Nikita Yakovlevich Bichurin (1777-1853), also known to his contemporaries under the monastic name Iakinf, went down in the history of Russian science as the founder of Sinology, who left many fundamental works on the history, geography and culture of the peoples of China, Central and Central Asia, Southern Siberia and the Far East. Having a unique knowledge of Chinese history and an extraordinary breadth of scientific interests, he enjoyed great authority in Russia and abroad, where he was considered the first expert on China, despite the criticism of his domestic and foreign colleagues-orientalists. The outstanding sinologist wrote 14 books, among which an important place is occupied by works on Mongolian studies. Not considering himself an expert in the Mongolian language, but actively using it independently or with the help of Buryats, whose services he had to resort to during trips to Transbaikalia, N. Ya. Bichurin worked out the most complex problems of the history and culture of Mongolia.

Key words: N. Ya. Bichurin, Russian sinology, Russian Mongolian studies.

N. Ya. Bichurin (real name - Pichurinsky) was born on August 29, 1777 (according to the Old style) in the village of Akulovo, Sviyazhsk district (later Cheboksary district, Kazan province) in the family of a deacon. He received his education at the Kazan Theological Seminary, later, as a 22-year-old boy, he became a monk, and with him the new name Iakinf. June 20, 1802. Iakinf was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and soon appointed abbot of the Ascension Monastery near Irkutsk [GAIO, f. 121, op. 1, d. 26, l. 47-48; l. 95-96]. At the same time, he becomes the rector of the Irkutsk Theological Seminary. High demands on himself and his subordinates, as well as exemplary honesty, won him the favor of the Orthodox flock, but due to the biased denunciation of the local clergy, he was later released from his posts and transferred to Tobolsk as a seminary teacher [GAIO, f. 50, op. 1, d. 930, l. 90-91]. He spent about a year in his new place, intensively reading books in the patriarchal library in his spare time. On March 5, 1807, Archimandrite Iakinf was appointed head of the Russian Orthodox Church on the recommendation of the Russian diplomat Yu. A. Golovkin, who visited Mongolia in 1806 missions in Beijing. He arrived there on January 10, 1808 from Kyakhta at the head of a group of Russian missionaries after a long journey through Mongolia and Northern China.

Upon arriving in the capital of Qing China, Bichurin eagerly began to learn Chinese, which is necessary for communicating with the bulk of the local population. Having mastered the basics of Chinese literacy, Iakinf began translating Christian liturgical books into Chinese and translated and published the catechism. However, he soon lost interest in missionary work and almost completely turned to scientific studies, seeing in this his first duty to Russia.

Translations of Chinese works so engrossed the young scholar that in 1816 he submitted to the Holy Synod a request to stay for a new ten-year term in Beijing to complete works on the history, geography and philosophy of China.

By the end of his 13-year stay in the Qing capital, he had translated the consolidated history of China "Tzu-zhi tong-jian gang-mu" ¹, the geographical description of the Qing Empire "Da Qing and tong-zhi", various works on Mongolia, Tibet and East Turkestan. However, these works, which required a huge effort of effort, were not appreciated by his spiritual superiors. On his arrival in St. Petersburg in January 1822, Fr. Iakinf was deprived of the rank of archimandrite by the Consistory court and exiled as a simple monk forever for his careless performance of missionary duties (in China he was forced to mortgage, or even sell, some of the church's property, since money was not sent to him in connection with the war of 1812). to the Valaam Monastery on Lake Ladoga [RGIA, f. 796, op. 99, d. 877 (1818), l. 274; GIALO, f. 19, on. 120, 1822, d. 413, l. 703].

Only three years and two months later, at the request of friends who served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (P. L. Schilling and E. F. Timkovsky), N. Ya.Bichurin was allowed to move to St. Petersburg and settle in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. In accordance with the decision of Nicholas I on the report submitted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count K. V. Nesselrode, he was assigned to the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to translate official papers coming from the capital of Qing China. The extraordinary creative activity of N. Ya. Bichurin during these years was evidenced by numerous articles, critical reviews, notes and translations (including from French) that appeared in the periodicals of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Among his first articles published after the return of Fr. Iakinf from the reference, it should be indicated: "Answers to questions that Mr. Wirst proposed to Mr. Krusenstern regarding China" (1827) and "Miscellaneous News in China" (1828) - in the magazine "Northern Archive", "Daily exercises of the Chinese sovereign" (1828 ) - in the magazine " Moscow vestnik", etc.

N. Ya.Bichurin's articles immediately attracted the attention of literary critics, who noted the thorough nature of the Russian orientalist's judgments about China and the exhaustive completeness of the information he provided about this country. The author of a review published in the Moscow Telegraph in 1828 in connection with the appearance of Bichurin's article "Answers to Questions" in the form of a separate booklet, wrote on this occasion::

"The name of Father Iakinf, who lived in China for many years and has an excellent knowledge of China, the Chinese language and literature, is already known to enlightened readers. Several of his articles on China were published in the Northern Archive. These articles, and in between them especially the additions to Mr. Krusenstern's answers, should be considered as true jewels."

The author of the review believed that such works as Bichurin's articles could introduce broad strata of Russians to reading scientific literature based on the study of specific material. He expressed gratitude to the author for having decided to publish his works on China, "consequently, to use for the benefit of the sciences and the honor of the fatherland his extraordinary information about a remarkable country, little known and still mostly poorly and incorrectly described" [Moscow Telegraph, 1828, No. 9, pp. 115-118].

In 1828, two books by N. Ya.Bichurin were published - "Description of Tibet in its current state" and "Notes on Mongolia". Based on Chinese sources and personal observations, they have received a warm reception from Russian literary critics.

Taking into account the poor knowledge of Tibet not only in Russia, but also in Western Europe, the well-known writer and orientalist O. I. Senkovsky, in a review published in Severnaya Pchela (No. 72, pp. 75-78), emphasized that this work does honor not only to Russian, but also to world literature. expressed hope for

¹ In Russian translation:" A comprehensive mirror that helps management " by Sima Guang (1019-1086) with comments.

Bichurin published new materials on the history and geography of Asia, which he extracted from difficult Chinese sources "with the greatest care and legibility." Already in 1829, the Description of Tibet was translated in Paris by Yu. Klaprotom, who provided his translation with notes containing minor criticisms of the Russian sinologist.

An important step in the development of N. Ya.Bichurin as a Mongolian scholar was the preparation of a new work called "Notes on Mongolia". It is based on both personal observations and information from Chinese sources.

Petitioning for the publication of a work on Mongolia by fr. Iakinf before Nicholas I, the head of the Foreign Ministry, Count K. V. Nesselrode, emphasized::

"Upon examination of this manuscript, it was discovered that it contains a lot of new information about the geography and history of the Mongols, especially positive information [given]² on the origin of this people " [AVPRI, F. Main archive 1-9, 1824-1829, d. 7, l. 37].

In October 1828, "Notes on Mongolia" was published in a separate edition. Almost simultaneously, lengthy excerpts from this new work of N. Ya.Bichurin appeared in the form of two articles. The first of them was called "Language, tribes, population, classes of peoples in Mongolia", the second - "The way of government, administration, income of princes and Taijis in Mongolia" [Russian Spectator, 1828, No. 9-10, pp. 115-120, 121-126]. "Moskovsky Vestnik" first published the article " Resolution of the issue: who were the Tatars of the 12th century?", and then - "On the ancient and current worship of the Mongols" [Moskovsky Vestnik, 1828, No. 14, pp. 197-202].

The author's preface to the book told about how the future scientist got acquainted with modern Mongolia, which included the following::

"According to a pre-determined plan, I compiled a diary of my trip to Peking, but after a few years, when I had already received a little information in Chinese, I discovered many errors in these notes, so I was forced to exclude comments based on news that was not very true or on assumptions that were very bold... During the last eight years of my stay in Beijing, I have acquired quite a lot of information about Mongolia, partly from the history of China, partly from the treatment of the indigenous inhabitants of that country. This is what prompted me to leave my previous diary, and instead of it, on my return to Russia, to present the above information in the form of these brief notes " (here and further my italics. - A. Kh.) [Notes on Mongolia..., 1828, p. V-VI].

The first part of Bichurin's work on contemporary Mongolia contained a detailed diary of his journey from Beijing to Kyakhta - from May 15 to August 1, 1821.The second part provided information about the administrative and political structure of this country, the ethnic and social composition of its population, the occupations of the Mongols and the role of the Lamaist clergy. The third part contained a brief outline of the history of the Mongol people, while the fourth dealt with issues of customary law and legislation.

Chinese sources were used mainly in writing the second part, and especially the third and fourth. The third part turned out to be the most difficult in this regard, since "it was necessary first to compile a lengthy history of this people, so that, having received a clear and complete information about events, it could be thoroughly described in an abbreviated form" [Notes on Mongolia..., 1828, p.VII]. For this purpose, Bichurin compiled the History of the Mongol People from ancient times to 1635.3 Based on Chinese sources, mainly "Tzu-chi tung-chien gang-mu". According to archival data, the first part of this work was prepared in Beijing, and the ^second - in the Valaam Monastery. As for the fourth part of the "Notes on Mongolia", in it the Russian orientalist made extensive use of materials from the "Code of the Chamber for Foreign Affairs".

² Here and below, additions in square brackets are made by the author of the article to explain the cited handwritten or published Russian text.

³ For a description of this manuscript, see [Chuguevsky, 1966].

dependent territories "("Lifanyuan tse-li"), compiled in 1789. This publication reflects the legislative acts of the Qing government, adopted mainly after the capture of the Dzungarian Khanate and the Khoja possessions in Kashgaria by the Manchu-Chinese troops in the 50s of the XVIII century. The largest number of legal acts in this publication concerned Mongolia, which was incorporated into the Qing Empire in 1690.

N. Ya. Bichurin was the first European researcher to pay attention to this publication of the Qing government and included the translation of several articles from Lifanyuan tse-li in his book on Mongolia. Despite some inaccuracies, Bichurin's translation gave a fairly complete picture of the Qing Chinese legislation regarding Mongolia.

N. Ya. Bichurin's books about Tibet and Mongolia aroused great interest in Russian readers and literary circles. Already in October 1828, the Asiatic Department received positive reviews from many influential people who were able to get acquainted with it before the usual reading public. In a letter dated October 28, 1828, to the Director of the Asian Department, K. K. Rodofinikin, D. N. Bludov, in particular, reported::

"I hasten to express to you, my dear sir, my most humble gratitude for giving me the opportunity to get acquainted with the learned works of our former Peking missionary, a thin monk, as they say, but a good observer and prospector" [AVPRI, F. Main Archive 1-9, 1824-1828, d. 7, l.150].

On December 17, 1828, the Russian Academy of Sciences elected N. Ya. Bichurin its corresponding member in the category of literature and antiquities of the East. This event further strengthened his desire to devote himself entirely to science.

Already in his first book on Mongolia, N. Ya.Bichurin drew attention to the problem of the origin of the Mongols, opposing the view that has developed in Europe on it, most clearly presented in the works of Joseph de Guignes (1721-1800) and other French orientalists. He wrote:

"Today, many scientists in Europe are engaged in studying the origin of the peoples who inhabited, in their opinion, and inhabit Mongolia, but they, not knowing thoroughly either the people or its history, make an erroneous [judgment] in this study... almost every generation is regarded by them as a special people, different from other generations both in origin and language" [Notes on Mongolia..., 1828, pp. 156-157].

Assuming that the Mongols had long inhabited Central (in the then terminology - Central) Asia, the orientalist stated:

"The whole history of the Mongol people shows that the transition of their generations from one region to another occurred from the division of land at every important upheaval in this country, but in no event [it] says that another people entered Mongolia, different from the indigenous people both in origin and language, [and in this case It is an indisputable proof of the unity of the Mongol people in ancient times " [ibid., pp. 158-159].

The novelty and importance of the historical materials that appeared in the books of N. Ya. Bichurin can be judged by the review of a specialist in the field of Mongolian philology, Academician Ya. I. Schmidt (1779-1847):

"It is with real pleasure that we draw the public's attention to the three works of fr. Joaquin... Combining an observant spirit with an extensive knowledge of the Chinese language, this learned man, who has given us many of his own precious observations on the countries he has seen, has also gained the special merit of being the first to introduce us to various Chinese works on Central Asia, which is so interesting for us and still covered with the deepest darkness of the unknown. As long as the inhabitants of Central Asia and their own literary treasures remain as inaccessible to us as they are now, Chinese information about the countries and peoples there will continue to grow.

for us, the most abundant source. It is true that this information also has its drawbacks, and because of the contempt with which the Chinese regard their neighboring peoples, it is not in any case credible, but for all this, the numerous relations in which the Chinese have long been in border relations [with neighboring peoples], and the need to get to know them more closely, give their news and therefore the information they collect will be precious to us even when we ourselves will eventually discover the means to explore the local countries and peoples on the spot" (Schmidt, 1829).

Moving on from the main content of N. Ya. Bichurin's work on Tibet to his "Notes on Mongolia", the reviewer gave the second book the following description:

"The first volume, up to page 125, contains the writer's travel diary from Peking to Kyakhta. This section of the book can be considered a significant addition and, as it were, a part of Timkovsky's journey through Mongolia, for Father Joakin was a companion of Mr. Timkovsky on this trip... In the next section, which ends the first part, the writer discusses in 12 chapters the geographical situation, the political division and natural state of Mongolia, the climate, the quality of the land, the products [crafts] and trade, the language, tribes, population and classes of the people, the way of government, administration and income of princes and Taijis, about the appearance, characteristics and qualities of the Mongols, about marriages and funerals, about the ancient and current worship of the Mongols, about the state of their literature and education, etc. In the last chapter, the author tries to resolve the question: who were the Tatars of the XII century and from what this name came "(Schmidt, 1829).

J. I. Schmidt, in particular, noted: "The writer justly accepts all those peoples whom Degin [De Guin] in his history of the Huns calls Huns, Turks, and Tartars as one people, now called Mongols, which is clearly confirmed by the Chinese annals."

Concerning the third work, published in 1829, by Fr. In his book entitled "Description of Zhungaria and East Turkestan in their ancient and present state", the reviewer noted: "The first part up to page 84 gives us information about the state of these lands before A.D. under the rule of the Chinese Han Dynasty, when the Chinese, having received the first news about these countries, made them a detailed description. Since the former titles are very different from the current ones, the publisher considered it necessary to first attach an explanation of them in alphabetical order...". Ya. I. Schmidt believed that "the second part of this work, describing the current state of Malaya Bukharin [East Turkestan] and the country of the Zyungars [Oirats - Western Mongols], is incomparably more important and entertaining..." [Schmidt, 1829].

Among the foreign responses to the first books of N. Ya.Bichurin, the reviews of Julius Klaproth (1783-1835), whose career as a scientist began in Russia, stood out with critical intensity. He took part in a scientific expedition that accompanied the embassy of Count Yu.A. Golovkin to Beijing in 1805, visited Kyakhta and Urga. Later, the German scientist went to the Caucasus for scientific purposes, in particular to Georgia. Y. Klaproth then went to Berlin, taking with him rare manuscripts-dictionaries belonging to the Russian Academy of Sciences, for which the latter excluded him from its membership. Subsequently, he settled in Paris, where he became known as a " connoisseur of the Orient."

The reason for the first performance of Yu. E. F. Timkovsky's book "Journey through Mongolia to China in 1820-1821", which the author used Chinese materials provided to him by a Russian sinologist in his translation, served as a basis for Klaproth against N. Ya.Bichurin. Having discovered "important inaccuracies" in the transmission of information from Chinese sources in this book, Klaproth focused the fire of criticism on the translator, and the latter had to answer in writing (in French) to his foreign colleague, who, as it turned out, knew little Chinese. Not satisfied with the polite and thorough response of the Russian "khinezist", Klaproth twice publicly criticized N. Ya.Bichurin's views on the problem of the origin of the Mongolian people in the French press, and thanks to his personal acquaintance with P. L. Schilling, he managed to get his own ideas published.

objections in the Russian press (in the Russian translation by N. A. Polevoy) [Report on the books of O. Iakinf Bichurin..., 1831, pp. 513-534].

Bichurin's two books on Mongolia ("Notes on Mongolia" and "The History of the First Four Khans from the House of Genghisov") Klaproth, without referring to the Chinese sources he used, tried to prove that " everything that is... contained in these two creations, already... it is known" from the writings of French Orientalists and that therefore "one cannot expect much new things"from them. As N. Ya.Bichurin himself wrote about the position taken by Klaproth, the latter "instead of refuting... by text... he went the other way and made every effort [to] call into question the authenticity of the Chinese history on which he had previously relied, " but he "made no reference in defense of his system on the various [non-Mongol] peoples who lived in Mongolia" [Reply to Mr. Klaproth..., 1831].

Apparently, the main controversy between the two well-known orientalists was due to their different understanding of the issue of the ethnic origin of the peoples of Central Asia, and in particular the Mongols. Adhering to the views of De Guign, Klaproth developed the idea of the Turkic origin of a number of peoples of Mongolia, and Bichurin pointed out their Mongolian origin. "The Mongols from the earliest times to the present," Bichurin declared, " had direct relations with China, and the Chinese wrote the history of this people in connection with their own, not from the notes of private people, but with [the help of] facts [at the disposal of] the government, at the behest of the [imperial] court. The Chinese chronicles in the course of the last 20 centuries have never confused the Tungus, Mongols, and Turks [Turks] with each other, and the limits in which these peoples have always been constantly located are still the same, namely: the Tungus lived in what is now Manchuria, the Mongols in Mongolia, and the Turks [Turks]- in [Vostochny] Turkestan and countries further west."

Y. Klaproth reproached N. Y. Bichurin for using an allegedly imperfect dictionary of historical terms published under the Chinese Emperor Hong Li, who ruled under the motto "Qian-lun". Noting the advantages of the mentioned dictionary, Bichurin pointed out that all the terms are given in three languages: Manchu, Mongolian and Chinese, and with the help of Chinese characters, phonetically similar pronunciation of Mongolian proper names and geographical names is given. "From the resolute tone with which Mr. Klaproth speaks," wrote N. Ya.Bichurin, " some may conclude that he has extensive knowledge in the languages of East Asia. .. Mr. Klaproth is quite "well-versed" in the Chinese language and translates quite a lot from it, especially articles that others have translated before him. In the Manchu language, he has very superficial information. As for the languages of Mongol, Tibetan, and Turkish ,all his knowledge of these languages consists in the fact that he can sort out certain words in their warehouses, so that he can occasionally attach himself to some expression used by an orientalist scholar and refute it with his empty objections."

N. Ya. Bichurin strongly disagreed with the fact that the Mongols "from time immemorial occupied the southern borders of Eastern Siberia-from Argun to the west to the Yenisei, and the inner space of Mongolia belonged to different generations of the Turkic tribe", that "the head of the Mongols himself was a Tatar, and his subjects were Turks". "From this nonsense," he declared, " it is clear that Klaproth did not read with due attention the positive information about the origin of the House of Mongol, reported by Chinese history."

Reporting that he personally had "in manuscript a complete history of the Mongol people from the earliest times to the fifteenth century, translated [by him] from Chinese, in three volumes," Bichurin delicately advised "to use with extreme caution not only the works of Mr. Klaproth, but also the works of other Orientalists, followers of his, and especially De Guignat, who laid the foundation for the false system of times-

personal peoples who lived in Mongolia " [Reply to Mr. Klaproth ..., 1831, No. 9, pp. 82-99; No. 10, pp. 210-230].

A significant event in Russian and world Oriental studies was the publication in 1829 of N. Ya. Bichurin's book "The History of the first Four Khans from the House of Genghisov". For the first time in the Sinological literature, a complete translation was presented from the section "Ben-ji" ("Basic Annals") from the "Yuan-shi" ("History of the Yuan Dynasty"), short biographies of Genghis Khan (1206-1227), Ogodei (Ogedei, 1229-1241), Guyug (Guyuk, 1246-1248) and Monke (Munke, 1251-1259), as well as the chronicles of their reign, including the period of interregnum 1242-1245, when Ogodei's wife Toregene (Doregene) ruled. Bichurin supplemented the brief reports of "Ben-chi" with extensive valuable information from the consolidated work on the history of China "Tung-chien gang-mu". This approach to selecting the necessary information was explained by the fact that after the death of Mongke, according to the scientist, the collapse of the Mongol Empire itself took place, because the subsequent rule of the Mongols in China, associated with the rule of the Yuan dynasty, represented a new important period in the history of the Mongol people, which was more closely connected with the history of

The new book about Mongolia was highly appreciated by orientalists, who were struck primarily by the novelty of historical materials. After the appearance of this work by N. Ya.Bichurin and some of his other works, the famous Mongol scholar K. d'osson had to rework his "History of the Mongols" (1824).

N. Ya.Bichurin's publication in 1829 of the Russian translation of the educational encyclopedia called "San-tzu-ching" ("Three Words"), written in verse, with a parallel Chinese text, as well as active cooperation in St. Petersburg and Moscow magazines naturally introduced him to the circle of famous writers. N. Ya. Bichurin willingly attended literary Saturdays of V. F. Odoevsky, where topical socio-political topics were also discussed.

In 1831, N. Ya.Bichurin, as an assistant to P. L. Schilling, who was sent to Eastern Siberia to get acquainted with the Russian-Chinese trade and find Mongolian and Tibetan books on the history of Buddhism, went to Kyakhta, where he organized a group of children of Kyakhta merchants and philistines to teach the Chinese language [Khokhlov, 1986, pp. 204-221]. While traveling with Schilling in Transbaikalia, he met the Decembrist N. A. Bestuzhev, who presented the Russian scientist with a rosary made of shackles, and painted his portrait in watercolour.⁴ On the way back to St. Petersburg, N. Ya. Bichurin, on behalf of the ill Schilling, made a trip from Tomsk (via Zmeinogorsk) to Semipalatinsk, and from there via Orenburg to Kazan.

The news of N. Ya.Bichurin's return to St. Petersburg was enthusiastically received by the advanced Russian intelligentsia, who showed an interest in studying the countries of the East. N. I. Lyubimov, who served in the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and knew A. S. Pushkin closely, wrote to M. P. Pogodin on April 9, 1832: "You probably already know about arrival to us... and a shilling and O. Iakinfa... Curious - a lot. We will enrich the whole of Europe with wonderful information " [RSL, f. 231, category II, cardboard 50, units hr. 39]. Indeed, this trip provided the orientalist with valuable materials, including archival ones, for a whole series of articles and books on various issues of the history, geography and ethnography of the peoples of Central Asia.

In 1833, with the assistance of the Academy of Sciences, N. Ya.Bichurin published a book entitled "The History of Tibet and Khukhunor from 2282 BC to 1227 AD", prepared by him during his stay in Kyakhta. Despite the benevolent review of J. I. Schmidt [Reading imp. Academy of Sciences..., 1831, pp. 33-39] and O. I. Senkovsky's indication that "this is a very good book... it will be in great fashion, at least among the Orientalists", this work has remained, according to the famous sinologist and diplomat K. A. Skach-

⁴ The portrait is now in the Kyakhta Museum of Local Lore named after V. A. Obruchev.

almost unnoticed by contemporaries [RSL, f. 273, cardboard 10, ed. chr. 9]. The review of O. I. Senkovsky also contained critical comments, which boiled down to the fact that the author of the book gave historical information, including legends and legends, "in raw material, without any processing", without "strict historical criticism". Objecting to the" too magnificent title "of the book, which, in his opinion, presented only " materials on the history of relations between China and Tibet and Huhunor", the reviewer not without reason stated: "In its current form... the history of Tibet and Huhunor is only a lifeless, dry, and in many places broken web of innumerable facts "[Severnaya Pchela, 1833, No. 21 (January 27)].

In 1834, a new book by N. Ya.Bichurin "Historical review of the Oirats, or Kalmyks, from the XV century to the present" was published. Even before the book was published, Bichurin provided A. S. Pushkin, who was working on the history of the Pugachev uprising, with his materials about the Oirats - Western Mongols who fled first from Dzungaria to the Volga, and then, in 1771, left the Volga back to Dzungaria. Referring to the last episode in the history of the Oirats, who received the name Kalmyks in the then Russian literature, A. S. Pushkin especially noted: "We owe the most reliable and impartial news about the escape of the Kalmyks to Father Iakinf, whose deep knowledge and conscientious works shed such a bright light on our relations with the East. We would like to place here an excerpt from his unpublished book on the Kalmyks" (Pushkin, vol.8, 1949, p. 287).

Bichurin's new work was positively evaluated by Russian critics, and the valuable nature of the information presented in it prompted the members of the Academy of Sciences to award the author the Demidov Prize.

An article by the well-known numismatist P. S. Savelyev, published on June 13, 1835 in the capital's newspaper Severnaya Pchela, partly shows the first successes of Russians in the study of Mongolia and the state of Mongol studies in Russia at that time⁵. It, together with a voluminous review of the "Mongolian-German-Russian Dictionary" compiled by Academician Ya. I. Schmidt - the first Russian work in this field - predicts the rapid flourishing of Mongolian linguistics in Russia: "Yes, this time is very close, because Mr. [O. M.] Kovalevsky ⁶ has already announced that he is completing his extensive Mongolian-Russian lexicon, with phraseology in several large volumes, samples of which he presented to the local Academy of Sciences. Father Iakinf Bichurin also prepared a Mongolian-Russian dictionary long ago, which he drew mainly from Chinese sources. So, here are the first three Mongolian dictionaries that Russian scholarship presents to enlightened Europe."

It is not by chance that the reviewer named N. Ya. Bichurin among the well-known Mongolian scholars (Ya. I. Schmidt and O. M. Kovalevsky).

According to archival materials, during his trips to Kyakhta in 1830-1831 and 1835-1838, N. Ya. Bichurin often had to communicate with Buryats who knew the Mongolian language well, which prompted the researcher to seriously study this language. With the help of a Mongolian translator, most likely Vanchikov, a teacher of the Kyakhta school (as suggested by N. P. Shastina [Shastina, 1956]), Bichurin turned to compiling a Mongolian-Chinese dictionary by arranging words in it in the order of the Mongolian alphabet. Besides P. S. Savelyev, N. S. Shchukin and others mentioned the work of N. Ya.Bichurin on this dictionary, which he needed as a reference.

⁵ For more information about Russian Mongolian studies in these years, see: [Khokhlov, 1992 (1), pp. 222-225; Khokhlov, 1992 (3), pp. 179-182].

⁶ Osip Mikhailovich Kovalevsky (1801-1878) - one of the founders of Mongolian studies in Russia. Since 1834-Professor at Kazan University, since 1839-honorary member of the Asiatic Society in Paris. In 1830-1831, he spent eight months in Beijing during the replacement of the old composition of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission with a new one. In 1847, he was elected an academician, and from 1855 to 1860, O. M. Kovalevsky served as the rector of Kazan University.

M. N. Pogodin, who knew the scientist closely and left biographical information about him (see: [Shchukin, 1857, p. 120; Pogodin, 1871, p. 67]).

The search for this dictionary, compiled by N. Ya.Bichurin, was carried out at different times by the Mongolist S. A. Kozin and the Sinologist A. A. Petrov. The former claimed that this Mongol-Chinese dictionary was donated by its compiler to the Kazan Theological Academy in 1849 [Kozin, 1929]. A. A. Petrov, who went to Kazan specifically to search for N. Ya. Bichurin's manuscripts [Petrov, 1937, p.13], did not find this dictionary there. Meanwhile, the Kyakhta Museum of Local Lore has a Chinese-Russian dictionary similar in structure to the handwritten Bichurinsky dictionary in St. Petersburg, but judging by the handwriting, it was written not by Bichurin,but most likely by a certain Chinese who visited Kyakhta and did not have enough Russian literacy. As in the handwritten dictionary of N. Ya. Bichurin, the Chinese vocabulary in the Kyakhta copy is placed by "matters".

N. Ya. Bichurin's second trip to Kyakhta in 1835, with the aim of organizing a new educational institution for the training of Sinologists, brought him success not only in teaching, but also in scientific activities. During two years in Kyakhta, he translated the multi - volume code of laws of the Qing Empire - "Da Qing Hui-dian", published in Beijing in Chinese in 1821. Having prepared an article with brief statistical data on China taken from this collection, he sent it to the Russian Academy of Sciences in August 1837. While the academic edition of the article was being prepared, it was published in the October issue of the "Journal of the Ministry of National Education" under the title: "Statistical data on China reported by the imp. Corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, Monk Iakinthos." The reaction of the Russian press was almost instantaneous. As early as December 29, 1837, Severnaya Pchela published a summary of this article with reference to its first publication [Journal of the Ministry of National Education, 1837, Part XVI, No. 10].

In 1839, J. I. Schmidt and N. Y. Bichurin had their first public dispute over the translation of the inscription on the famous "Genghis Stone", the oldest example of Mongolian writing. This stone was put up for public display at the exhibition of works of domestic industry and provided with two versions of the translation of the inscription preserved on it. The first version of the translation belonged to Ya. I. Schmidt, and the second-to the teacher of the Kyakhta school Buryat Vanchikov, who gave his translation to N. Ya. Bichurin. The idea of providing this unique exhibit with two versions of the translation belonged to the Chairman of the Commission on the arrangement of the exhibition S. Komarov. However, J. I. Schmidt, having learned about the demonstration of two translations of the inscription on the stone at the exhibition and suspecting Iakinf of intending to discredit his translation, made a polemical article on the pages of the St. Petersburg Vedomosti, which started the discussion. Without touching in detail on the essence of the problem under consideration, it should be noted that Dorji Banzarov, a well-known orientalist from the Buryats, later helped to solve it (see [Shastina, 1956, pp. 194-195]).

In the 1840s, several articles about Lamaism appeared in the Russian metropolitan periodicals, which included translations from Mongolian. It is possible that the real author of these publications (without attribution) was O. Iakinf himself.

In connection with the award of the next Demidov Prize to Bichurin, O. M. Kovalevsky stated that "several works published by Fr. Iakinfom, such as: "Description of Zhungaria and East Turkestan in their ancient and current state "(1829), "History of the four Khans of the house of Genghis" (1829), " History of Tibet and Kukunor..."(1833) were an expensive gift for lovers and explorers of geography and the history of Asia "[Analysis of the works of Father Iakinf..., 1848, pp. 131-137].

The last book that N. Ya.Bichurin worked on for a number of years was "A collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times". He began collecting additional materials in January 1846, being at a rather advanced age and being seriously ill. Three years later, the book was roughed up.-

това. The difficulties that the author had to face in creating a new work can be judged from the story quoted below in a letter dated February 25, 1849 to O. M. Kovalevsky:

"Initially, I suggested that the Academy of Sciences compile a history of the Central Asian peoples for four years. Last year, Messrs. academicians refused me a semi-prize for "China" on the pretext that out of 17 members, ten people were on the side of the opposite opinion, and this turnover led me into difficulties. To improve this situation, Pavel Nikolaevich [Fus] suggested that I reduce my work by a year. I had to agree to his proposal, and in the course of 10 months I finished finishing the book, which required at least two years... the hasty labor of ten months, instead of two years, so exhausted me that I could not recover my health for the next four months. By the end of the work, a new difficulty was encountered... In the topographical map to the history, only Korea remained without explanations... The division of the state into eight provinces, or roads, made in the half of the fourth century. even the very names of provinces remain unchanged to this day, but the limits or boundaries of provinces and the names of cities are not at all the same, and I will have to be guided by the map of Korea printed in the past years in Peking - in the atlas of the Chinese empire, and in Chinese maps punctual accuracy in size is not very respected. In conclusion, I ask you to point out the shortcomings in the most frank way, and I will accept your instructions with great gratitude... My only desire is to make my work perfect and thereby perpetuate it for the benefit of the nation." university. Department of Rare Books, F. O. M. Kovalevsky, No. 101, l. 162-163].

The thoroughness with which N. Ya.Bichurin treated his work can be seen from another of his letters to O. M. Kovalevsky: "From the first days of January to the present day, I have again reviewed all three parts... manuscripts... The geographical index has been multiplied by a whole third; there are very few unknown places left, and now I'm just waiting for a map... sent to you... As for history, [then] I will start work tomorrow and expect to spend at least three months doing it in complete seclusion, so as not to entertain either my memory or my thoughts" [NB SPb. university. Department of Rare Books, F. O. M. Kovalevsky, No. 101, l. 162-163].

However, the scientist's plans were disrupted by illness, and three summer months of 1849 were lost for work due to cholera and its consequences. ARAN branch, f. 2, op. 1, 1849, ed. chr. 14].

In November 1850, N. Ya. Bichurin informed M. P. Pogodin about the final preparation of his new work. It was published in 1851 and was awarded the Demidov Prize. According to the sinologist K. A. Skachkov (1821-1883), this was Fr. Iakinfa, which covered a huge historical period and contained a lot of ethnographic information [RSL, f. 273, cardboard 10, ed. xr. 9].

For the characterization of N. Ya. Bichurin as a Mongol scholar, it is important that in his last book he included the article "Who were the Mongols" published in December 1850 in the magazine "Moskvityanin", where he stated: "The beginning of the Mongol people dates back to 25 centuries BC. at the beginning of the IX century, strengthened at the beginning of the XII, founded the Mongol Empire in the XIII century A.D. "[Moskvityanin, 1850, No. 24, December, book 2, p. 91].

Understanding all the complexity and complexity of the problem of ethnogenesis of the Mongolian people (in the absence of data on archeology and anthropology at that time), Bichurin tried to cover it with the help of Chinese sources available to him. Information obtained from these sources, translated and published by the works of fr. Iakinf's ideas still feed the creative thought of many researchers, who often view the history of the peoples of Central Asia through the prism of their relations with China in different periods of their development.

N. Ya. Bichurin was deeply interested not only in the ancient and medieval history of the Mongols, but also in their legal situation in contemporary Mongolia, which was easier for him to study due to a fairly complete knowledge of the legislative acts of the Qing government, officially published in Beijing in the form of collections such as "Lifanyuan tse-li".

After the publication of the last book, Bichurin continued to write small notes and articles, but constant ill health and almost complete loss of vision in the last years of his life did not allow him to work fully. N. Ya.Bichurin (fr. Iakinf) May 11, 1853

N. Ya. Bichurin's works on Mongolia (in the Russian edition and in translations into Western languages) were actively used by many Russian and foreign researchers. So, in the archive of the famous archaeologist N. I. Veselovsky, who taught the history of the East at St. Petersburg University, you can find many extracts from the books of an outstanding sinologist, namely from " Notes on Mongolia "and"The History of the first Four Khans from the house of Genghisov". Information from the Mongolian code, placed in the fourth section of the first mentioned book, he became interested in studying the question of the essence of diplomatic ceremonial in relations between Russia and the countries of the East [RGALI, f. 118, on. 1, ed. chr.280, l. 286]. The information from the second book was necessary for him to study military affairs among the Mongols, such an important issue for characterizing and evaluating the conquests of Genghis Khan and his successors [RGALI, f. 118, op. 1, ed. ch. 315, l. 20].

In the multi-colored scale of various subjects developed by N. Ya.Bichurin, the Mongolian theme served him as a guiding star for many years, and he returned to it again and again, making his contribution to solving many topical problems of Mongolian studies. Although he did not consider himself a sufficiently experienced and authoritative Mongolist who thoroughly studied all the subtleties of the Mongolian language, thanks to his excellent knowledge of the Chinese script, he was able to seriously and fruitfully study the history of the Mongols and their contacts with the Chinese in different epochs of their nomadic civilization.

The works of the Russian sinologist, thanks to which, according to V. V. Barthold, " Russian sinology was already ahead of Western Europe in 1851 and 1852 [Annals, 1923, p. 261], served as an important tool for researchers in many countries and generations. They retain their enduring significance even now, revealing to specialists of various scientific disciplines a wealth of information about the material and spiritual culture of the peoples of China, Mongolia and other Asian countries. ⁷

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AVPRI-Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire.

GAIO - State Archive of the Irkutsk region.

NART - National Archive of the Republic of Tatarstan (Kazan).

NB-Scientific Library of St. Petersburg U. Department of Rare Books.

RSL - Russian State Library. Department of Manuscripts (Moscow).

RGIA - Russian State Historical Archive (Saint Petersburg).

St. Petersburg Branch of ARAN - St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

LIST OF SOURCES AND REFERENCES

AVPRI. F. Main archive 1-9. 1824-1828. d. 7. L. 150.

AVPRI. F. Main archive 1-7. 1826-1853. d. 2. l. 38.

Annals. [Pg.], 1923.

Bichurin N. Ya.Zapiski o Mongol'ii [Notes on Mongolia], vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1828.

⁷ For more detailed information about the life path and scientific heritage of N. Ya.Bichurin, see: [Khokhlov, 1977; 1978(1); 1978(2); 1978(3); 2002(1)]. In the first decade of the XXI century, a number of Russian publications devoted to the biography and creative activity of N. Ya.Bichurin were published, among which the first complete reprint of his book "Notes on Mongolia" in 2010 was carried out by the Agni publishing house in Samara (with an introductory article and a dictionary of Oriental terms by A. N. Bichurin). Khokhlov).

Bichurin N. Ya.Statistical description of the Chinese Empire, St. Petersburg, 1842.

GAIO. F. 121. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 47-48; L. 95-96; F. 50. Op. 1. D. 930. L. 90-91.

Journal of the Ministry of National Education, 1837, Part XVI. № 10.

Notes on Mongolia, composed by the monk Iakinf. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1828.

China in its Civil and Moral State, Op. by the Monk Jacinth in 4 parts. St. Petersburg, 1848.

Kozin S. A. About the unpublished works of Bichurin // Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences. Department of Humanities. 1929. № 5.

Moskovityanin, 1850, No. 24. December. Book 2.

Moscow Bulletin. 1828. № 14.

Moscow Telegraph, 1828, No. 9.

NART. f. 2. Op. 1. D. 2237. L. 226; F. 977. Op. Council. d. 8720. l. 4-6.

Reply to Mr. Klaproth's comments on the books published by Fr. Iakinf Bichurin and related to the history of the Mongols / / Moscow Telegraph. 1831. № 9; № 10.

Report on the books of O. Iakinf Bichurin concerning the history of the Mongols, presented to the Paris Asian Society by Mr. Klaproth in September 1830 / / Moscow Telegraph, 1831, No. 7; No. 8.

Petrov, A. A., Manuscripts on Sinology and Mongolian studies stored in the Central Archive of the TASSR and in the library of Kazan University, Bibliografiya Vostoka. 1937. № 10.

Pogodin M. P. Biography of father Iakinf Bichurin// Conversations of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature at Moscow University. Issue 3. 1871.

Pushkin A. S. History of the Pugachev riot // Collected Works, vol. 8. Moscow-L., 1949.

Analysis of the work of Father Iakinf under the title "China in civil and moral relations", compiled by G. Prof. The seventeenth award of the awards established by P. N. Demidov. April 17, 1848 St. Petersburg: Tip. Academy of Sciences, 1848.

RSL. f. 231. Category II. Cardboard 13. Ed. hr. 43. l. 14; F. 231. Category II. Cardboard 50. Ed. hr. 39; F. 273. Cardboard 10. Ed. hr. 9.

RGIA. F. 815. Op. 9. D. 98 (1853). L. 1.

Russian audience. 1828. № 9-10.

Northern Bee, 1833, No. 21 (January 27).

Sovremennik, 1848, vol. 7, No. 1, Ed. III.

St. Petersburg branch of ARAN. F. 2. 1847. Ed. hr. 1. L. 215-216; F. 2. Op. 1. 1849. Ed. hr. 14.

Khokhlov A. N. V. P. Vasiliev in Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan // History and Culture of China (Collection in memory of Academician V. P. Vasiliev), Moscow, 1974.

Khokhlov A. N. Bichurin and his works on Mongolia and China in the first half of the 19th century (some questions of source studies) / / N. Ya.Bichurin and his contribution to Russian Oriental Studies (To the 200th anniversary of his birth). Proceedings of the Conference, Part 1, Moscow, 1977.

Khokhlov A. N. N. Ya. Bichurin i ego trudy o Mongolia i Kitay [Bichurin and his works on Mongolia and China]. 1978(1). № 1.

Khokhlov A. N. N. Ya. Bichurin and the Russian Academy of Sciences // Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1978(2), No. 6.

Khokhlov A. N. On the source base of N. Ya.Bichurin's works on Qing China / / Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1978(3). № 1.

Khokhlov A. N. Kyakhta School of the Chinese language and its role in the preparation of Sinologists (to the 150th anniversary of its foundation) / / XVII Scientific Conference "Society and the State in China", Part 2. Moscow, 1986.

Khokhlov A. N. A.V. Igumnov-sostavitel ' pervogo v Rossii bolshogo mongol'sko-russkogo slovarya [Igumnov is the compiler of the first Large Mongolian-Russian dictionary in Russia]. Doklady rossiiskoi delegatsii [VI International Congress of Mongol Studies (Ulaanbaatar, August 1992)], vol. 1, Moscow, 1992(1).

Khokhlov A. N. D. P. Sivillov-Head of the first Russian Chinese Language Department // Topical issues of Chinese linguistics. Proceedings of the VI All-Russian Conference (Moscow, June 1992).Moscow, 1992(2).

A. N. Khokhlov and I. M. Mostinin - the first Russian translator-Mongolist // East in the past and present. Abstracts for the regional conference. May 14-17, 1992 Irkutsk, 1992(3).

Khokhlov A. N. Mongolia before and after the declaration of independence (according to the letters of eyewitnesses-Russians) / / VII International Congress of Mongol Studies (Ulaanbaatar, August 1997). Doklady rossiyskoy delegatsii, Moscow, 1997.

Khokhlov A. N. Bichurin and his works on the Qing China. Statistical description of the Chinese Empire. In 2 ch. Moscow, 2002 (1).

Khokhlov A. N. Pozdnssva's trip to Mongolia and China in 1892-1893 / / Russia and Mongolia in the light of the Dialogue of Eurasian Civilizations, Moscow, 2002(2).

Imp readings. Academy of Sciences for 1829 and 1830. Book 1. No. 5. St. Petersburg, 1831.

Chuguevsky L. I. Novoe o rukisnom nasledii N. Ya.Bichurin [New information about N. Ya. Bichurin's handwritten heritage]. 1966. № 3.

Shastina N. P. The significance of N. Ya.Bichurin's works for Russian Mongolian studies // Essays on the History of Russian Oriental Studies, vol. 2. Moscow, 1956.

Schmidt Ya. I. Announcement of some newly published works concerning Central Asia / / St. Petersburg Vedomosti. 1829. No. 62 (May 24); No. 63 (May 27); No. 64 (May 29).

Shchukin N. S. Iakinf Bichurin / / Journal of the Ministry of National Education, 1857. Ssnt. Department 5.

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: