving each of them of it separately (2, p. 35). All this does not contribute to a better understanding of the author's ideas.

In addition, the author discussed various prohibitions that existed among the Mongols, which caused confusion among representatives of other peoples: not to sit on the whip, not to kill chicks, not to touch the threshold of the Khan's yurt with your foot, not to spill milk or other beverages on the ground inside the dwelling, not to break the bones of dead animals, not to spit out food, etc. (1, pp. 133-142). These prohibitions were part of the Great Yasa, and their violation most often resulted in the stereotypical punishment of death.

As for the "sin of trampling on the threshold", we can add that it was not universal in nature: "At the exit, however, since many people have drunk and cannot be careful, they do not pay attention to this" (1, p.139). How so? Perhaps some light is thrown on this discrepancy by the report of the Chinese ambassador Zhao Hong, who visited the headquarters of the Mongol commander-in-chief Mukhali in Yanjing in 1221: "Whenever [the Tatars] see that a foreign guest is drunk, making a noise, violating etiquette, or throwing up or [he] has fallen asleep, they are very happy and happy. they say: "If the guest is drunk, then it means that [he] is with us soul to soul! "" [Meng-da bei-lu, 1975, p.85]. Most likely, this "soul to soul" should mean the transfer of the guest from the category of "strangers" to the category of "friends". Therefore, drunken foreigners who came out of the yurt from the feast no longer posed a danger as likely destroyers of the protective function of the threshold. Their destructive potencies were neutralized by eating together. In this case, we can assume that we are dealing with the sphere of the sacred.

On the contrary, it is hardly necessary to look for any sacred motives in the ban on spitting out the food that the participants of the feasts received. Let's ask a simple question: for what purpose would one of the diners spit out a piece of meat offered to him? Apparently, this is what someone who knows that the food is poisoned will do. It is difficult to assume any other reasonable reasons for such an anti-ethical (and at the same time deadly) action. Here it is appropriate to recall the story of the death of Yesugai, Genghis Khan's father. According to legend, he was poisoned by the Tatars during a feast: "On the way, in the Tsektser steppe - Shira-keere, the Tatars were feasting. After meeting them, Yesugai-Baatur decided to linger over the festival, as he was thirsty. The Tatars, it turns out, knew him. "Yesugai-Kiyan is here," they reasoned, and remembered their old grievances and scores. And so, with the intention of secretly poisoning him with poison, they mixed him with poison. When he left them, he felt ill, and three days later, when he got home, he became very ill" [Kozin, 1941, § 67]. Thus, the ban could have a purely mundane reason. In addition, the refusal to accept their share, in fact, meant an unwillingness to become "one's own" in this community - such a gesture is universal and still relevant today. Finally, it is known that the Mongols were very negative about wasting food [Plano Carpini, 1997, p. 42].

However, let's return to the main topic of A. G. Yurchenko's work. So, what were the obstacles or prerequisites for the Islamization of the Mongol Empire in general and the Jochi Ulus in particular?

The author somehow too irreconcilably contrasts Tengrianism and Islam. Drawing on all possible arguments, A. G. Yurchenko proves that, contrary to the reports of Egyptian sources, the structures of everyday life unequivocally testify against Islamization: The Uzbek remained in the power field of the empire and was still a follower of the cult of Eternal Heaven, after which it is quite possible to agree with the conclusion that " The Uzbek did not promote Islam and did not fight it, he used this symbolic resource to strengthen his power" (1, p. 196). This style of behavior was typical for the Mongols of the imperial period. As X wrote. Franks, " Mongol rulers, depending on the direction indicated by their advisers, could accept the regalia of Huang-di or chakravartin, or, in the Islamic environment, Amir al-muminin, the ruler of the faithful. For them, the various ways of legitimation were like a variety of numerous robes that they could wear according to what seemed appropriate for a particular occasion" (Franke, 1978, p.79).

Quite convincingly, the version about Berke's Islamization is also questioned. However, it is not clear why it was necessary to insert in the "book-synopsis" the article by I. Vashari "History and legend" in the conversion of Khan Berke to Islam "(pp. 171-183), after reading which it seems that this Genghisid converted quite sincerely. The article clearly works against the author's concept. The effect of reading the article by I. O. Rykin is similar, as we have already discussed. Or is this the idea of the book, elusive for the average reader?

Meanwhile, there were no serious obstacles to formal Islamization at the state level: the same Yasa prescribed equal respect for all religions, and, as is well known, there were adherents of different faiths among the Mongols themselves in this era. Religious tolerance is immanent in Tengrianism, as well as in "classical" shamanism. At the same time, the Mongols could hardly clearly understand that different religious doctrines hide anything more than ideological weapons of political struggle. Christians were scheming against Muslims, Taoists against Buddhists; however, even within each denomination there was a struggle for influence over the minds of the flock between different trends, schools and sects, and almost always the heavenly forces were called upon to achieve purely earthly goals. The Mongols were certainly well aware of the true causes of religious conflicts. Their own religious idea, which contributed a lot to the development of the imperial ideology at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries, allowed them to stand above these conflicts, and military force made it possible to act as arbitrators.

If the Mongols had succeeded in conquering Europe and managed to gain a foothold there, there is no doubt that after some time the khan of the "European ulus" would have been baptized, and converted to Catholicism, and not, say, to Orthodoxy. When the military potential of the Mongols began to weaken and, accordingly, their onslaught on neighboring peoples weakened, it was necessary to move from military expansion to more or less peaceful construction on the occupied lands. Under these conditions, the imperial doctrine began to fail, and the ulus rulers were forced to adapt to local cultural and historical conditions, and not just impose their "only correct" system of ideas about the world and their role in it. It was necessary to seriously correct the integration practice that was successfully used by the Mongols in the first decades of the 13th century, when they included loyal foreigners in the imperial society, and to prove their legitimate belonging to the local society that they headed. This is quite a common process that has taken place in many Eastern countries for many centuries: one dynasty was replaced by another, that - by a third, and so on, and the dynasties sometimes had a foreign (non-ethnic) origin and came as invaders, but eventually became "their own". By the 13th century. Central Asia and Iran have repeatedly seen nomadic dynasties coming from the East, subjugating large or smaller territories and subsequently adopting Islam. The appearance of another Genghisid army was hardly surprising in itself, only the scale of the bloodshed was striking.

¹ We do not in any way attempt to attribute to the Mongols any deliberate propaganda of Tengrianism among the conquered (or still unconquered) peoples. Simply, the Mongols briefly and easily explained the new world order to the surviving elites: there can be no two suns in the sky at once, and no two supreme rulers on earth. Heaven has chosen Genghis Khan as its earthly governor, and any disobedience to the orders of his descendants is nothing but a rebellion against Heaven itself. Everyone could easily guess the consequences of such a riot for themselves. A similar message was sent to those who were still de facto on the periphery of the Mongolian universe.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the military forces of the Mongols themselves were far from as limitless as it might seem to the victims of their first attacks on the countries of Islam. In their ranks there were considerable contingents of willing or unwilling allies, whose loyalty was difficult to guarantee and who could easily fall away in the event of failures of their masters. For a long time, the Mongols would hardly have been able to keep the captured lands in subjection only by military force. It was necessary to prove to the subordinate peoples that they were their own here and ruled according to the law, that is, in essence, according to the will of God.

Consequently, in areas where the local population professed Islam, it was highly desirable for the Khan and his retinue to at least create the appearance of conversion to this religion. Religious tolerance alone was not enough. For the local Muslim population, it would probably be doubly difficult to tolerate not just the blood drinker, but also the blood drinker of the "infidel". The mechanism of legitimation of power had to be launched, bringing to the consciousness of the conquered people a new order in the language of previous concepts. Khan inherited administrative structures in which the presence of representatives of other faiths could be either very insignificant or zero. It was possible to replace them completely with their own at the initial stages of conquests, and then only if the former ones were completely destroyed. Thus, it is not surprising that the Jochi Ulus eventually gained a reputation as an Islamic state, which was greatly facilitated by Egyptian diplomats and officials.

This review was not intended to assess the validity or illegality of the author's judgments on the main topic of his books. After reading them, one is convinced that in the era of Uzbek and his successors, we see Tengrianism in the mask of Islam rather than "pure Islam" (although in the Volga region it could hardly once be considered "pure", i.e. it corresponded to the Arabic original as much as possible); at the same time, it is probably no longer possible to speak about it. and about " pure Tengrianism." Most likely, by the beginning of the 14th century, another regional variant of religious syncretism developed in the Jochi Ulus, which is very characteristic of medieval nomads.

In conclusion, I will note some controversial and erroneous judgments of the author, which, however, are not of a fundamental nature for the general concept of the dilogy. So, the phrase that the influence of Yasa Genghis Khan can be judged "by the deformations of Sufi practices in Central Asia" looks mysterious (1, p. 7). This innovative idea is not confirmed by specific material.

The rhetorical question " Is it worth saying that Buddhists have no gods "(1, p.23) involuntarily provokes the answer: "Of course, it's worth it, because it looks like a scientific sensation!". But only if you suddenly find evidence of this thesis. However, A. G. Yurchenko's books do not contain them; on the contrary, "the formidable deity Mahakala from the category of Dharma guardian deities" is mentioned, which was accepted as the patron saint of the Yuan Dynasty (1, p. 284).

The statement "To be a believer in practice meant to recognize the spiritual authority of the Caliph" sounds too categorical (1, p. 32). Without going beyond the chronological framework of the two-volume book, let us recall the attempt of Khorezm Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad (1200-1220) to capture Baghdad in 1217. It turns out one of two things: either Khorezmshah was not a devout Muslim, or Caliph an-Nasir (1180-1225) was not a spiritual or even a secular authority for him.

The term "popular Muslim beliefs "(1, p.93) cannot be considered successful, especially if it immediately refers to"elements of Shiism". Obviously, the author means a mixture of folk beliefs with Islam.

The author claims that " in duty bound... official historians were involved in creating myths " (1, p. 160), and as an example cites a quote from the "Yuan Shi", in which Genghis Khan in his declining years is attributed to the submission of cosmic rhythms. He allegedly ordered the killing and looting to stop after the five planets connected in the sky. It is very lacking to explain who could benefit from this myth. Certainly not to the Mongols: the history of the Yuan was compiled in 1369, that is, after the fall of this dynasty - this was the Chinese historiographic tradition. If the Chinese for some reason needed to raise Genghis Khan in their own eyes, then again this requires an explanation.

In one place (1, p. 240) it is said that the Chinese ceremony of greeting the great Khan was introduced in 1229, and in another (1, p. 256) - that in 1230.

It is difficult to accept the "social matrix of the Ilkhanate", in which there was no place for either ordinary Muslims or ordinary Mongol soldiers (2, p. 49).

One of the Mongol rulers listed in the letter addressed to European monarchs by Ilkhan Uljeyt (1304-1316), Temur-kagan, is mistakenly identified with the Yuan emperor Togon-Temur, who ruled in 1333-1368. (and not in 1332-1368, as in the book by A. G. Yur-

chenko) (2, p. 57). The letter dates from 1305, while Togon-Temur was born in 1320. Apparently, the letter actually mentions the second Yuan Emperor, Kublai Temur's grandson (1294-1307).

If we talk about the work of A. G. Yurchenko as a whole, then this is a new and long - sought - after look at one of the most interesting periods of world-and Russian-history. No doubt, thanks to the professional combination of scientific reasoning and ease of presentation, as well as an intriguing topic, A. G. Yurchenko's two-volume book will be interesting for both specialists and ordinary readers.

list of literature

Bsrtagasv T. A. Etnolinguisticheskie etudy o plemenakh Tsentralnoi Azii [Ethnolinguistic studies on the tribes of Central Asia]. Issue VI. Ulan-Ude Publ., 1976.

Borovkov A. K. Leksika sredneaziatskogo tefsir XII-XIII vv. M.: Izd-vo vostochnoy literatury, 1963.

Vasiliev L. S. the Genesis of Chinese thought (the formation of the foundations of philosophy and intelligence). M: the Main edition of Oriental literature, 1989.

Guillaume ds Rubruk. Travel to the Eastern countries / / Travel to the Eastern countries, Moscow: Mysl', 1997.

Drobyshsv Yu. I. U istokov imperskoy ideologii srednevekovykh mongolov [At the Origins of the Imperial ideology of medieval Mongols]. XLII Nauchnaya konferentsiya "Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v Kitae", ch. 3 / Rsdkoll.: A. I. Kobzsv et al. Moscow: IV RAS, 2012.

Kayua R. Myth and man. Man and the Sacred / Trans. Moscow: OGI Publ., 2003.

Kozin S. A. The hidden legend. Mongol Chronicle of 1240 Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941.

Mahmoud al-Kashgari. Divan Lugat at-Turk / Trans., iredisl. and comments by Z.-A. M. Auezova. Almaty: Daik-prsss Publ., 2005.

Meng-da bay-lu ("Complete description of Mongol-mamap"). Facsimile of a woodcutter/ Trans., introduction, comment. and the app. N. C. Munkusva, Moscow: Main Editorial Office of Eastern Literature, 1975.

Plano Carpini. Istoriya mongolov [History of the Mongols] / / Travel to Eastern countries, Moscow: Mysl', 1997.

Christianity and Lamaism in the indigenous population of Siberia (the second half of the XIX-beginning of the XX century) I Ed. by I. S. Vdovin. L.: Nauka, 1979.

Bira III. Монголын тэнгэрийн узэл. Туувэр зохиол, баримт бичгууд. Улаанбаатар: СОДПРЕСС, 2011.

Clauson G. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. L.: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Frankc H. From Tribal Chieftain to Universal Emperor and God: The Legitimating of the Yuan Dynasty. Münchcn, 1978.

The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century / Transl. with a Historical and Philological Commentary by I. dc Rachcwiltz. Vol. 1-2. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004.

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: