Russia and Kazan: Conquest and Imperial Ideology (1438-1560s) 3111529894, 9783111529899

Citation preview

NEAR A N D M I D D L E EAST

MONOGRAPHS

Editors D . M . DUNLOP

T . HALASI-KUN

Columbia University

Columbia University

Associate Editor P. OBERLING

Hunter College The City University of New York

V

RUSSIA AND KAZAN Conquest and Imperial Ideology (1438-1560s)

by JAROSLAW PELENSKI

1974

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1974 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 72-94496

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., The Hague

XpHCTHHÌ

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is the result of my longtime and extensive preoccupation with the problem of the formation of the multinational Russian Empire and the relationship between the politics of conquest and ideology formulated to justify expansion. I am fully aware of the revisionist character of my assessments and interpretations, which were arrived at after the most scrupulous and careful evaluation of the available sources and the professional literature, with complete disregard for non-scholarly conventions and vested interests. Although I am indebted to a number of persons and institutions, the opinions expressed and the errors committed in this work are mine alone. In the first place, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Professors Tibor Halasi-Kun and Ihor Sevcenko; their extraordinary erudition and humanist wisdom were always at my disposal, and they both actively supported the publication of this book. Professors Nina Garsoian, Alan W. Fisher, Pierre Oberling, Marc Raeff and Donald W. Sutherland read the manuscript in parts or as a whole and offered their critical comments. For editorial suggestions and stylistic improvements I should like to thank Mrs. Margaret B. Sevienko, Dr. Carol Rathbun and Dr. Fanny Davis. My student, Jeffry J. Hlubek, helped me to prepare the index. Mrs. Mary E. Strottman meticulously typed the final version of the manuscript. The Foreign Area Fellowship Program and the American Philosophical Society generously helped my efforts with financial aid; their grants enabled me to undertake research on Russo-Tatar relations and Muscovite political thought in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Graduate College of the University of Iowa provided a subsidy to defray the printing costs of my book and a grant-in-aid for the typing of the manuscript. My appreciation is due to the Slavic Review for consent to use my article, "Muscovite Imperial Claims to the Kazan Khanate", Slavic Review XXVI: 4 (1967), 559-576, and to the Cambridge University

vin

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Press for the permission to quote brief excerpts from J. L. I. Fennell (ed. and tr.), The Correspondence between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, 1564-1579 (Cambridge, 1963), and from his Prince A. M. Kurbskf s History of Ivan IV (Cambridge, 1965). I am sincerely obliged to the Manuscript Divisions of the three Soviet libraries for the permission to publish the following texts : "V lete 7037 (1529), mesjaca genvaija 24, muôenie svjatogo Ivana" (Gosudarstvennyj istoriôeskij muzej); "O svjatem mucenice Ivane, iie za Xrista mucen vo grade Kazani" (Gosudarstvennaja publicnaja biblioteka im. M. E. Saltykova-Sôedrina) ; "Prijde gosudarju radost' i gosudarju zdorov'e" (Biblioteka Akademii Nauk SSSR). I am also indebted to the Gosudarstvennyj istoriôeskij muzej for the permission to publish six miniatures from the Carstvennaja kniga. The greatest debt I certainly owe to my wife, Christina Pelenski, who edited and typed the manuscript at various phases of its development, and who prepared the maps and the bibliography. Her constant encouragement, discerning criticism, dedicated assistance and rare ability to provide genuine intellectual stimulation will always be most gratefully remembered.

TABLE O F CONTENTS

Acknowledgments I.

VII

Introduction

1

MAPS

1. Muscovite Russia in 1551 2. The Kazan Khanate (End of XVth-Middle of XVIth Century) . 3. Territorial Continuity of the Volga Bulgar State — Kazan Khanate

5 6 7

PART ONE

II.

The Relations between Muscovy and the Kazan Khanate, 1438-1552

23

PART TWO: MUSCOVITE LEGAL CLAIMS TO THE KAZAN KHANATE AND HISTORICAL, DYNASTIC AND NATIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ITS CONQUEST

III.

Investiture of Khans with the Khanate of Kazan — a Legal Prerogative of the Muscovite Rulers IV. The Kazan Yurt — a Votôina of the Muscovite R u l e r s . . . V. The Muscovite "Law of Conquest" and Kazan VI. Historical and Dynastic Justifications for the Kazan Conquest VII. The National Justification of the Conquest: Kazan — "A Russian Land"

65 76 88 92 104

TABLE OF CONTENTS

X

PART THREE

VIII. The Theory of Bulgar-Kazan Continuity: The Projection of Muscovite Political Ideas into Turkic and East European History

139

PART FOUR: THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN TWO WORLDS: ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM

IX.

The Religious Struggle against the Kazanian Tatars: Comments, Projects and Exhortations X. Prophecies, Predictions, Omens and Miracles XI. The Liberation of Russian Christians from Muslim Captivity XII. The Expansion of the Orthodox Christian Faith XIII. The Martyrology of the Kazan Conquest

177 214 232 251 276

XIV. Conclusion

283 ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Sapping of the City Wall, the Attack and the Conquest of the City of Kazan by the Russian Armies. Miniature from the Kazanskaja istorija. Early 17th Century

306

2. Ivan IV. Portrait. Later part of 16th Century. Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen

307

National

3. Cathedral of Vasilij the Blessed. Founded 1555-1560. Moscow

308

4. The Demon Causing Disturbances among the People Living in a Small Town on the Kama River and the Prayer of the Seyit. Miniature from the Kazanskaja istorija. Early 17th Century

309

5. Liberation of Christian Captives and the Slaying of Pagan Kazanians by the Russian Armies in the City of Kazan. Miniature from the Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow

310

6. Thanksgiving Services and the Foundation of a Church at the Site where the Tsar's Banner Stood. Miniature from the

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XI

Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow

311

7. Baptism of the Kazan Tsar Otemi? Girey-Aleksandr. Miniature from the Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow

312

8. Baptism of the Kazan Tsar Yadigar Mehmet-Simeon. Miniature from the Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow

313

9. Blessing of the City of Kazan on October 4,1552 with Ivan IV Participating in the Ceremony. Miniature from the Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow

314

10. Consecration of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in the City of Kazan on October 6,1552. Miniature from the Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow

315

11. Our Lady of Kazan. Icon. Mid-17th Century. Russian State Museum, Leningrad

316

12. Our Lady of Kazan. Icon. Late 17th Century. Russian State Museum, Leningrad

317

13. Our Lady of Kazan. Icon by Simeon Usakov. 17th Century. Russian State Museum, Leningrad

318

14. Our Lady of Kazan. Icon. 17th Century. From the author's collection

319

APPENDICES

I. II. III.

Note on Transliteration 321 List of Abbreviations 322 Note on Identification and Transliteration of Tatar and Turkic Names 325

XII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IV.

Chronological List of Kievan Rulers to the Mongol Conquest of Kiev in 1240 V. Chronological List of Rulers of the (SuzdaP)-Vladimir Grand Principality to its Final Merging with the Muscovite Grand Principality VI. Chronological List of Rulers of Muscovite Russia to the Extinction of the "Rurikide" Dynasty VII. Chronological List of Metropolitans of Moscow VIII. Chronological List of Khans of the Kazan Khanate . . . .

331 332 333

Selected Bibliography

335

Index

349

328

330

I INTRODUCTION

The imperial and multinational aspects of the Muscovite state, as well as those of modern Russia, are relatively neglected areas of East European historical studies. Impressive national histories exist, both of Russia proper and of the various non-Russian peoples of the old Empire, and Soviet, as well as Western, scholarship has considerably advanced the knowledge of Russia's past through new factual material and also by its more sophisticated approach to social and economic history — areas outside the intellectual interests of traditional national historians. But this scholarship still tends to underestimate the ethnic, legal, administrative, and social variety of Muscovite and Imperial Russia. Only a very few authors have so far attempted to deal with these problems, and their ventures have necessarily suffered from factual and conceptual limitations. B. Nolde's La formation de V Empire russe (2 vols.; Paris, 1952-1953) remained an unfinished work. The author concentrated on the annexation of individual countries and regions and their subsequent administrative status within the Empire. Nolde's view of the Empire was also somewhat limited by his theory of incorporation, which is in need of modification. G. von Rauch, in his Russland — Staatliche Einheit und nationale Vielfalt (Munich, 1953), was able to avoid the pitfalls of a onesided conceptual approach, but in spite of its many virtues, his work is somewhat fragmentary. It begins with the Treaty of Perejaslav (1654) and concentrates mainly on the nineteenth century. While the situation in research and scholarship is unsatisfactory, it is even more so when it comes to educational materials. The need for textbooks and reliable general works has only partially been filled by H. Seton-Watson's The Russian Empire, 1801-1917 (Oxford, 1967), the first general account of the nineteenth century to acknowledge the imperial character of the Russian state. All other major surveys, covering the period since roughly the sixteenth century, have been written on the premise that Russia was a unitary national state. For all its preconceived

2

INTRODUCTION

ideas and concessions to changing ideological demands, Soviet historiography, in contrast to the work of most Western historians of Russia, has recognized Russia's multinational character. This is best exemplified by the voluminous Ocerki istorii SSSR, which includes historical surveys of the individual non-Russian peoples, albeit written in accordance with official political enunciations. The reasons for this lack of comprehensive studies dealing with the multinational character of the Russian Empire are manifold. One of the most important is to be found in Russian historiographic tradition. Russian imperial historians (M. N. Karamzin, S. M. Solov'ev and others) devoted a great deal of attention to the conquests and expansion of the Empire. Their works were nationalist in tone and consequently strove to glorify the successes of their country in acquiring territory, the forward march of Russian civilization, and her role in world affairs. Needless to say, they were either very critical of the non-Russian countries and societies which were drawn into the Russian orbit, or tried to minimize their contribution to the imperial development. In addition, under the influence of the Romantic concept of history, they adhered to notions such as national character, national uniqueness, and the organic growth and genetic development of societies. This in turn prompted them to make generalizations which often were artificially applied. However, for all their shortcomings these imperial historians knew the sources well, not only those pertaining to Russia proper, but also those that bore on the various other regions which formed the Empire. In the last third of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries a tendency toward a more critical approach manifested itself in the works of historians such as V. O. KljuCevskij and A. F. Platonov. They continued to follow the national imperial school concerning the general development of Russian history, but with regard to individual problems they displayed greater objectivity and detachment. The imperial theme of Russian history was not their immediate scholarly concern; nevertheless, some of their opinions indicate that they sensed its complexities. A number of leading representatives of Russian historical scholarship succeeded in breaking away from the typical nationalist viewpoint of their predecessors during the period between the 1880s and the 1930s. V. S. Ikonnikov, M. A. Djakonov, A. E. Presnjakov, M. K. Ljubavskij, and P. Miljukov, to name a few, exhibited in their works an admirably critical attitude toward source materials, and they dared to question established concepts and ideas. They also combined great erudition with

INTRODUCTION

3

new interpretations of a historicist quality. Unfortunately, this promising trend in Russian historical studies was brought to an abrupt end on account of the well-known political developments in the late 1920s and the early 1930s. In recent years, however, a revival of a more impartial and professional approach can be found in works by some leading Soviet scholars. This evolution in historical method and thought was only faintly reflected in studies pertaining to the imperial nature of the Russian state. The more cautiously inclined historians concentrated on problems of the East Slavic past. The result of this gap in historical writing is that the overwhelming majority of Western scholars remain influenced by Solov'ev's views in their treatment of imperial problems. Nevertheless, scrutiny of the source material and especially the sober analysis of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Muscovite chronicles undertaken by the critical historians had great impact on all research in the field of early Russian history. The study of imperial Russia is further complicated by the natural antagonisms between the Russian and non-Russian national historians whose works mirrored the national aspirations of their respective societies during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Russia and Eastern Europe, in particular, the lack of fully developed political institutions providing freedom of debate has prompted many gifted individuals to seek other outlets for their ideas; historiography, history of literature and ethnography afforded these outlets, and consequently often became platforms for furthering a national cause. Modern scholars display a healthy scepticism when they evaluate the various historical schools of the non-Russian nationalities which inhabited the former Empire. However, in dealing with the conflicting claims of these antagonistic national historiographies, the contemporary researcher ought to keep in mind that Karamzin, Solov'ev, and KljuCevskij were also national historians with their own patriotic loyalties and predilections which one can respect, but need not necessarily share. Another reason for the paucity of major contributions to research on the multinational Russian Empire is the scarcity of monographs and dissertations in this area. In particular, when one turns to Western scholarship, one finds scant evidence of professional activity in the field. For example, while the corpus of monographs on various aspects of Russian history has grown considerably in the United States and Great Britain in the last two decades, only a few works of varying quality have

4

INTRODUCTION

been specifically devoted to the imperial problem.1 One can only hope that international scholarship will continue to build a solid basis of specialized research upon which a reliable and meaningful synthesis can some day be erected. The final conquest of the Kazan Khanate2 by Muscovite armies in 1552

1

G. Lantzeff, Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of Colonial Administration (Berkeley, 1943); M. Raeff, Siberia and the Reforms of 1822 (Seattle, 1956); C. B. O'Brien, Muscovy and the Ukraine: From the Pereiaslavl Agreement to the Truce of Andrusovo (Berkeley, 1963); R. A. Pierce, Russian Central Asia, 1867-1917: A Study in Colonial Rule (Berkeley, 1960); S. Becker, Russia's Protectorates in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865-1924 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968); A. S. Donnelly, The Russian Conquest of Bashkiria, 1552-1740 (New Haven, 1968); A. W. Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772-1783 (Cambridge, 1970). 2 The boundaries of the Kazan Khanate appear to have undergone a few major changes from the end of the fifteenth century to 1551 (for the latest description of the various territories of the Khanate, see M. N. Tixomirov, Rossija v XVI stoletii [Moscow, 1962], pp. 20-24, 467-507). Its western border with Muscovy was the most clearly defined, since it coincided with rivers as natural boundaries (see Map 2). It ran roughly to the north along the MokSa River (from its source near the point where the Sura River leaves its westward course and flows away toward the northeast), turned sharply to the east along the Alatyr' River which flows into the Sura, and then followed the latter to the north where it fell into the Volga. From there it paralleled the Volga to its confluence with the Vetluga River. The northern boundary of the Khanate departed from this confluence, moved in a quarter circle to the Vjatka River, and then followed a line to the east and slightly to the north which carried it south of the Vjatka land, for some distance along the Upper Cepca River, and finally to the point where the Sylva and Cusovaja rivers discharge into the Kama. In the east the boundaries can be only vaguely ascertained. They were rather indeterminate to the east of the triangle of the Kama and Belaja rivers and reached the area where the Ufa and Dema rivers discharge into the Belaja. The eastern boundary may have extended to the point where the Belaja turns sharply east. The southern limits of the Khanate's territory are equally difficult to establish. Tixomirov maintained that they ran along the southern tributaries of the Kama, probably not reaching the Samara River (pp. 486,21). On his map of the northern Tatar states, B. Spuler proposes a line from the Upper Belaja to the south of the Lower Samara, and then to the Volga in the vicinity of Saratov (Die Goldene Horde [Die Mongolen in Russland: 1223-1502] [Wiesbaden, 19652], p. 639). His southern line corresponds to that on the map of the Khanate in the Bol'Saja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija (cited hereafter as BSE) XIX (19532), p. 311. V. I. Buganov, on the other hand, chooses the Bol'Soj CeremSan River, the southern line of the finger-shaped turn of the Volga, the Syzran', and the emerging Sura as his southern limit (cf. the map with his article on the Kazan Khanate in: Sovetskaja Istoriceskaja Enciklopedija VI [1965], p. 782). It is quite possible that the BoISoj Kinel', together with the Dema, or that part of it parallel with the Belaja, may have been the southeastern edge which extended to the Volga in the west. Neither has the southwestern border of the Kazan Khanate been satisfactorily clarified as yet. M. Xudjakov claimed that the right bank of the Volga, as far as Caricyn (contemporary Volgograd, former Stalingrad), was a possession of the Kazan Khanate (Ocerkipo istorii Kazanskogo Xanstva [Kazan', 1923], p. 12). His claim is reflected on the map of the Khanate in the BSE. The clarification of the southwestern boundary primarily depends on the evaluation of the onomastic evidence. The ancient name of Caricyn, as well as

INTRODUCTION

5

that of the Carica River by which the former was located, is derived from the Tatar sary-su 'yellow water'. However, the Tatar origin of the name does not necessarily attest to Kazanian sovereignty over the entire area. While it could have been controlled by the Kazan khan, the possibility of an Astrakhan, Crimean or Nogai claim to it should not be entirely excluded. However, there is no doubt that the Khan of Kazan was in control of the Volga-Syzran'-Sura line.

6

INTRODUCTION

The core area of the Kazan Khanate was located in the Middle Volga basin around the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers, with the former flowing north-south across the western part, and the Kama providing a rough east-west axis. This area approximately corresponds to the central and northeastern parts of the old Bulgar state

7

INTRODUCTION

TERRITORIAL CONTINUITY BULGAR STATE - KAZAN (•"-•> — '

OF VOLGA KHANATE

Boundary of the Volga Bulgar Slate from the End of the Xth to the Beginning of the XIII th Cent. Ethnic K a z a n i a n - Tatar Core Area from the Second Half of the X V t h Cent.

r •.——,

t — i

Territory of the Kozan Khanate from the End of the XVth to the Middle of the X V I th Cent

„••••• Unconfirmed Territory of the Kazan Khanate from ••••' the End of X V t h to the Middle of the X V I t h Cent. O

75

150

miles

Map 3 (,see Map 3), as well as to the territory of the present Tatar ASSR. The territory, predominantly a low, rolling plain, was inhabited by the Tatars, a Turkic people, a mixture of the old Bulgars and migrating Turkic elements from the Golden Horde. The Tatar language belongs to the Turkic language group. The Tatars adhered to the Muslim religion, were predominantly agricultural and had the most developed sociopolitical organization of all the peoples comprising the Kazan Khanate. The latter included a number of dependent lands inhabited by indigenous peoples. The territory to the southeast of Kazan was populated by Bashkirs, a pastoral-nomadic people of mixed ethnic origin, speaking a Turkic language. Only the northwestern hilly area of the Bashkir country came under Kazanian sovereignty in the process of the disintegration of the Golden Horde. Southwestern and southern Bashkir lands were under the domination of the Nogai Horde, while the eastern parts had submitted to the Siberian

8

INTRODUCTION

represented Russia's first major expansion beyond the ethnic territories of the Great Russian nationality. It served as a point of departure for Russia's Eastern policy in the Muscovite, as well as the Imperial, period. In conquering Kazan, Muscovy acquired a relatively advanced country with its own political institutions, social system, specific economic conditions, Muslim religious and cultural values, and multi-ethnic composition. This conquest signalled the transformation of Muscovite Russia from a centralized national state into a multinational empire, a development of crucial importance for the subsequent course of Russian history. The factual aspects of the relations between Muscovy and Kazan in the period between 1438 and 1552 have mostly been covered in the literature,3 although a number of issues remain matters of controversy. Khanate. To the west of the Tatar core was the land of the Chuvash, located between the Sura and Svijaga rivers with the Volga providing the northern natural boundary. The Chuvash language is classified as one of the Turkic languages (K. H. Menges, The Turkic Languages and Peoples [Wiesbaden, 1968], p. 61). The Chuvash people were agriculturalists, and worshipped nature before their enforced Christianization in the eighteenth century. The sovereignty of the Kazan khans extended over the lands of three additional peoples whose languages belong to the Finno-Ugric sub-family of languages. The hilly area, southwest of Kazan, roughly between the Sura and the MokSa, was populated by the Mordvinians, or, more specifically, by their MokSa branch. The northern branch, the Érzja, had already earlier come under Russian domination. The sedentary Mordvinians lived by agriculture, cattle-breeding and beekeeping. The closest linguistic relatives of the Mordvinians were the Mari or Cheremissians, who lived to the north of Kazan. The Cheremissians were divided into two major branches: the gornaja ieremisa 'Mountain Cheremissians', residing mostly on the right elevated bank of the Volga, and the lugovaja ieremisa 'Meadow Cheremissians', populating the wooded area between the Vetluga and Vjatka rivers. Agriculture, cattle-breeding, hunting and fishing were the major sources of subsistence of the predominantly sedentary Cheremissians. Finally, the Udmurts or Votiaks, inhabiting the territory roughly between the Vjatka and Kama rivers, should be mentioned. Only the southern Udmurts were subjects of the Kazan Khanate, while their northern branch populated the areas which were incorporated into the Vjatka land. The main preoccupations of the Udmurts were agriculture, cattle-breeding and hunting. These three Finnic peoples adhered to various types of nature worship before their Christianization. Like the Tatars, the other Turkic, as well as Finnic, subject peoples of the old Kazan Khanate, continue their ethnic existence to the present day and are organized in Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics of the RSFSR. * The historical background of these relations was analyzed by Xudjakov, Ocerki...; I. Smolitsch, "Zur Geschichte der russischen Ostpolitik des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts (Die Eroberung des Kazaner Reiches)", Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (cited hereafter as JfGOE) VI (1941), pp. 55-84; 1.1. Smirnov, "Vostocnaja politika Vasilija in", Istorileskie Zapiski (cited hereafter as IZ) XXVII (1948), pp. 18-66; S. O. Smidt, "Pravitel'stvennaja dejatel'nost' A. F. AdaSeva i vostoínaja politika russkogo gosudarstva v seredine XVI veka", unpublished Candidate's dissertation, Moscow University, 1948-1949; "Predposylki i pervyegody 'Kazanskoj vojny' (1545-1549)", Trudy Moskovskogo goiudarstvennogo istoriko-arxivnogo instituía (cited hereafter as TGIAI) VI (1954), pp. 187-257; "VostoCnaja politika Rossii nakanune 'Kazanskogo vzjatija'", in:

INTRODUCTION

9

Equally essential for the understanding of the Muscovite expansion into the territories of the Kazan Khanate and further to the East is the comprehension of the motives which contemporary Muscovites recognized as having prompted their imperial drive. It is worthwhile to investigate their views of their Tatar neighbors, especially as reflected in official pronouncements, as well as their notions of Russo-Kazanian relations, and their image of themselves as an expanding and conquering nation. An analysis of the justifications for the Kazan conquest goes far to demonstrate the development of Muscovite ideology, since that ideology focused on the case of Kazan during a decisive era in Russia's past. The periods immediately preceding and following this event — that is, the years between 1547 and the late 1560s — were of paramount significance in the history of Muscovite political thought, for they witnessed the appearance of a considerable number of remarkable historical and ideological works. Most of these works were written in one of the two centers: either the tsar's court or the metropolitan's chancery. The former produced official court chronicles, whereas the latter — particularly under the direction of Metropolitan Makarij — compiled interpretative works of a historical and religious character. Extant examples of this new court Mezdmtarodnye otnoSemja, politika, diplomatija (Sbornik statej k 80-letiju akademika I. M. Majskogo) (Moscow, 1964), pp. 538-558; B. Nolde, La formation de ¡'Empire russe (2 vols.; Paris, 1952-1953); E. L. Keenan, "Muscovy and Kazan' 1445-1552: A Study in Steppe Politics", unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1965; I. SevCenko, "Muscovy's Conquest of Kazan: Two Views Reconciled", Slavic Review (cited hereafter as SR) XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 541-547; E. L. Keenan, "Muscovy and Kazan: Some Introductory Remarks on the Patterns of Steppe Diplomacy", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 548-558; J. Pelenski, "Muscovite Imperial Claims to the Kazan Khanate", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 559-576; O. Pritsak, "Moscow, the Golden Horde, and the Kazan Khanate from a Polycultural Point of View", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 577-583. For a comprehensive treatment of the complex issues of Russo-Tatar relations in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see also V. V. Vel'jaminov-Zernov, Izsledovanie o Kasimovskix carjax i careviiax (4 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1863-1887), I; Spuler, Die Goldene Horde ...; B. Spuler, "Die Volga-Tataren und Baschkiren unter russischer Herrschaft", Der Islam XXIX (1950), pp. 142-216; B. D. Grekov and A. Ju. Jakubovskij, Zolotaja Orda i eepadenie (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950); M. G. Safargaliev, Raspad Zolotoj Ordy (Ucenye Zapiski Mordovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta), vyp. XI (Saransk, 1960). Additional comments and observations on Muscovite foreign policy with regard to the Kazan Khanate can be found in: S. M. Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii s drevnejiix vremen (15 vols.; Moscow, 1960-1966), HI (Vols. V and VI of Solov'ev's Istorija Rossii, which comprise Vol. Ill of the new Soviet edition, originally appeared in 1855 and 1856); K. V. Bazileviö, VneSnjaja politika russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva (Vtoraja polovina XV veka) (Moscow, 1952); G. Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age (New Haven, 1959); J. L. I. Fennell, Ivan the Great of Moscow (London, 1961); I. B. Grekov, Ocerki po istorii mezdunarodnyx otnosenij vostoinoj Evropy XIV-XVI vv. (Moscow, 1963).

10

INTRODUCTION

historiography are the Letopisec nacala carstva carja i velikogo knjazja Ivana VasiVevica vseja Rusii [The Chronicle of the Beginning of the Tsardom of the Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviS of All Russia], which covers the period between 1533 and 1552, and the Carstvemtaja kniga [The Imperial Book]. The Letopisec was incorporated into the Nikon and L'vov Chronicles, which, together with the voluminous Illuminated Chronicle (Licevoj letopisnyj svod), mark a high point in Muscovite imperial historiography. In the Metropolitan's chancery, two extraordinary historic-ecclesiastical works were compiled under Makarij's inspiration and guidance: Velikie minei cetii [The Great Menology], and Kniga stepennaja [The Book of Degrees of Imperial Genealogy]. The first represented an attempt to collect a corpus of all literary texts known in Muscovy, and was intended as a reference work for high church and state dignitaries. The second provided the Muscovite ruling elite with a Providential interpretation of history, combined with a historical scheme of Russian national development. These tendencies amounted to a centralization of ideology and historiography which resembled the political evolution of state affairs. The main factors in the emergence of these voluminous historical and religious treatises were the coronation of Ivan IV as the first Tsar in 1547 which, in contemporary eyes, elevated Muscovy from the status of a Grand Principality to that of an Empire, and the rapid acceleration of the process of nationalization of the Russian Orthodox Church, as manifested in the work of the Church Councils of 1547 and 1549. Both contributed to the growth of historical and national consciousness and to an attitude of religious exclusiveness and national superiority among the imperial elite. The works of this period had as one of their principal aims the establishment of a clear-cut line of continuity: Kiev - Vladimir - Muscovy. This translatio theory was to serve as the primary basis for Muscovite political claims.4 It was closely correlated with the notion of the unity of all Rus' lands and the historical concept of Muscovy's role in "gathering them". 4

Russian historiography of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was profoundly influenced by the historical ideas and ideological propositions of the Muscovite chronicles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In these chronicles, Russian historians of modern times were provided with a ready-made conceptual framework for early Russian history. In particular, the idea of "continuity" from the Kievan state to Muscovy was accepted as a matter of fact. For some acute remarks on this problem, see P. N. Miljukov, Glavnye tecenija russkoj istorileskoj mysli (Moscow, 19138), p. 177; A. E. Presnjakov, Obrazovanie velikorusskogo gosudarstva (Ocerki po istorii Xlll-XV itoletij) (Petrograd, 1920), pp. 2-3, 7, 19.

INTRODUCTION

11

The emphasis on the exclusive and uninterrupted dynastic succession from the rulers of Kievan Rus' to those of Muscovy served to exalt the position of the Muscovite grand prince, and later the tsar. A similar approach can be observed in contemporary compilations which aimed at unifying and "streamlining" Russian history. These involved a retouching of the history of Kievan Rus', which was given the status of a tsardom by the compilers of the Book of Degrees. It is against the background of these developments and tendencies in Russian political thought and historiography that one can begin to more clearly understand the evolution of Muscovite imperial claims to Kazan and the justifications for its conquest. Muscovite bookmen usually upheld the conquest of the Kazan Khanate with two principal claims and three major ex post facto justifications. Before the conquest of 1552, only legal and religious claims to Kazan had been mentioned; the former can be found in chronicles and — what is more important — in diplomatic correspondence, while the latter are attested in ecclesiastical statements written before the final Muscovite conquest. After the conquest, however, historical, dynastic, and national justifications also began to make their appearance in chronicles and religious works, while religious arguments were integrated by Muscovite imperial ideologists into an overall Providential interpretation of Russian history. After 1552 a new type of legal relationship evolved between the central Muscovite government and the inhabitants of the former Kazan Khanate, and for this reason legal claims formulated before the conquest lost their political actuality and were seldom mentioned. This study is based upon the known available East Slavic and Turkic published and unpublished material, including diplomatic correspondence, chronicles, historic-religious treatises, legal documents, literary tales, epistles and hagiographic literature. Since these materials are so diversified and are characterized by a striking quantitative imbalance between those of Russian and Tatar origin — the former being numerous and extensive whereas the latter amount only to a few printed pages — some general observations about the nature of the sources used in this study are necessary. With a few minor exceptions, all the diplomatic correspondence pertaining to bilateral Russo-Kazanian relations has been lost. Information about the Khanate must be extracted from records of Muscovite diplomatic relations with the Nogais, the Crimea, the Ottoman Porte, and PolandLithuania, most of which have been published. The major exceptions are the Dela Krymskie [the Crimean Records] for the period from 1533 to

12

INTRODUCTION

1548,® which so far have not been thoroughly investigated. It appears from published excerpts that they refer to the Muscovite-Crimean struggle for legal sovereignty over the Kazan Khanate. Diplomatic papers (instructions, reports, and correspondence) are valuable source materials. However, their significance for the study of Russo-Kazanian relations and Muscovite ambitions vis-à-vis the Tatar Khanate should not be overestimated. While recognizing their value, one should not forget that diplomatic papers are not usually notable for their objectivity and impartiality, since they mirror the assumptions, intentions, and ambitions of a government. No less a scholar than Leopold von Ranke became a captive of his own sources when studying the famous Venetian relazioni, by considering these diplomatic reports as the only authentic historical evidence. Officials responsible for Muscovite foreign policy wished to promote Russia's interests, as well as their own. For this reason, the delà contain unfounded allegations, theoretical claims for which little or no proof was presented, contentions which were later discarded and assurances which were never fulfilled. All students of Russo-Kazanian relations and of the internal affairs of this Tatar Khanate rely for their evidence on the Muscovite chronicles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In dealing with the period between 1533 and 1552 specifically, the researcher is limited almost completely to the material found in these chronicles. They are not objective historical writings, although they were so regarded by eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury Russian national scholars, but are primarily works of a propagandistic and ideological nature aimed at glorifying the achievements of Muscovy and her rulers. These Muscovite chronicles, and even more the historic-religious interpretative treatises and hagiographie literature of the same period, quite naturally provide a biased view of Slavic-Tatar relations in general, and Russo-Kazanian affairs in particular. Regrettably, the lack of comparable works from the Tatar side prevents one from drawing valid parallels. Thus, the very nature of the sources in historiography and political thought makes it rather difficult to fully apply a polycultural and pluralistic approach. In addition, the authors and compilers of Muscovite codices were interested in exaggerating the 6

V. N. Sumilov (ed.), Central'nyj gosudarstvermy) arxiv drevnix aktov SSSR. Obzor dokumental'nyx materialov central'nogo gosudarstvennogo arxiva drevnix aktov po istorii SSSR perioda feodalizma Xl-XVI vv. (Moscow, 1954), p. 38 (Collection No. 123 [Relations between Russia and the Crimea], Books 8 [1533-1539] and 9 [1545-1548]). Cf. also S. O. Smidt (ed.), Opisi carskogo arxiva XVI veka i arxiva posol'skogo prikaza 1614 goda (Moscow, I960), Vvedenie, p. 13.

INTRODUCTION

13

antagonism between the Muscovites and the Tatars, in emphasizing the superiority of the Russian religious culture over the Muslim enemy, and in magnifying the dangers which beset Muscovy from Tatar invasions and protracted wars. However, Muscovite chronicles of the period contain a great deal of reliable information, extensive passages from diplomatic records, and many political documents and excerpts. At the same time, they include literary tales, additions of ideological intent, insertions and outright fabrications, such as fictitious speeches and letters. In the past, leading Russian scholars, such as Ikonnikov, A. A. Saxmatov and Presnjakov, recognized the necessity of studying the Muscovite chronicles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in order to separate factual data from ideological and political conceptions. These scholars laid the foundations for modern study of Muscovite historiography as far as internal Russian affairs were concerned. However, much research still needs to be undertaken on the materials pertaining to the territories outside Great Russia itself. While hardly depicting reality very accurately, the chronicles in question provide significant evidence for the attitudes and modes of thinking of their authors and compilers. These works also have considerable relevance for the study of Muscovy's ideology on account of their official, or at least semiofficial, character. In particular, the accounts which fall into the category of court history were written explicitly to present the authoritative view of historical developments. Equally important for the perception of Russian political thought in the second half of the sixteenth century are the historic-religious interpretative works and hagiographic literature. They not only revealed the ideas prevalent among the leadership of the Muscovite clergy, but also provided a general framework of thought for their times. This literature also discloses the convictions and attitudes of the great majority of laymen; it represents the religious world-view which was generally accepted in the sixteenth-century Muscovy. Among the Kazanian sources the yarliks, written in Tatar, are the most valuable, not only on account of their pertinence for the political and social history of the Khanate, but also for the study of the language and culture of its inhabitants. So far, only four of these yarhks have been found. These are (listed chronologically):

(1) the diplomatic yarlik of Khan Ulu Mehmet of March 14, 1428,

14

INTRODUCTION

addressed to Turkish Sultan Murat II;9 (2) the diplomatic yarlik of Khan Mahmut, dated by scholarship April 10, 1466, addressed to Turkish Sultan Mehmet II;' (3) the tarxan yarlik of Khan Ibrahim who ruled from 1467 to 1479;8 (4) the tarxan yarlik of Khan Sahip Girey of 1523.® Two diplomatic yarhks of Khan Ahmet of the Golden Horde, addressed to the Turkish Sultan Mehmet II, from the years 1465-1466 and 147710 * Ulu Mehmet's yarlik was found by Turkish scholar A. N. Kurat in the archives of the Topkapi Sarayi (Istanbul) and published in 1937. A. N. Kurat, Kazan hanligmi kuran Ulug Muhammet hattin yarligi (Istanbul, 1937). Cf. also his Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi Arfivindeki Altin Ordu, Kirim ve Turkistan hanlarina ait yarlik ve bitikler (Istanbul, 1940), pp. 6-36. Since this yarlik was written when Ulu Mehmet was still on the throne of the Golden Horde, i.e., before he became the first ruler of the new Kazan Khanate, objections could be raised against its inclusion among Kazanian documents. From a purely formal point of view, it is a yarlik of the Golden Horde. However, the facts that the Kazan Khanate was founded by dissident elements from the Golden Horde and that Ulu Mehmet became the first Khan of the new Tatar state allow this yarhk to qualify at least as a borderline case. ' Khan Mahmut's yarlik was discovered by T. Halasi-Kun in the archives of the Topkapi Sarayi in 1938. For its critical edition, as well as that of the yarhk of Ulu Mehmet, see the fundamental studies tjy T. Halasi-Kun, "Monuments de lalanguetatare de Kazan", Analecta Orientalia memoriae Alexandri Csoma de Koros dicata (=Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, V) (cited hereafter as Analecta), Vol. I (1942), pp. 138-155; "Philologica III, Kazan Turkgesine ait dil yadigarlan", Ankara Oniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi Dergisi (cited hereafter as FD) VII: 4 (1949), pp. 603-644. * Ibrahim's yarlik is the most problematic of the four known in the Kazan Tatar language. It was found in the Central'nyj gosudarstvennyj arxiv drevnix aktov (Moscow) by the Soviet scholar, R. Stepanov, in 1963. For the text and translation into contemporary Tatar, see M. Gosmanov, S. F. Muxamed'jarov, R. Stepanov, "Jana Jarlyk", Kazan utlary 8 (1965), pp. 146-150. The yarlik is not original, but, apparently, a late seventeenth-century copy, which was sent from the Kazan area to Moscow with a petition for the confirmation of tarxan rights. Although the language of this yarlik is ancient and the style and structure of composition reminiscent of other documents of this period, some mistakes in the seal of the Khan and new elements in orthography raise a number of issues, which will have to be solved by Turcologists before this document can be used without reservation by scholars. * S. G. Vaxidov discovered the yarhk of Sahip Girey in 1912. For an analysis of this document, the text and translations, cf. the various studies by S. G. Vaxidov, "Issledovanie jarlyka Saxib-Girej Xana", Izvestija Obscestva arxeologii, istorii i etnografiipri Kazanskom gosudarstrennom universitete imeni V. I. Lenina (cited hereafter as IOAIE) XXXIII (1925), vyp. 1, pp. 61-92; Beznen Jul 3 (1925); "Jarlyk Xana Saxib-Gireja", Vestnik Naucnogo obscestva tatarovedenija (cited hereafter as VNOT) 1-2 (1925), pp. 29-37; A. Battal, "Kazan yurdunda bulunmu? tarihi bir vesika. Sahip Girey Han yarligi", Turkiyat Mecmuasi II (1925-1926), pp. 75-101; S. F. Muxamed'jarov, "Nekotorye voprosy istocnikovedenija istorii Kazanskogo Xanstva", in: Itogovaja naucnaja konferencija Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni V. I. Ul'janova — Lenina za 1960 god (Kazan, 1961), pp. 46-48; "Tarxannyj jarlyk kazanskogo xana Saxib-Gireja 1523 g.", Novoe o proSlom nasej strany. Pamjati akademika M. N. Tixomirova (Moscow, 1967), pp. 104-109. 10

Halasi-Kun, Analecta, pp. 152-154; Halasi-Kun, FD, pp. 633-642.

INTRODUCTION

15

should also be mentioned. Both are in Qypcaq Turkic. They are useful for comparative purposes, although the data contained in them does not refer directly to Kazanian matters. Some Kazanian diplomatic yarhks have been preserved in translations in various Slavic sources, among them: (1) the diplomatic yarlik of Khan Mehmet Emin to the Polish King Aleksander Jagiellonczyk from the late summer of 1506,11 preserved in an East Slavic (proto-Belorussian) translation of the early sixteenth century; (2) the diplomatic yarlik of Prince Mamay and the Kazan land to the Ottoman Porte from the year 1549, in two seventeenth-century Russian translations.12 Finally, a number of Kazanian diplomatic notes and yarhks can be found in Muscovite political correspondence, in contemporary Great Russian translations.13 Kazan Tatar historiographic sources are very scarce and originate from a period long after the conquest of the Khanate. Actually only two known fragments from Tatar chronicles dealing with the affairs of the latter are available: (1) a fragment from a Tatar chronicle, pertaining to the history of Kazan, compiled probably in the late seventeenth or the early eighteenth century, and later included in the various versions of the "History of Chingiz Khan"; 14 11

The text of the yarlik and the reply of the Polish King Zygmunt I were included in the Knigaposol'skaja of the Lithuanian Grand Principality (1506). C f , Sbornik knjaz'ja Obolenskogo, No. 1 (Moscow, 1838), pp. 37-39, 43-44. 12 For the text, see Tixomirov, Rossija v XVI stoletii, pp. 489-490. 13 Representative examples of these documents are the messages and yarhks from Khan Mehmet Emin to Ivan III of October 1490, August 1491 and November 1493; to Khan Mengli Girey of the Crimea of March 1492 and November 1493; and to his mother Nur Sultan of March 1492. Cf. Sbornik imperatorskogo russkogo istoriieskogo obscestva (cited hereafter as S1RJO) XLI (1884), pp. 92,131-133,207; 146-147,207; 147. u For the best edition of the various copies of the text and the Russian translations, see N. F. Katanov, I. M. Pokrovskij, "Otryvok iz odnoj tatarskoj letopisi o Kazani i kazanskom xanstve", IOA1E XXI (1905), vyp. 4, pp. 303-348. For the most recent evaluation of the Tatar historical sources, see M. A. Usmanov, "Tatarskie narrativnye istoiniki XVII-XVIII w. i ix osobennosti", unpublished Candidate's dissertation, Kazan University, 1968, especially Chapter III. Cf. also his "Tatarskie narrativnye istofiniki XVn-XVIII w. i ix osobennosti", Autoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uienoj stepeni kandidata istoriieskix nauk, Kazan, 1968, pp. 15-17.

16

INTRODUCTION

(2) a fragment from a Tatar chronicle, found in a manuscript collection of 1864.15 While the two fragments obviously do not qualify as primary sources, they reflect historical traditions and ideological attitudes shared by some Tatars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Finally, there is a literary tale with social content about a Tatar molla who allegedly lived in the sixteenth century.16 The date of its writing has not been established. The scarcity of Tatar material can partly be explained by the destruction of Kazan which followed the Russian storming and conquest of the Khanate's capital. Furthermore a great number of Tatar, as well as Russian, sources covering bilateral Muscovite-Kazanian relations, which are attested in the descriptions of the tsar's archive of the sixteenth century and the archive of the Posol'skij prikaz (1614), have also apparently been lost." In conclusion, a few remarks about the methodology and the conceptual framework applied in this study may be helpful. An attempt has been made to combine traditional textual criticism with the analytical, "value-free" (wertungslos), and structural approach to intellectual history. A considerable part of this study is devoted to analysis of sources, comparative evaluation of texts and detailed investigation of the meanings of individual terms and concepts. This has been unavoidable because of the controversy surrounding certain sources and on account of gaps in textual research. It is obvious that serious conceptual propositions must rest upon the results of these detailed studies. Since the concept of "ideology" is dealt with in this work, a definition of it ought to be offered.18 In the absence of a satisfactory, generally ac15

The text of the Russian translation of this fragment was published in N . L. RubinStejn (ed.), Istorija Tatarii v materialax i dokumentax (Moscow, 1937), pp. 122124. " Ibid., pp. 103-105 (Russian translation of the text). " In the descriptions of these archives references are made to a variety of documents dealing with negotiations, agreements and treaties between Kazan and Muscovy, most of which have not been preserved. Cf. Smidt, Opisi..., pp. 18-20,22,24-26, 28, 39, 106107. In his otherwise informative studies of the descriptions of the Tsar's archive of the sixteenth century, S. O. Smidt has not analyzed the complex of Tatar documents. Cf. his "Carskij arxiv serediny XVI v. i arxivy pravitel'stvennyx uéreidenij", TGIAl VIII (1957), pp. 260-278 ; "K istorii carskogo arxiva serediny XVI v.", TGI AI XI (1958), pp. 364-407; "K istorii sostavlenija opisej carskogo arxiva XVI veka", Arxeograficeskij ezegodnik za 1958 god (cited hereafter as AE) (Moscow, 1960), pp. 54-65. " The term "ideology" is of modern origin and was coined by A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy (Éléments d'Idéologie [4 vols.; Paris, 1817-1818' {18011}]) although Bacon's theory of the idola, developed in "Novum Organon" (1620), is viewed by some as its

INTRODUCTION

17

cepted and concise formulation, the following definition has been adapted for the purpose of this study: Ideology is a comprehensive system of ideas, beliefs and assumptions about man, society, and the universe, and their mutual relations. Ideologies can range from relatively open and internally loosely interconnected sociopolitical and cognitive systems of thought to extremely unified and all-embracing conceptions of the general order of existence. The latter partially converge with the monotheistic and sophisticated religions of the "people of the Book" (Jews, Christians and Muslims) or Weltanschauungen since they propose not only a conception of a general order of existence, but also an interpretation of history as well as a vision of the future. Quite often ideologies integrate secular theoretical concepts with an entire religious system or selected elements of a religion. This definition of ideology does not make a clear-cut distinction between "ideology" and "utopia" — a distinction first suggested by Karl Mannheim, who, however, did not fail to point out the extreme difficulty in determining what in a given case was "ideological"

theoretical antecedent. Destutt de Tracy used the new concept in a rather neutral sense, meant to denote a theory or a science of ideas. This was the area of concern for a group of French philosophers at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of nineteenth centuries who rejected metaphysics and tried to develop the study of ideas on anthropological and psychological-material foundations. The term ideology acquired its pejorative connotation when Napoleon contemptuously labelled these philosophers "ideologues" for opposing his imperial ambitions. The term retained a pejorative connotation in the formulation of Karl Marx, who used it to describe distorted and selected ideas, views and beliefs in defense of established social systems (mostly conservative). From a traditional Marxist point of view, ideology represents a manifestation of "false consciousness". In modern Marxist literature, emphasis is put on the genetic and functional character of ideology and the term is applied to all systems of ideas about ths nature of society and the universe, serving the attainment of concrete aims. Karl Mannheim, approaching the problem from the position of the sociology of knowledge, attempted to formulate a more detached and objective definition for ideology. While he still tended to apply the term ideology primarily to conservative ideas and to regard ideological thinking as mainly distortional and "veiling", Mannheim was moving forward toward a "value-free" evaluation of the concept. He can also be credited with having provided an impulse for the structural analysis of ideological phenomena (Ideologie und Utopie [Bonn, 1929]; the English translation Ideology and Utopia [New York, 1954] also includes a chapter on the "Sociology of Knowledge"). In his work IdeologiSeskaja bor'ba v russkoj publicistike konca XV-naiala XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960), Ja. S. Lur'e refrained from defining his own concept of ideology. His usage of the notion "ideological struggle" indicates that he understood it to mean "struggle of ideas". Lur'e's general application of this notion could be construed as a partial return to the classical interpretation of Destutt de Tracy. For a recent sociological discussion and evaluation of this concepl, see E. Shils, "The Concept and Function of Ideology", and H. M. Johnson, "Ideology and the Social System", in: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences VII (1968), pp. 66-85.

18

INTRODUCTION

and what "Utopian".19 Certain types of utopias are permeated with ideological elements, whereas various ideological systems also include Utopian projections. Most ideologies tend to be action-directed and their proponents do not regard autonomous intellectual search for truth or pursuit of knowledge for its own sake as relevant to their goals. However, it would be misleading to assume that ideologies are completely untruthful or consistently distortional. Ideological systems are characterized by the internal coexistence of truthful and sometimes scientifically verifiable propositions with distortions, half-truths or outright falsifications; the relationship of these elements differs with various ideologies. Historical experience indicates that regardless of their sociopolitical connotations and moral orientation, ideologies may be advanced by exponents of alienated as well as established groups of a society. Ideologies are usually characterized by a high degree of systematization, internal cohesiveness and integration. Furthermore they appear to concentrate on few values or propositions and consequently to eliminate internal inconsistencies and divergencies. Their simplification, streamlining and desire for completeness often increase in proportion to their radicalization and the urgency of the need for practical implementation. Ideologies usually insist upon absolute adherence to principles, righteousness of their ultimate cause, purity, exclusive "truthfulness" and faithful obedience on the part of their proponents and followers. There are several possible approaches (polycultural, synchronic bicultural and monocultural) which can be used to analyze various aspects of Turco-Slavic intercourse in general, and relations between Muscovy and Kazan in particular; each of them has its advantages and its limitations. Depending upon the nature of the inquiry and the available sources, the historian may choose between the synchronic bicultural or the monocultural approach. A bicultural approach appears to be the more appropriate if one considers the interactions of the successor states of the Golden Horde, including Muscovy, in commercial negotations and in some aspects of their diplomatic relations. The activities of the merchant and the diplomat were, and still are, usually aimed at adjustment, accommodation and compromise with at least some pretense of recognizing the position of the "other side". The merchant and the diplomat must understand, or at least pretend to appreciate, the attitudes of his opposite number on the other side. The process of diplomatic negotiations requires the syn18

Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, p. 196.

INTRODUCTION

19

chronizing of vocabulary, professional terminology and formal style. For all these reasons, the language of the diplomat bespeaks a sense of community, evokes a common ground of assumptions and principles, as long as he sits at the conference table. It may change character considerably in written reports, in off-the-record remarks, and in situations where his instructions require that the political demands and ideological position of the government be stated in unmistakable terms. If, however, the historian chooses to examine ideological claims and justifications which are expansionist in intent, the virtues of the monocultural approach become apparent and the synchronic bicultural point of view offers few, if any, analytical tools, unless one undertakes a comparative study of ideologies. First of all, the task and the modes of thought of the ideologue, the expansion-directed politician and the imperial ruling elite are quite different from those of the negotiating diplomat or the merchant. The ideologue, the imperial politician or the member of an expansion-oriented elite is not usually interested in accommodation with the country and peoples to be conquered and absorbed. He has, at the most, accepted adjustment as a convenient device for the advancement of his final intentions. The imperial ideologue's function is not to understand the "other side" and to compare two or more cultures in a detached and dispassionate manner. His primary objective is to negate, to ridicule, to reject and to antagonize the "other", i.e., "hostile", equivalent. In short, by the nature of his task, he is a monist and not a pluralist. Even those ideologues who accepted the notion of the fundamental equality of all cultures, as for example the philosophes of the Enlightenment, were monists to the extent that they emphasized only the unifying and analogous elements and neglected the diversities and unique characteristics of the respective models. The imperial ideologue extols the values of his own culture, religion or politics. His ultimate aim is to eliminate all other alternatives for "truth", to defeat his opponent as a representative of "darkness", and to achieve complete victory, frequently by means other than those of intellectual dispute. The historian who embarks upon the study of an ideology should, in the first place, attempt to follow the vagaries of the imagination of the ideologue and try, after the detection of deliberate falsifications, to assess the internal quality of his thought. He ought to examine the body of doctrine or the ideological formulations on their own merits and in the context of their own time. Particularly, if the historian intends to evaluate the expansionist ideology of a given country or its sociopolitical establishment (in this case Muscovy) which has no parallels on

20

INTRODUCTION

"the other side" (the Muslim successor states of the Golden Horde), the bicultural approach will become less suitable. The aim of this study is to obtain a model of an emerging imperial ideology. The history of Muscovite Russia offers a challenge and an opportunity to achieve this through an analysis of the thinking of the imperial elite, on the basis of the available material. This analysis should be facilitated by a réévaluation of the relations between Muscovy and Kazan in the period from 1438 to 1552.

PART ONE

II THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE, 1438-1552

The Kazan Khanate, which emerged from the political disintegration of the Golden Horde, confronted Muscovite Russia as a formidable power from the beginning. The date of its foundation has been the subject of considerable controversy. Traditionally two dates, 1438 and 1445, have been offered by historians. Those advocating the earlier date connect its foundation with Ulu Mehmet's activities after his ouster as Khan of the Golden Horde by a contending faction and his flight in 1437 and are also inclined to accept the narrative in Kazanskaja istorija [History of Kazan] concerning the "second origin of Kazan". 1 The evidence supporting the later date was first presented by VeFjaminov-Zernov, who relied primarily on official Muscovite chronicles, but also cited some additional materials ; a these sources credit Ulu Mehmet's son Mahmut with the establishment of the Kazan Khanate in 1445. Actually the formation of the Kazan Khanate cannot be marked by any specific date; it should rather be looked upon as a continual process which started with Ulu Mehmet's exit from the Golden Horde and ended in 1445. However, since both of these dates also mark significant en1

G. N. Moiseeva (ed.), Kazanskaja istorija (cited hereafter as KljM) (MoscowLeningrad, 1954), pp. 52-53. This view was accepted by Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii..., n , p. 401; Smolitsch, JfGOE VI (1941), p. 61; Spuler, Die Goldene Horde ..., p. 164; Xudjakov, Ocerki..., p. 26. Xudjakov distrusted Kazanskaja istorija, but held that a Tatar state organization already existed in the Middle Volga region in the years 14381445. Safargaliev is also convinced that the Kazan Khanate was established in 14381439 {Raspad ..., pp. 244-255). 1 Vel'jaminov-Zernov, Izsledovanie ..., I, pp. 3-13. The relevant passage in the Voskresensk Chronicle states as follows: "During this autumn Tsar Mahmut took the city of Kazan, [and he] killed the patrimonial Prince of Kazan Libej, and he himself assumed the rule as Tsar" (Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej [cited hereafter as PSRL] VIII [1859], p. 114). Safargaliev, following a suggestion by Verjaminov-Zernov, asserts on the basis of some evidence from later Tatar sources that Libej is a corrupted form of the name Ali Bek or Alim Bek (Raspad..., pp. 246-248). Vel'jaminov-Zernov's arguments were accepted by G. Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven and London, 1953), p. 302; I. B. Grekov, Ocerki..., p. 122.

24

PART ONE

counters with Muscovite troops, they can be used as points of departure for the history of the relations between Muscovy and Kazan. The year 1438 is more useful if one is concerned with the relations between the exile, Ulu Mehmet, and his former Muscovite subjects. The date of 1445 is more appropriate if one thinks in terms of the beginning of intercourse between Muscovy and an already established Tatar Khanate of Kazan.® After his ouster from the Golden Horde due to internal conflicts, Ulu Mehmet attempted to secure the benevolent neutrality of the Muscovite ruler Vasilij II, in exchange for hostages, including the Khan's son Mahmut, and for a promise not to collect any tribute (vyxod) in Russia.4 The Muscovites were not interested in easing Ulu Mehmet's difficulties and decided to seek a military solution against him instead. But they were defeated by Ulu Mehmet's forces in the battle of Belev (1438) in spite of their great numerical superiority.6 This defeat was masterminded by Grigorij Protas'ev, the former voevoda of Mcensk, who was in the service of the Lithuanian ruler. In the summer of 1439, Ulu Mehmet attacked Muscovy, reaching the city of Moscow on July 3. He was not able to take the city itself, but he devastated its environs for ten days. Retreating from Moscow, Ulu Mehmet burned the city of Kolomna, took many captives and inflicted heavy losses on the Russian population. The battle of Belev and the invasion of 1439 are indicative of the military strength of the emerging Tatar Khanate. As a result, Muscovy was unable to benefit from the internal decomposition of the Golden Horde at that time. For a period of approximately five years after the invasion of 1439, relations between Ulu Mehmet and Vasilij were unmarred by any serious conflict. This period of relative harmony ended in the spring of 1445, when Ulu Mehmet sent his sons Mahmut and Yakup to invade the Suzdal' area. Grand Prince Vasilij II decided to command his troops personally against this invading Tatar force, but the Muscovites lacked efficient military leadership and were routed in the battle of Suzdal' on July 7, ' Keenan begins his analysis of these relations with the year 1432, when Vasilij II and his uncle, Jurij DmitrieviC, appeared in the Golden Horde to be invested with the Grand Principality ("Muscovy and Kazan' ...", p. 126). Ulu Mehmet, Khan of the Horde at that time, granted the yarlik to Vasilij II. 4 PSRL XXVm (1962), p. 106; PSRL XXV (1949), p. 260; PSRL XVIII (1913), p. 189; A. A. Zimin (ed.), Ioasafovskaja letopis' (cited hereafter as IL) (Moscow, 1957), p. 28; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 193; PSRL VHI (1859), p. 107; PSRL XII (1901, reprint 1965), p. 24. ' PSRL XXVII (1962), pp. 106-107; PSRL XXV (1949), p. 260; PSRL XVIII (1913), p. 189; IL pp. 28-29; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 193; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 107; PSRL XII (1901/1965), p. 25.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

25

1445. They evidently fell victim to the well-known Tatar military tactic of simulated retreat and decisive cavalry counterattack. 6 Grand Prince Vasilij IT was wounded and taken prisoner in this battle. He remained a captive until October, when he was released upon payment of a high ransom. 7 It is possible, incidentally, that this ransom money was used for the development of the new Tatar state.8 The year 1445 marks the final consolidation of the Kazan Khanate, as well as the high point of its obvious military and political superiority over Moscow. The Khanate retained a position of considerable prestige in its relations with Muscovy for at least another fifteen years. This is apparent from two letters which Metropolitan Iona forwarded to Kazan during the period in question. The first, written in 1455, was addressed to Prince §aptiak, informing him that Iona was dispatching two of his servants with gifts to the state of the Khan Mahmut, beseeching him to intervene with the Khan for the Metropolitan's envoy, who was to discuss taxes and duties (poSliny), as well as other matters. 9 In another letter of 1460 (or the beginning of 1461), Iona directly addressed himself to the Kazan Khan, again stating that he was sending a servant to him with presents. In this Letter, Iona once more asked for considerations regarding taxes and praised Mahmut's enlightened attitude toward foreign merchants. 10 Iona's concern with commercial matters implies that the Muscovite Church must have had some concrete investment in the Kazan trade. It may even have participated in transactions of which the Muscovite Grand Prince was not aware. Negotiations pertaining to poHiny were definitely the prerogative of the Grand Prince; the Metropolitan's intervention, therefore, suggests some kind of irregularity. In 1461, for unknown reasons, Vasilij II decided to undertake a campaign against the Kazan Khanate. He advanced as far as Vladimir, but * PSRL XVIII (1913), pp. 193-194; PSRL XXVm (1963), pp. 102-103, 270-271; IL, pp. 32-33; PSRL XXVI (1959), pp. 197-198; PSRL VDI (1859), pp. 112-113; PSRL XH (1901/1965), pp. 64-65; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, pp. 257-258. ' Muscovite chronicles did not spell out the amount, but used the phrase "to give a ransom for himself as much as he can ..." (PSRL XVm [1913], p. 195; PSRL XXVm [1963], pp. 104,271; IL, p. 34; PSRL XXVI [1959], p. 199; PSRL VIE [1859], p. 114; PSRL XH [1901/1965], p. 66; PSRL XX [1910], Part I, p. 259). The Pskovian Chronicle speaks of 25,000 and the Novgorodian Chronicle of 200,000 rubles, implying that some additional deal was concluded (PSRL IV [1848], p. 213). * Spuler expressed an opinion that the Tatars could have exploited their victory in political terms: "Ulu Mehmet wantonly threw away a great chance of completely subjugating the Grand Principality of Moscow!" (Die Goldene Horde ..., p. 165). * Akty istoriieskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arxeograficeskoju Kommissieju (cited hereafter as At) I (1841), No. 266, p. 497. 10 A1I (1841), No. 67, pp. 119-120.

26

PART ONE

discontinued further military operations when the Kazanians sent their envoys to negotiate a peace treaty.11 Bazileviô maintained (without much justification) that this peace treaty could not have been advantageous to Kazan and that the year 1461 marks the beginning of a "protracted struggle" between Muscovy and the Kazan Khanate which lasted with minor interruptions for almost a whole century.12 This is an exaggerated contention — relations between the two states actually remained quite peaceful for more than two decades, from 1445 to approximately 1468. Grand Prince Ivan III was the first Muscovite ruler to conduct an active foreign policy vis-à-vis the Kazan Khanate. Ivan's direct involvement in its internal affairs began with the dynastic struggle between Ibrahim, a son of Mahmut, and Kasim, a brother of Mahmut. 13 Kasim had been in Muscovite service as appanage prince of Mescera for more than twenty years, and was apparently a loyal and dependable servant of the Muscovite Grand Prince. While it is not clear to what extent Kasim was personally interested in the succession to the Khanate, and which of his moves was inspired by Ivan III, his candidacy probably had some local Tatar support. In 1468, a group of discontented Kazan princes, under the leadership of Abdiilmumin, "deceptively" invited Kasim to become the Khan of Kazan.14 Ivan III gave Kasim military backing to take over the Khanate, but Kasim's expedition ended in failure. He was compelled to retreat with the Muscovite forces, "having achieved nothing"; it seems that the local support promised by the Abdulmiimin faction subsequently did not materialize. The Muscovite intervention contributed only to the consolidation of Ibrahim's position among the Kazan Tatars. Kasim's defeat resulted in the "Kazan war" of 1469, involving two major Muscovite campaigns.15 In spite of the large-scale military effort, » PSRL XXVIII (1962), p. 122; PSRL XXV (1949), p. 277; PSRL XVIII (1913), p. 214; PSRL XXVIII (1963), pp. 116, 284; IL, p. 52; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 220; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 149; PSRL XII (1901/1965), p. 114. M Bazilevic, Vnesnjajapolitika ..., p. 59. 18 For an extensive analysis of the succession struggle, see Xudjakov, Ocerki..., pp. 29-36. " PSRL XXVH (1962), p. 124; PSRL XXV (1949), p. 279; PSRL XVIII (1913), p. 217; PSRL XXVIII (1963), pp. 117, 286; IL, p. 55; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 223; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 152; PSRL XII (1901/1965), p. 118. 16 PSRL XXVII (1962), pp. 126-128; PSRL XXV (1949), pp. 281-283; PSRL XVm (1913), pp. 220-222; PSRL XXVIII (1963), pp. 119-120; IL, pp. 57-61; PSRL XXVI (1959), pp. 225-228; PSRL VIII (1859), pp. 155-158; PSRL XII (1901/1965), pp. 120123; K. N. Serbina (ed.), Ustjuzskij letopisny] svod (cited hereafter as ULS) (MoscowLeningrad, 1950), pp. 87-88. For an analysis of the campaigns, cf. Vel'jaminov-Zernov,

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

27

the Muscovite Grand Prince was unable to force upon Kazan a change of khans. Ibrahim, according to Russian sources, agreed to conclude a peace "wholly in accordance with the will" of the Muscovite Grand Prince. The conditions of this agreement remain unknown, except for a reference in the Ustjug Chronicle to the Khan's having "to release all the prisoners captured over a period of forty years".18 Aside from the inaccuracy of the Ustjug Chronicle regarding the time span involved, the silence of the Muscovite chronicles on this point and their emphasis on the liberation of prisoners in the course of the military operations justify a serious doubt whether the terms of peace were really dictated by Ivan III. The chronicles might simply have been making an attempt to enhance the achievements of the Muscovite Grand Prince. The stipulations of the agreement most probably signified a compromise and both sides were equally satisfied in bringing the war to an end. The subsequent death of Kasim finally resolved the dynastic struggle in favor of îbrahim. For eight years after the conclusion of the "Kazan war" the relations between Muscovy and Kazan were stable. During this period Ivan III was preoccupied with gaining control of Novgorod and needed to maintain peace in the East. Then, in February of 1478, ibrahim broke the peace treaty and attacked Vjatka, exploiting Ivan's absence from Moscow — he had gone to Novgorod for the final subjugation of the old city-republic. The Grand Prince ordered a campaign against Kazan later in the spring which was characterized by one Muscovite chronicle as another "war against Kazan".17 The Kazanian campaign against Vjatka and the Russian expedition were aimed at devastating the countryside and capturing prisoners. The Muscovite sources reveal that Ibrahim sent his envoys to negotiate, and conclude that the two rulers "were reconciled according to the convenience of the Grand Prince".18 But again they do not specify what conditions the Russian side found "convenient"; it is reasonable to assume that the agreement once more represented a compromise, and that Ivan did not profit from the second "Kazan war". The Tatar Khanate retained its independent position vis-à-vis the Muscovite government. Izsledovanie..., I, pp. 53ff.; Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii..., IK, pp. 65-69; Feonell, Ivan the Great ..., pp. 19-26. » ULS, p. 88. 17 PSRL VIA (1859), pp. 199-200; see also PSRL XXV (1949), p. 323 ; PSRL XXVm (1963), pp. 147-148, 312; IL, p. 117; PSRL XH (1901/1965), p. 189; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 334. " PSRL XXVm (1963), pp. 148, 312; PSRL VHI (1859), p. 200.

28

PAKT ONE

The middle of the 1480s witnessed a noticeable change in the relations between Muscovy and Kazan. The death of Khan Ibrahim in 1479 created a new dynastic conflict. The throne of the Khanate was taken over by llham, the first son of Ibrahim by his wife Fatima. Another contender to the throne arose in the person of Mehmet Emin, also a son of Ibrahim, but by his more famous wife, Nur Sultan, who married the Khan of Crimea, Mengli Girey, after Ibrahim's death. Nur Sultan wished her son, Mehmet Emin, to become the Khan of Kazan. At the same time she and her new husband were interested in close cooperation with Muscovy. Ivan Ill's foreign policy, on the other hand, depended upon an alliance with the Crimea against Poland-Lithuania. The dynastic struggle which resulted in internal conflicts among the various political factions of the Kazanian society was shrewdly exploited by Ivan III. His interference culminated in a second military intervention. In the Muscovite sources there is considerable confusion regarding the individual phases of this dynastic contest and the recurring enthronement of one or the other of the two contenders. The Muscovite version of these events is most clearly formulated in the official (military) Register Books (razrjadnye knigi): In the year 6993 [1483], the Grand Prince [Ivan III] gave leave to Tsarevich Mehmet Emin [to go] against Kazan and Tsar llham. And with him he sent his voevody: Prince Vasilij IvanoviC, Jurij Zaxar'iC, Prince Semen Romanovic, and Prince Ivan Romodanovskij. llham fled [from Kazan] and Mehmet Emin assumed the rule in Kazan. In the year 6994 [I486], the Grand Prince sent his voevody, Prince Vasilij Ivanovid Obolenskij, Prince Vasilij Tulup, and Prince Timofej Trostenkov to Tsar Mehmet Emin upon the latter's request. [Mehmet Emin] wished to extradite his brothers to the Grand Prince. The Kazanian princes, [however,] did not comply with his [Mehmet Emin's] will, and they wanted to kill him; [but] Mehmet Emin fled to the voevody of the Grand Prince, and then the princes submitted to him. And Mehmet Emin returned to them in the city to rule the Tsardom [Khanate]. In the year 6995 [1487], llham, having returned from the Nogais, ousted his brother, Mehmet Emin, from Kazan according to his agreement with the Kazanians. And Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviC of all Rus' sent his voevody with their regiments against Kazan. And they, together with Tsar Mehmet Emin, conquered Kazan.19

The Muscovite troops reached Kazan on May 18, 1487. llham and his supporters offered strong resistance for three weeks, indicating that they 11

P. N. Miljukov (ed.), Drevnejsaja razrjadnaja kniga official'noj redakcii (po 1565g.) (Moscow, 1901), p. 14; see also V. I. Buganov (ed.), Razrjadnaja kniga 1475-1598 gg. (Moscow, 1966), p. 20.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

29

received assistance from the various segments of Kazanian society. Only open Muscovite military intervention could tip the balance in favor of Mehmet Emin. tlham was forced to surrender on July 9; he was captured, together with his wife, mother, two brothers, a sister and several Tatar princes. According to the Muscovite chronicles, he and his wife were deported to Vologda, the rest of the Khan's family to Kargolom. The same sources report that those Tatar princes and nobles who had sided with him were executed.40 Mehmet Emin's succession to the Kazanian throne through the active military support of Muscovy had brought about a realignment of relations between the two. Ivan III was able to interfere directly in the internal matters of Kazan and also to exercise some control over its external affairs. For instance, Mehmet Emin had to ask for Ivan's consent for his plans to marry a daughter of the Nogai Prince Musa. Official correspondence conducted between Kazan and the Crimea after Mehmet Emin became the ruler of the Khanate had to be submitted to Moscow for review.21 Moreover, Ivan gave detailed instructions to Mehmet Emin regarding routes to be used by Tatar travellers,22 and, on several occasions required him to undertake military operations against adversaries of Muscovy. While it is quite obvious that the balance of power between the two countries was weighed in Moscow's favor, there is still no evidence that Kazan had entirely lost its status as a separate state. Ivan III was able to retain his influence in Kazanian affairs from 1487 to the middle of the 1490s, but this interference, along with some activities of Mehmet Emin, apparently aroused discontent among various segments of Kazan society. Certain intransigent circles in Kazan became convinced that it was in their interest to enter into close cooperation with the Siberian confederation and the Nogai Horde. In May of 1496, Mehmet Emin informed the Muscovite government that Khan Mamuk of the §ibanid line was marching against Kazan and that the four princes of the Kazan land, Kel Ahmet, Orak, Sadir, and Agi$, were "committing treason". 23 Ivan III sent a military force to Kazan to buttress Mehmet M

PSRL x v m (1913), pp. 271-272; PSRL XXVII (1962), pp. 288, 359; PSRL XXVni (1963), p. 153; 1L p. 126; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 278; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 217; PSRL XII (1901/1965), p. 219; the Ustjug Chronicle differs somewhat on these details ( U L S , p. 96). a Bazilevid, VneSnjaja potitika ..., p. 206; Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn ..., p. 82. " Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii..., Ill, p. 71. » PSRL x x v m (1963), p. 328; IL, p. 131; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 231; PSRL Xn (1901/1965), pp. 242-243-, PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 363.

30

PART ONE

Emin's position and to prevent Mamuk from taking over the Khanate. It is clear that Mehmet Emin would have been unable to withstand this attack without Muscovite aid. The Kazanian princes, afraid of the consequences of their "treacherous" activities, defected to Mamuk before Ivan's troops entered the city. As soon as the Russians departed, Mamuk, in cooperation with the princes of the land, took the city of Kazan, forcing Mehmet Emin to flee to the protection of the Muscovite ruler. Having taken the city without any opposition, Mamuk followed up his success with several harsh measures, probably designed to make clear who was now in command. He imprisoned the four princes of the Kazan land who had defected to him and confiscated the property of merchants and of all zemskie ljudi. These measures must have aroused fear among the princes, for they immediately sent Seyit Baras to Ivan III to negotiate a settlement. They wanted a new khan, but specifically objected to Mehmet Emin on account of his "violence and acts of disgrace against [their] women". 24 The Grand Prince solved the problem by offering them a new khan in the person of Abdullatif, a younger brother of Mehmet Emin who had come to live in Moscow soon after the events of 1487. Abdullatif was escorted to Kazan by Muscovite voevody and installed by them as Khan in April of 1497. Although the investiture of Abdullatif in Kazan occurred with the obvious consent of the majority of influential groups in the Kazan Khanate, it suited the purposes of the Muscovite ruler as well. Ivan had now become the man to whom the Kazanians had to turn in case of internal difficulties. He also provided for the deposed Khan Mehmet Emin by granting him Kosira, Serpuxov, and Xotun' with all their revenues. Still, the new regime of Abdullatif did not seem to satisfy some upperclass elements. In 1498, the new Khan had already conveyed to Moscow that Orak, "Prince of Princes" of the Khanate, together with the Siberians (at that time led by the §ibanid Prince Agalak, a brother of Mamuk) had attempted to take over Kazan. 25 A Muscovite military intervention forced Agalak and his Kazanian partner to abandon their plans, and to retreat. In 1500, the Nogais tried to interfere in Kazanian affairs, probably with the aim of deposing Abdullatif. Princes Musa and » PSRL x x v m (1963), p. 328; IL, p. 132; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 232; PSRL XII (1901/1965), p. 243; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 364. The Muscovite chronicles assert that the Kazanian princes admitted their "treason" against Mehmet Emin and the Grand Prince. « IL, p. 138; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 237; PSRL XII (1901/1965), pp. 249-250; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 369.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

31

Yagmurci besieged Kazan for three weeks, but failed to take the city. 28 Muscovite commanders also helped on this occasion to defend the Khanate for Abdiillatif. The relations between Ivan III and Abdiillatif must later have deteriorated, for in January of 150227 the Muscovite ruler decided to arrest him and reinvest Mehmet Emin. Ivan accused Abdiillatif of falsehood, injustice, breach of oath, and cruel behavior toward Kazanians. 28 For some reason, Muscovite chronicles do not explain this sudden change, but in any case the reinstatement of Mehmet Emin produced results much different from those expected by Ivan III. Very soon after his restoration, Mehmet Emin decided to challenge Moscow's political supremacy. This move may have been connected with rumors that Ivan III, by then quite old, was not in full command of his affairs. In the spring of 1505, Mehmet Emin sent the "City Prince" §ah Yusuf as envoy to Ivan to discuss "certain matters". Ivan's sharp reaction, conveyed through his envoy Mixail Kljapik, and his advice to Mehmet Emin "not to encourage such talks" imply that these "certain matters" must have aroused his ire. But Mehmet Emin was not impressed by the firm stand taken by the Muscovite government and on June 24, 1505, he openly broke with Moscow, seizing the Russian envoy Mixail Kljapik. Many Russian merchants were killed or robbed and deported to the Nogai Horde. The Muscovite chronicles charge Mehmet Emin with perjury and breach of treaty, and they denounce him as a "godless and faithless tsar". 29 The subsequent war between Kazan and Muscovy, which lasted for two years, was in the end unprofitable from the Russian point of view.30 Mehmet Emin invaded Russian territory and besieged Niznij Novgorod in September of 1505, but did not succeed in taking the city. After the death of Ivan III in October his son and successor Vasilij III ordered two campaigns against Kazan in the spring and summer of 1506. In both instances Russian troops not only failed to take Kazan, but were soundly defeated by the Tatar forces defending the city.31 In the same year, » PSRL XXVffl (1963), p. 334; IL, p. 141; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 294; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 240; PSRL XII (1901/1965), p. 253; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 371. » PSRL XXVIH (1963), p. 335; IL, p. 143; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 295; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 241; PSRL X n (1901/1965), p. 255; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 373. M SIRIO XLI (1884), pp. 450, 490, 530. M PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 338; IL, p. 147; PSRL VHI (1859), p. 244; PSRL X n (1901/1965), p. 259; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 375. " Smirnov, IZ XXVII (1948), p. 22. » PSRL XXVin (1963), p. 339; IL, p. 149; PSRL XXVI (1959), pp. 297-298; PSRL VIII (1859), pp. 246-247; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 2-4; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, pp. 376-377.

32

PART ONE

Mehmet Emin also attempted to revive the idea of a Tatar-Lithuanian alliance against the Muscovite state, a proposition which was favorably received by Lithuania.32 Vasilij III must have been relieved, therefore, when Mehmet Emin proposed an end to the hostilities in March of 1507.38 Muscovy officially accepted this peace offer because "of Christian souls who fell into Muslim hands, and for the sake of Christian well-being".34 Although the peace treaty concluded was supposed to be based on the same conditions as those in force under Ivan III, the stress on "peace, friendship, and brotherhood" suggests that Russian predominance in Kazanian affairs had suffered a decisive setback and that Kazan had, for all practical purposes, restored its full independence. While Mehmet Emin seemed to have secured his position in Kazan and was able to withstand two major Muscovite offensives, his advanced age, probable poor health, and, most of all, lack of heirs to succeed him forbade another struggle over the throne of the Kazan Khanate at his death. Vasilij had a good candidate at his disposal. Abdiillitif, deposed in 1502, was living in confinement at Beloozero and could be used effectively by the Muscovite Grand Prince if necessary. Upon the request of Mengli Girey, Abdiillitif was set free and invested by Vasilij III with Jur'ev in 1508.35 In 1512, however, Abdiillitif was again disgraced by Vasilij "for his treachery", imprisoned and deprived of Kosira.34 In June of 1516, an embassy arrived from Kazan (Seyit §ah Hiiseyn, the "Prince of the Land" §ah Yusuf, and Bahfi Bozuk) with reports of Mehmet Emin's illness. They entreated the Grand Prince to release Abdiillitif from captivity and designate him as Khan in the event of Mehmet Emin's death.87 Vasilij III did not fail to exploit this new situation. Immediately treaties were drawn up and signed. The Grand Prince sent his own envoys to Kazan to obtain a sworn confirmation of the treaty by Mehmet Emin and the Assembly of the Land. He did not, however, allow the new candidate to go to Kazan. Instead, Abdiillatif " Sbornik knjaz'ja Obolenskogo, No. 1, pp. 37-39, 43-44; Nolde, La formation ..., I, p. 18. " PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 340; IL, p. 150; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 247; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 5; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 378. M PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 340; IL, p. 151; PSRL VI (1853), p. 246; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 247; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 5; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 378. " SIRIO XCV (1895), pp. 42-51. »• PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 347; IL p. 160; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 252; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 15; PSRLXK (1910), Part I, p. 385. »' PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 351; IL, p. 167; PSRL VI (1853), p. 258; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 260; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 25; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 391.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

33

was again given the town of Kosira after his release from imprisonment. 88 Abdiillatif's candidacy received strong support from the Crimea where his mother, Nur Sultan, exercised considerable political influence. In the meantime, however, beginning about 1507, and increasing after Mengli Girey's death in 1515, the alliance between Muscovy and the Crimea, a cornerstone of Ivan Ill's foreign policy, began to deteriorate. It finally broke up when the Crimea started to pursue a policy of shifting alliances by siding with Muscovy or Poland-Lithuania, whichever happened to be convenient. Mehmet Girey, the son and successor of Mengli Girey, conducted on occasion an openly anti-Muscovite foreign policy. For a time, however, he needed Moscow's backing, or at least neutrality, in his actions against Astrakhan, and therefore did not intervene forcefully in Kazan's affairs. Nevertheless, the Crimean government attempted to persuade Vasilij HI to send AbdiillStif to take over the Khanate after the death of Mehmet Emin. Abdiillatif's release to Kazan and his future status became the subject of protracted negotiations between the Crimea and Muscovy.39 Vasilij III applied very skillful diplomatic delaying tactics. Crimean inquiries about the candidacy of Abdiillatif were not answered directly. Vasilij replied that the problem was being discussed with Mehmet Emin and the entire Kazan land (delo sdelaetsja, delo delali, delo ... sdelali).40

The death of Abdiillatif (November 19, 1517) eliminated him from the political scene altogether. 41 Vasilij's letter of November 30, 1517, to Abdiillatif's mother, Nur Sultan, announcing his death, reveals that he died under somewhat mysterious circumstances: Thy son and our brother, Tsar Abdiillatif, was staying with us, and we wished to give leave to him to go to Kazan. And Seyit $ah Hiiseyn, the envoy of our brother, Tsar Mehmet Emin, came for him. However, because of his [Abdiillatif's] sins, illness befell Abdiillatif, and God's will was fulfilled; because of his sins he passed away ... And that Tsar Abdiillatif was ill, and how he passed away, thy man Betej hath seen himself. We gave leave to thy man Betej — to go to thee, and he will tell thee about the illness.48 88 PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 351; IL, p. 168; PSRL VI (1853), p. 258; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 260; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 25. at Smirnov provided an extensive analysis of these negotiations (IZ XXVII [1948], pp. 22-32). He based his findings on the materials published in: S1RIO XCV (1895). " SIRIO XCV (1895), pp. 406, 411, 415-416, 460. 41 Xudjakov claimed that Abdiillatif fell victim to political manipulations (Ocerki..., p. 66). Smirnov conceded that there were circumstances implying a violent death {IZ XXVII [1948], p. 25). " SIRIO XCV (1895), p. 488.

34

PART ONE

The Muscovite chronicles are silent on this illness and state only that "Abdiillatif passed away".43 On December 29, 1518, Kul Dervi§, a representative of the Kazan Khanate, arrived in Moscow to report the death of Mehmet Emin and to discuss the problem of the succession.44 Mehmet Emin's death had brought an end to the dynasty of Ulu Mehmet, with the result that the succession became a subject of dispute between Muscovy and the Crimea. The Muscovite candidate was §ah Ali, a Tatar service prince of MeSCera. Crimea supported the aspirations of Sahip Girey. Subsequent negotiations brought about a political victory for §ah Ali. In January of 1519, Vasilij sent his envoys to the Khanate "to bestow his grace" upon all the people of Kazan and to inform them that the Grand Prince had granted them §ah Ali as their new Khan. Before his departure to Kazan in March of 1519, §ah Ali signed two agreements: first, a general treaty of friendship and fraternity, and, second, a personal oath of fealty. Similar agreements were accepted by the princes, the nobility and all the people of Kazan who swore fealty to the Grand Prince for themselves and their children.45 The establishment of Moscow's supremacy over the Kazan Khanate was based upon close and successful cooperation with various segments of Tatar society. The investiture of §ah Ali, a child (thirteen years of age) almost completely dependent on Moscow's favors, as Khan of Kazan underscored in personal terms this new type of political relationship. However, this supremacy over the Khanate did not last long. In the spring of 1521, Sahip Girey, the brother of the Crimean Khan Mehmet Girey, came to Kazan with a detachment of Crimean troops, apparently upon the invitation of Kazan princes and local nobility.44 In the course of this anti-Muscovite coup §ah Ali was deposed and sent to Moscow. Russian merchants were robbed of their wares and imprisoned. Thus, Moscow had suffered a serious political setback with §ah Ali's expulsion from Kazan. The invitation to Sahip Girey against Moscow's wishes also signalled " PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 354; IL, p. 172; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 308; PSRL VI (1853), p. 260; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 263; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 28; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 393. 44 IL, p. 176; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 266; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 31; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 398. 45 IL, pp. 176-177; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 266; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 32; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, pp. 398-399. " PSRL VI (1853), p. 263; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 310; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 269; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 37; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 401. The Muscovite chronicles denounced this invitation as an act of "treason".

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

35

the beginning of an active Crimean policy designed to draw Kazan into the Crimean orbit, or even to establish Crimean supremacy in the Volga Tatar Khanate. It has already been observed that at the death of Mehmet Emin (1518), an embassy from Kazan had been sent to the Crimea to conduct negotiations with regard to the possibility of inviting a Crimean prince to Kazan. For various reasons, the Muscovite candidate subsequently became the first choice of the Kazan princes and nobility, and the Crimean Khan, Mehmet Girey, had no doubt been dissatisfied with the obvious Muscovite diplomatic victory which the investiture of $ah Ali represented. In 1521, a Russian merchant or agent, Zanka Zudov, who had spent four months in captivity in Astrakhan, reported that Mehmet Girey, in a message to the Astrakhan Khan Cambek, had objected to Muscovite influences in determining the succession: ... The Muscovite [ruler] and I were friends, but he betrayed me: Kazan was our yurt, but now he hath installed [there] his khan [sultana]; the Kazan land did not want him, with the single exception of the Seyit. And they [Kazanians] sent a man to me asking for a khan [sultan], and I have sent them a khan [sultan]. And I, myself, am attacking the Muscovite with all my forces, and if thou [Cambek] wishest to keep with me friendship and brotherhood, thou shouldst also attack the Muscovite or send thy commanders [sultanov]." This statement is essential, as it is the first explicit formulation by a Crimean ruler of his claim to supremacy over the Kazan Khanate. In addition, it clearly expressed his support of the political changes in Kazan. Mehmet Girey's raid on Muscovite provinces and the siege of Moscow itself in 1521 strengthened the position of the new Khan in Kazan. Sahip Girey also invaded Russian territory and cooperated politically with the Crimeans. The Crimean Khan, Mehmet Girey, decided to attack the Astrakhan Khanate in 1523, probably sensing that there was a possibility of establishing his supremacy over all Tatar successor states of the Golden Horde. He captured Astrakhan, but was murdered with his son and other Crimeans by the Nogais.48 In the meantime, the Muscovite government presumably was able to accommodate itself to the new situation in the Khanate. The chronicles report that in the spring of 1523 Sahip Girey organized an anti-Russian outbreak, in the course of which many Muscovites were killed, among them Vasilij Podiegin, the envoy of the Grand Prince Vasilij III.** «' SIRIO XCV (1895), p. 679. *8 PSRL VIII (1859), p. 270 ;PSRL XXVI (1959), pp. 311-312; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 43. " The chronicles commented: "blood was shed like water". PSRL VIII (1859), p. 270; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 43; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 402.

36

PART ONE

Muscovy countered with military operations against Kazan under the nominal command of the deposed Khan, §ah Ali. In consequence of these operations, on orders from the Grand Prince, the town of Vasil'grad was founded at the site where the Sura River flows into the Volga. Significantly enough, this town, later named Vasil'sursk, was built on the territory of the Khanate. It marked the first permanent conquest of the Kazan territory, and was regarded by Russian imperial historians as an intentional step towards the definitive conquest of the Khanate. "Vasilij, while building the city of Vasil'sursk, made the first move toward the final subjugation of the Kazan Tsardom; his son, Ivan, as we shall see, while building Svijaisk, took the second step; the third step was the conquest of Kazan itself".50 Sahip Girey, under strong pressure from the attacking Russian forces, made a noteworthy diplomatic move and declared himself a vassal of the Turkish Sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent, by announcing that Kazan was a yurt of the Turkish ruler. 51 In the spring of 1524, the Muscovite Grand Prince responded by ordering a second campaign against Kazan. The Muscovite chronicles maintain that Sahip Girey, seeing the arrival of Russian troops, fled from Kazan, and the Tatars invited his nephew, the Crimean Prince, Sefa Girey, to be the new Khan. 62 There is general agreement that Sahip Girey left Kazan of his own free will to go to Constantinople and obtain support for regaining the throne of the Crimean Khanate. The Muscovite sources report that the second campaign against Kazan was a military success and that the Russian army carried the day in the battle on the Svijaga River. Nevertheless, the Muscovite army did not storm Kazan, quite possibly because the victory on the Svijaga cost them so many casualties that they immediately agreed to a Kazanian peace offer. The chronicles state that "the Kazanians, in view of their exhaustion, submitted to the voevody of the Grand Prince and concluded the truce wholly in accordance with the will of the Sovereign, Grand Prince", 63 but this claim is an obvious exaggeration on the part of the compilers of the Muscovite codices. Vasilij III was unable to invest in Kazan a khan M

Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii ..., Ill, p. 269. B. I. Dunaev, Pr. Maksim Grek i greieskaja ideja na Rusi v XVI veke (Moscow, 1916), Priloienie, p. 77; Smolitsch, JfGOE VI (1941), pp. 76-77; Smirnov, IZ XXVII (1948), pp. 53-54. 52 PSRL VIII (1859), p. 270; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 44; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 403. " PSRL VIII (1859), p. 271; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 44; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 403; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 312. 61

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

37

of his own choosing. He had to accept Sefa Girey's installment on the Kazan throne as a fact of life. From a purely political point of view the treaty was a compromise, but Vasilij did succeed in imposing his will on the Khanate in one important respect. He transferred Muscovite commercial activities (torg i kabaki) from Kazan to Ni2nij Novgorod.54 Vasilij apparently did not consider the temporary disruption of Muscovite commercial interests as crucial when compared to his efforts to weaken the economic power of the Kazan Khanate. Since trade was a major source of income for the Tatar state, the removal of the fairs significantly undermined its economy. Vasilij was obviously placing political advantages above economic considerations. In a sense, he was initiating a protectionist and nationalist economic policy in the Volga region. It is safe to conclude that both the foundation of Vasil'sursk on the Kazan territory and the transfer of the fairs constitute the beginning of a deliberate effort on the part of the Muscovite government to conduct a policy designed to insure the consolidation of Muscovite supremacy and ultimately the complete liquidation of the Khanate. Sefa Girey remained on the throne for more than seven years (until early 1532). No major conflicts occurred during most of this period and several attempts were made to stabilize Muscovite-Kazanian relations through extensive diplomatic negotiations. In March of 1526, a highranking Tatar embassy, composed of Princes Gazi and Qora and Bahfi Tevkil, arrived in Moscow to discuss the ratification of a peace treaty.58 In 1528, another embassy (Princes Tabi and Dana and Bahfi ibrahim) 64

S. O. Smidt, "Prodolienie Xronografa redakcii 1512 g.'\ Istoriieskij Arxiv (cited hereafter as IA) VII (1951), p. 282. Sigismund von Herberstein offered the following commentary on this decision: "... And even at that time no permanent hope of peace was yet established, for Vasilij had, to the great prejudice of the people of Kazan, transferred to [Niinij] Novgorod the fairs which had customarily been held near Kazan, on the Island of Merchants, and had proclaimed a heavy penalty upon any of his subjects who should in future go to the island for mercantile purposes, in the hope that the removal of the fair might prove a great inconvenience to the people of Kazan; and that, being prevented from buying salt, which they received in large quantities from the Russians at that fair alone, they might be induced to surrender. It happened, however, that by removing such a fair, the Russians suffered as much inconvenience as the people of Kazan; for it produced a scarcity and dearness of many articles, which it had been the custom to import through the Caspian Sea from Persia and Armenia by the Volga from the emporium of Astrakhan ..." (Notes upon Russia [ = Hakluyt Society Works, Series I, vol. XII ] [London, 1852], Part II, p. 73). 66 PSRL VI (1853), p. 264; PSRL XXVI (1959), p. 313; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 271; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 45; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 403; Herberstein, Notes ..., Part II, p. 73.

38

PART ONE

came to Moscow to debate certain wrongs committed by Sefa Girey.5* These "wrongs" turned out to be independent diplomatic exchanges and a treaty concluded with the Nogais. 57 The Kazanian envoys expressed their desire to establish good relations with the Grand Prince, promising that Sefa Girey would correct his mistakes and act in accordance with the Muscovite ruler's will. The Grand Prince's envoy, Andrej Pil'emov, continued the negotiations in Kazan and induced the Khan and the Kazan land to accept an agreement with Muscovy. Sefa Girey failed to honor this agreement and "broke his oath and inflicted great dishonor and abuse on Andrej Pil'emov, the envoy of the Grand Prince". 58 It seems that the issue of the Khan's sovereignty was at stake: apparently Sefa Girey desired to preserve his full independence, while the aristocracy was ready to make far-reaching political concessions to accommodate Muscovy. Sefa Girey's decision not to honor the agreements reached with the Grand Prince led to new diplomatic and military intervention by Moscow into Kazanian affairs. In 1530-1532, the second and final effort was made by Vasilij III to establish a firm hold on the Kazan Khanate. In the summer of 1530, the Muscovite government undertook a large-scale campaign. Khan Sefa Girey obtained military support from the Nogais under the leadership of Mamay, the eldest son of the Mirza, as well as Prince Yali?, who commanded a Nogai force and Astrakhan troops. After a victory over the combined Tatar forces, the Muscovite army closed in on Kazan and began to bombard the city. The Tatars were unable to hold out for long, and they dispatched an embassy consisting of §irin Prince Bulat, Oglan Apay and Prince Tabi to offer a settlement. The Tatar envoys swore an oath to be "faithful" (neotstupnym byti) to the Grand Prince and not to invite any khan without his consent.69 A Kazanian delegation, comprising Princes Tabi and Tevkil and Bah$i Ibrahim, was then sent to Moscow to conclude a treaty according to which the Grand Prince would accept Sefa Girey "as brother and son". 80 The treaty was made in Moscow, but Sefa Girey refused to approve its conditions and to confirm it. The Muscovite government called upon the M PSRL VIII (1859), p. 272; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 46; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 406. " Smidt, Opisi ..., p. 19; Keenan, "Muscovy and Kazan' ...", pp. 265-266. " PSRL VIII (1859), p. 272; PSRL Xffl (1904/1965), Part I, p. 46; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 406. " PSRL V m (1859), p. 273; PSRL XHI (1904/1965), Part I, p. 47^8; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 407. 60 PSRL VIII (1859), p. 274; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 54; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 407.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

39

Kazanian representatives to explain Sefa Girey's volte-face and his broken promise. The reply, attributed by the Muscovite chronicles to Prince Tabi, the leading figure of the delegation, provides some clues to the internal situation in the Khanate. 61 T&bi stated that there "are few respectable \dobrye\ people in Kazan, all [other] people are common [melkie]". This indicates that the upper stratum of Kazan society — or at least some parts of it — favored a submission to Russian protection and supremacy. The Tatar prince and diplomat also identified the forces opposed to accommodation with Muscovy by observing that "the Crimeans and Nogais and the local ordinary people [lixie Ijtidi] have sided with him [Sefa Girey], but the 'land' is not unanimously behind him ...". These comments suggest that Sefa Girey's support came from the Crimea and the Nogais and the Kazanian lower classes (melkie ... lixie ljudi). Apparently, the last believed Sefa Girey to be the best guardian of their interests and were willing to unite with the Crimeans and Nogais against Muscovite infringement. It is not impossible that they favored the strengthening of the Khan's power and curtailing the economic privileges of the nobility. The adherents of Sefa Girey must have constituted a substantial part of the Kazanian population since he twice managed to regain the throne of the Khanate. However, the internal struggle in Kazan was resolved in favor of the forces advocating the removal of Sefa Girey. A group under the leadership of Princess Gevher §at, Mirza Ku?iik Ali and Prince Bulat brought about Sefa Girey's downfall in April or early May of 1532.82 The leader of the coup sent an embassy to Moscow to negotiate a settlement. The envoys indicated that the new ruling group wished to reach an accord with Muscovy, but they refused to accept §ah Ali as the new Khan. §ah Ali was evidently so obviously a client of Moscow that even those who desired close cooperation with Muscovy were hostile to his candidacy. Quite unexpectedly Can Ali, a brother of §ah Ali, was put forward as a compromise figure.43 He also came from Kasimov and was in this sense a Muscovite service prince. At the same time, he was not guilty of any action which could elicit serious objection. In June of 1532, the new Khan, Can Ali, was invested by Muscovite envoys as the ruler of Kazan, on conditions similar to those of §ah Ali in 1519. Vasilij III stated clearly that "he wished to make [Can Ali] his brother » PSRL V m (1859), p. 275; PSRL XEU (1904/1965), Part I, p. 55; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 408. " PSRL VIII (1859), pp. 276-277; PSRL XHI (1904/1965), Part I, p. 56-57; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 410. •* Vel'jaminov-Zernov, Izsledovanie ..., I, p. 269.

40

PART ONE

and son". 64 Can Ali, Princess Gevher $at, the leaders of the nobility, and all the inhabitants of the Kazan land entered into an agreement to be "faithful" to the Grand Prince and not to accept a khan or princeelect without his consent. 86 Thus, the Grand Prince succeeded in restoring his supremacy over Kazan. This new political relationship is seen in the fact that Can Ali and other Kazan leaders had to ask for Vasilij's permission for the Khan's marriage to Siiyiin Bike, a daughter of Mirza Yusuf of the Nogai Horde. 66 The Grand Prince granted this request in order to keep Kazan in tranquility. The death of Vasilij III (December 4, 1533) brought a change in the relations between Muscovy and Kazan. The government of Elena Glinskaja was unable to cope with the new situation in the Khanate. In addition, Muscovy faced a strong and skillful adversary in the person of the new Crimean Khan, Sahip Girey. The latter had established his authority in the Crimea in 1532, and remained in power there with minor interruptions until 1551. His reign was one of the most brilliant in the history of the Crimean Khanate." He was a consistent opponent of Muscovy and effectively countered her influence in Kazan's affairs. The weakness of the Muscovite state encouraged the ruling circles of the Khanate to try and throw off Russian supremacy and to reassert their political independence. A coup brought an end to the reign of Can Ali on September 25, 1535. The Muscovite chronicles report it as follows: "Tsarevna Gevher §at, and Prince Bulat, and the whole Kazan land betrayed Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evid, and killed Tsar Can Ali, whom Grand Prince Vasilij Ivanovii had granted them as Tsar of Kazan. And they invited Tsarevich Sefa Girey from the Crimea to rule as Tsar in Kazan". 68 What Muscovite sources called "treason" meant an end to Russian overlordship in the Kazan Khanate. Khan Sefa Girey ruled in Kazan until the end of 1545 or early January of 1546 with considerable support from his powerful uncle Sahip Girey, " PSRL VIII (1859), p. 277; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 57; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 410. •• PSRL VIII (1859), p. 281; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 67; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 415. •• PSRL VIII (1859), p. 282; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 69; PSRL XX (1910), Part I, p. 416. Smolitsch, JfGOE VI (1941), p. 77; Smirnov, IZXXVII (1948), pp. 41-42. •» PSRL V n i (1859), p. 291; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 88; see also PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 20. The text of the Letopisec naiala carstva will be quoted hereafter from the Nikon Chronicle and PSRL XXIX (1965). For a discussion of the Letopisec and the literature, see infra. Chapter VI, p. 93, n. 2.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

41

who at times regarded himself as the overlord: "Kazan land is my yurt, and Tsar Sefa Girey is my brother; and for this reason thou shouldst not go to war against Kazan, and if thou shouldst go to war against Kazan, then look out for me in Moscow".69 During Sefa Girey's reign Kazan was completely independent of Muscovy. The new Khan exploited Moscow's internal weaknesses and the Kazanians conducted numerous military operations against Russian territory between 1535 and 1545.70 In Kazan, however, Sefa Girey encountered rising opposition from factions seeking an accommodation with Muscovy. §inn Prince Bulat led the opposition which maintained secret contacts with Moscow. In May of 1541, the opposition sent an embassy to Moscow to reach an agreement concerning the removal of Sefa Girey. The Tatar envoys complained that "the people of Kazan are now oppressed by the Khan who hath taken away the yasa [rights to collect taxes and dues] from many princes and granted them to the Crimeans, and the people of the land have suffered great losses; and he is accumulating money in his treasury and sending it to the Crimea".71 This statement implies that Sefa Girey wished to introduce a more autocratic form of government in Kazan, and deliberately centralized the collection of taxes. His financial reforms and benevolent attitude toward the lower classes are symptomatic of policies designed to establish strong centralized monarchies. The charges of favoritism toward Crimeans and removal of currency from the country were probably unfounded propaganda claims or inventions of Russian scribes. On January 17, 1546, the Muscovite government was informed that Khan Sefa Girey had been deposed by a coup engineered by the nobility and local forces, the representatives of which wished to reach an accord with the Grand Prince.72 His ouster was preceded by another "Kazan war" (the third, according to Muscovite chronicles) which lasted with interruptions for four years (1545-1549).73 A Kazanian group under the leadership of Seyit Buyurgan, Prince Katij, and Qora Nank requested the Muscovite Grand Prince to recognize §ah Ali as the new khan. In March of 1546, §ah Ali was installed as Khan of Kazan, which meant the reestablishment of Russian supremacy, since the Seyit, the princes, the ••

Quoted in: Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii ..., Ill, p. 415. For an enumeration of these attacks, see Smidt, TGIA1VI (1954), pp. 229-234. " PSRL VIII (1859), p. 295. 72 PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 148; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 47. PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 146; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 46. For an account of its origins, see Smidt, TG1AI VI (1954), pp. 187-257. 70

42

PART ONE

oglans, and the whole Kazan land took an oath of fealty to the Grand Prince.74 §ah Ali had been reinstated in Moscow's favor in 1536, after having spent two years (1533-1535) in imprisonment at Beloozero, for having allegedly entertained secret contacts with people in Kazan and other countries.76 His entourage had suffered great hardship owing to his temporary disgrace, and many of his followers had been killed during their confinement and their wives and children forcibly converted to Christianity. He managed to retain his position for only one month after his investiture, however. He was deposed after another act of "treason" on the part of Kazan Tatars (presumably the group or coalition which resisted Muscovite encroachment), who again offered the Khanate to Sefa Girey. After his reinvestiture, Sefa Girey appears to have conducted a purge of the leaders of the nobility group which favored Muscovite protection. Princes Cora Nank, Kati§, Baubek and many others were executed. A group of Kazan Princes, Kulus, Tereul and Burnuz and seventy-six members of the Cora Narik clan, who sided with Moscow and §ah Ali, fled from Kazan and offered their services to the Grand Prince. These refugees stated that Sefa Girey "began to rule Kazan, together with the Crimean princes".78 This reference disguises the real problem: Sefa Girey apparently desired to rule in an autocratic fashion, i.e., from his court and by his council, and wished to eliminate the political influence of the aristocracy. After his coronation as Tsar in January of 1547, Ivan IV, together with Metropolitan Makarij, agreed upon the necessity of an intensified struggle against the Kazan Khanate. In the late fall of 1547, Muscovy opened military operations against Kazan in which Ivan IV personally participated. The campaign failed — allegedly on account of unfavorable weather conditions. The internal situation of Kazan became quite complicated after the death of Sefa Girey in March of 1549. He left a two-year old son, Òtcmis Girey, by his wife Suyiin Bike, who acted as regent for her son.77 The group, which temporarily recognized Otemij Girey, dispatched an embassy to the Crimea to ask for support and a mature khan. Muscovite

'« PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 48; PSRL XIII (1904/1965) Part I, p. 148. " PSRL VIII (1859), p. 281 ; PSRL XIII (1904/1965) Part I, p. 67. Cf. Vel'jaminovZernov, Izsledovanie .... I, pp. 281-282. PSRL Xni (1904/1965), Part I, p. 149 ; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 49. " Xudjakov, Ocerki..., p. 109.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

43

service cossacks intercepted this mission, killed the envoys and delivered the letters to Ivan IV.78 Ivan IV conducted a second great military campaign against Kazan in the fall of 1549 and early 1550, after having secured political cooperation from the Nogai Horde. It also was unsuccessful owing to bad weather and poor military strategy. In the course of the retreat, a decision was made by the Russian government to build a fortified town at the confluence of the Volga and Svijaga rivers, a site suggested by §ah Ali.' 9 This town, Svijazsk, was erected on Kazanian territory in July of 1550, indicating the acceleration of Muscovite endeavors to subjugate the Kazan Khanate and to strengthen the hand of those Tatar groups that were ready to comply with the demands of the Russian Grand Prince. In the summer of 1551, various ethnic and social groups within the Khanate began to seek acceptance as subjects of the Muscovite ruler. Right-bank Cheremissians, Chuvash and Tatar cossacks ("the entire right bank") were taken under the sovereignty of the Muscovite Tsar. 80 The Russian government applied shrewd tactics to encourage this and also to spread dissent within the Khanate. The upper classes were excused from payment of the yasa for the period of three years and those who advocated the assent to Muscovite dominance received additional favors. The lower classes, mainly the peasants (lernye ljudi), gained nothing from the new arrangement. They had to pay tributes and rents (dan' i obrok) to the Muscovite government as they had done in the past to the Khan of Kazan. The takeover of a considerable part of the Kazan territory by Muscovy caused dissatisfaction in Kazan itself. Ko$?ak, the leader of the antiRussian forces, had to flee from the Khanate. He was captured and later executed in Moscow, probably because of his refusal to convert to Christianity. 81 Muscovy's pressure and internal conflicts finally forced the Kazan Tatars to seek an accommodation through submission to the sovereignty of Ivan IV. Representatives of the group who were ready to implement this policy, Molla Kul $erif and Prince Beybars Rast, agreed to accept §ah Ali as khan and to expel Otemij Girey and Siiyiin Bike, the symbols of anti-Russian feeling. The Khanate's ruling circle consented to §ah ™ PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 157; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 56. Cf. Vel'jaminovZernov, Izsledovanie ..., I, p. 336; Keenan, "Muscovy and Kazan'...", p. 321; Smidt, IA VII (1951), p. 296. '» PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 160; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 59. M PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 164-165; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 62. 81 Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii.... Ill, p. 457; Smolitsch, J/GOE VI (1941), p. 80.

44

PART ONE

Ali's investiture, and he was installed under Muscovite auspices on August 16, 1551. The conditions imposed upon the Khanate were severe. For the first time the Kazanian Tatars had to agree to a major territorial annexation by Muscovy. The gornaja storona 'Mountain land', inhabited by Mountain Cheremissians {gornaja ieremisa), Chuvash and Mordvinians on the right bank of the Volga, was annexed by Muscovy.82 Kazan's lugovaja storona 'Meadow land', populated predominantly by Meadow Cheremissians (lugovaja ceremisa), and Arsk land were granted to §ah Ali, who, in spite of being a Russian client, showed displeasure at this Muscovite acquisition. The Kazanians were forbidden to enter the annexed territory and, in addition, had to agree to Russian fishing rights on the Volga River ("and the fishermen to fish in their respective halves"). The Kazan Khanate had to free all Russian captives.83 Those who continued to keep Russian slaves were threatened with the death penalty. The Kazan Tatars had to extradite Suyiin Bike and her son, Otemi$ Girey, as well as two sons of Ko$?ak and a son of Oglan Akmagmet, in spite of the objections of Prince Beybars Rast and Molla Kasim who negotiated the settlement. Suyiin Bike and her son arrived in Moscow on September 5, 1551. §ah Ali entered Kazan with 300 Kasimov service Tatars and 200 Russian soldiers. Muscovite troops were thus his primary support and the Khanate was forced to agree to the quartering of a foreign garrison within its walls. The new settlement had to be accepted by the entire population of Kazan. "And all the people of Kazan went to take the oath, not [all of them] simultaneously, but [in groups of] one hundred, two hundred and three hundred men in the course of three days; and they took the oath [under the same conditions] to which their leading men had sworn".84 Muscovy's insistence that literally "the whole Kazan land" had to take the oath confirming the agreements, indicates the extent to which she had succeeded in imposing her will upon the Khanate. The establishment of Russian supremacy in Kazan was undertaken with considerable political and legal finesse. The Letopisec nacala carstva stated with obvious pride that "Kazan hath been dealt with in a manner never before witnessed in the reigns of other sovereigns".85 The territorial annexation and the presence of Muscovite troops M

PSRL PSRL M PSRL " PSRL M

XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 167; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 64. XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 169-170; PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 65-66. XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 169; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 65. XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 169; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 66.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

45

caused continuous internal friction. In October of 1551, a high-ranking Tatar embassy (§xnn Prince Nur Ali, the Chief Karagi, Princes Bulat and §avas $am and Bahp Abdullah) was sent by §ah Ali to Moscow to negotiate the return of gornaja storona 'Right-bank territory' to the Kazan Khanate. In case the Muscovite government refused this concession, the Kazan Khan should be allowed to collect taxes from the gornaja storona annexed by Muscovy.86 §ah Ali admitted that his failure to regain the annexed territory from Moscow complicated his stay in Kazan.87 Ivan IV had pushed his candidate §ah Ali too aggressively and the latter lost all popular support. 88 The fact that the Tatars did not wish to return all Russian captives further aggravated the already tense situation. All this led to the formation of an anti-Muscovite faction, this time under the leadership of the Siberian Prince Beybars Rast. The opposition planned a coup against Khan §ah Ali and the Russian envoy in November of 1551. In addition, the conspirators sought help from the Nogai Horde. §ah Ali decided to liquidate the opposition and at a banquet had Beybars and his leading followers stabbed to death. Those who escaped during the massacre were killed by Muscovite troops.89 In two days, seventy leading members of the opposition were executed; Russian troops played an active role in their elimination. In January of 1552, a group of Tatar princes (Nur Ali, Hosrev and Azi Alem-Erdin), claiming to represent the Kazan land, came forth with a project for a fundamental revision of relations between the Khanate and Muscovy.80 This project provided for the replacement of the khan (in this case $ah Ali) with a Russian governor (namestnik) who would rule over Kazan "as it is in Svijaisk". The Tatar princes warned that if the Muscovites did not heed their advice, the Kazanians would commit "treason" and look for another khan. According to this proposal, the Muscovite ruler was to decide who would live in the city of Kazan, who in the suburbs, and who in the countryside (jpo selom). Thus, the Russian government would obtain the right of settlement. The governor of the Grand Prince would collect all the revenues, a prerogative of the khan. He would also dispose of the land and property of those princes who had been killed or who died without heirs. Xudjakov defined this project as an attempt to establish a personal union between the two states with an internal autonomy for the local »« PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 171-172; PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 67-68. " PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 173; PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 68-69. 88 Nolde, La formation .... I, p. 33. •• PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 172; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 68. » PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 173-174; PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 69-70.

46

PART ONE

administration. 91 However, this analysis does not stand up to critical examination. The Tatar princes clearly stated that they would submit to Ivan's rule as it was implemented in Svija2sk. Since no other specific conditions were mentioned, one is justified in assuming that Kazan was simply to be incorporated into the Muscovite state and administered as a province like the rest of Russia. The Muscovite government obtained the right to change the social structure of the incorporated province through a stipulation which covered the question of residence of various groups of the Tatar population. Certain groups of the landed aristocracy were to benefit from this solution. The projected treaty seemed to please the Russians and was accepted. It also provided a convenient formula for the peaceful abolition of the Khanate. In February of 1552, Aleksej Adasev92 came to §ah Ali with Tsar Ivan's demand to admit additional Muscovite troops into the city. §ah Ali refused to thus participate in the final liquidation of the Kazan Khanate and left Kazan on March 6, 1552.*3 On the same day, Prince Semen Ivanovid Mikulinskij sent special envoys with the Tsar's charter to Kazan. According to these documents, Ivan IV granted the requests of the Tatar nobility to remove Khan §ah Ali from the throne. The Tsar nominated as his governor the very same Prince Mikulinskij and ordered the representatives of Kazan to come to SvijaZsk to conclude the agreements.94 On March 8, a Tatar delegation, composed of Princes £apkin and Burnuz, Oglan Kuday Kul and many mollas, appeared in Svijaisk to take an oath of fealty to the Russian ruler. The new arrangement provided that the Kazan population would be treated in the same manner as the inhabitants of other cities of the Muscovite state (i zjalovati kazanskix ljudej kak vo inyx gorodex velikogo knjazja).ts The Russian side regarded this solution as an act of full submission. From the Russian point of view, this treaty completed he incorporation of Kazan into the Muscovite state. Princes Qapkin and Kul Ali returned to Kazan to witness its orderly M

Xudjakov, Ocerki..., p. 134. It seems that this name is derived from the Turkic work adaj, meaning 'one who has the same name'. For a n analysis of some aspects of AdaSev's activities in Muscovite domestic politics and the literature on this influential political figure, cf. S. O. Smidt, "Pravitel'stvennaja dejatel'nost' A. F. AdaSeva", XJcenye Zapiski Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo umversiteta (Kafedra istorii SSSR), vyp. 167 (1954), pp. 25-53. M Vel'jaminov-Zernov, Izsledovanie ..., I, pp. 355-356; Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii ..., Ill, p. 460. " FSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 175; PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 70-71; Xudjakov, Ocerki..., p. 135. » PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 175; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 71. 82

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

47

transfer to the Russian governor. The city itself seemed peaceful. As the newly appointed governor proceeded toward the city, accompanied by Tatar princes and noblemen, three of the accompanying Tatar dignitaries (Princes islam and Kopek, and Mirza Aleykiim Nank) asked for permission to go to the city before the whole party reached Kazan. Having been granted this request, they entered the city, closed the gates after them, and spread the rumor that the Muscovites intended to massacre the Tatar population. The chronicles speculate that they may have heard the rumor from Mescera Cossacks or even $ah Ali himself.96 The Kazanians refused to open the city gates to the Muscovites when they arrived. This coup, which occurred on March 9, 1552, was the last to take place in the Kazan Khanate. The Muscovite governor was unable to cope with the new developments. He ordered the arrest of those Tatar princes and noblemen who were outside the gates of the city and returned to Svijaisk. An insurrection broke out in the city during which a Russian unit of 180 men was annihilated. The Kazan Tatars offered the Khanate to Yadigar Mehmet, a prince of the Nogai Horde. He accepted the invitation and rushed to Kazan with a detachment of 500 men. The Nogais supported Yadigar Mehmet, as they had become aware that the Muscovites had decided to take over the Khanate. Because of the Russian blockade of the Kama River, Yadigar Mehmet had to cross it secretly and could come to the city with only a handful of men. There he was invested as Khan of Kazan.97 The individual Muslim states only then began to show real concern over Russian expansion. Some attempts were made to organize a common eifort against the Russian takeover of Kazan,98 but they came too late. The Muscovite government received word that the gornaja storona 'Mountain land', annexed in 1551, had rebelled (yse izmenili gornie ljudi) and had joined the Kazan Tatars against Muscovy." The Tatars launched a military campaign in the vicinity of the city of Svijaisk and had some success at the beginning. Yadigar Mehmet's assumption of the throne of Kazan and the possibility of a Kazan-Nogai alliance complicated affairs for Muscovy. In -

PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 176; PSRL XXIX (1965) , p.71. PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 179; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 74. PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 179; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 74. Prodolzenie Drevnej Rossijskoj Vivliofiki (cited hereafter as PDRV) VIII (1793), pp. 227-228, 265268; G. Z. Kuncevii, Istorija o Kazanskom carstve ili Kazanskij letopisec (St. Petersburg, 1905), pp. 385-386. " PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 179; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 74. 18

PART ONE

48

April o f 1552, a d e c i s i o n was reached to attack K a z a n . O n June 16, T s a r Ivan set o u t for K o l o m n a "to attend t o this matter". O n his w a y to K o l o m n a he received information that the Crimean K h a n Devlet Girey had invaded Russian territory. According t o A. M . Kurbskij, "the K h a n o f P e r e k o p w a s m o v i n g against him with great forces in order t o prevent h i m f r o m m a r c h i n g against Kazan". 1 0 0 T h e C r i m e a n Tatars, under the leadership o f their n e w Khan, D e v l e t Girey, and with t h e help o f N o g a i s a n d artillery support obtained p r o b a b l y f r o m Turkey, conducted

a

concentrated offensive in the area o f B e l e v - T u l a - R j a z a n ' . 1 0 1 The Crimeans were defeated a n d h a d to retreat.

The w a y for the final c o n q u e s t o f

K a z a n was o p e n . Ivan's t r o o p s marched against K a z a n without m a j o r resistance.

On

August 13, they reached the fortress o f Svijaisk, w h i c h provided a c o n venient resting place. siege to the city.

Ten days later, the M u s c o v i t e a r m y began to lay

Approximately 150,000 m e n with 150 c a n n o n s sur-

r o u n d e d the capital w h i c h was being d e f e n d e d by a b o u t 30,000 Tatars. T h e defenders o f K a z a n put u p a heroic battle; they were defeated only after a fierce struggle. O n October 2, 1552, the M u s c o v i t e t r o o p s stormed a n d sacked the city. T h e Khanate o f the K a z a n Tatars w a s thus destroyed by the military might o f an expanding empire. 1 0 2 A n analysis o f the M u s c o v i t e - K a z a n i a n relations between 1438 and 100

J. L. I. Fennell (ed. and tr.), Prince A. M. Kurbsky's History of Ivan /K (Cambridge, 1965), p. 27. Smolitsch, JfGOE VI (1941), p. 82. 102 The conquest of the capital city signified the end of the Khanate as an organized political system. However, the struggle between the Russians and the Tatars, as well as other subject peoples of Kazan, continued for another four years (until 1556). In December of 1552, the former subjects of the Khanate had already begun to engage in partisan actions against Russian civilians and occupational forces. Muscovite military commanders responded with harsh measures, including the execution of 102 people who were alleged to have participated in these outbreaks. In the spring of 1553, two major revolts broke out on the territory of the Kazan Khanate. Muscovite troops sent against the rebels were defeated in two battles and approximately 900 Russians were killed. These setbacks must have caused alarm in Moscow. Tsar Ivan dispatched a Muscovite army, comprising several regiments under the leadership of experienced military commanders, such as Princes S. I. Mikulinskij and A. M. Kurbskij and Boyars P. V. Morozov and I. V. Seremetev, to undertake major punitive operations against the popular uprising. During the winter of 1553-1554, Muscovite troops destroyed many settlements, devastated the countryside and exterminated great numbers of the native inhabitants. In addition, 6,000 Tatar men and 15,000 women and children were taken into captivity. These figures indicate the magnitude of the Muscovite punitive campaign. In the summer of 1554 the Kazanians reciprocated with another violent outbreak during which many Russians were killed along with a number of Tatars collaborating with Muscovy. In response to this, another major Muscovite military detachment, under the leadership of Prince I. F. Mstislavskij devastated twenty-two districts 101

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

49

1552 s h o u l d provide the answers to the t w o questions m o s t central t o this subject: (1) W h a t w a s the relationship between the K a z a n K h a n a t e a n d t h e M u s c o v i t e state during these o n e h u n d r e d a n d f o u r t e e n years? ( 2 ) W h a t were the reasons for M u s c o v y ' s success in c o n q u e r i n g the K h a n a t e and, conversely, for K a z a n ' s failure t o withstand M u s c o v i t e e x p a n s i o n a n d preserve its independence? Traditionally, Russian imperial historiography has held that K a z a n w a s a vassal country o f M u s c o v y f r o m 1487. F o l l o w i n g the M u s c o v i t e chronicles o f the sixteenth century, t h o s e holding this view, with the exception o f N o l d e , interpreted every independent m o v e o n the part o f t h e K a z a n khans, or t h e ruling elite, as a n illegal departure f r o m this vassal status. S o m e scholars have undertaken the difficult task o f characterizing the relations between M u s c o v y and K a z a n a n d offering a m e a n i n g f u l periodization. 1 0 3

There appears to be general

agreement

and slaughtered several thousand Tatars. The former subjects of the Khanate were not united in the struggle against the Russians — a great many of them supported Muscovite policies and participated in the liquidation of their compatriots — they were said to have killed 1,560 of them in the fall of 1554. This continuous two-year struggle must have exhausted the Tatar population. Not until March of 1556 were they able to resume their effort. However, this offensive collapsed when their military leader, Prince MamyS-Berdej, was captured by the Chuvash and turned over to the Russians. During the year 1556, Russian troops, under the leadership of Boyar P. V. Morozov and Prince P. I. Sujskij, undertook three additional expeditions against the restive Tatars in the course of which the city of t a l y m was destroyed, various areas devastated, many thousands of Kazanian men slain and a "countless multitude" of women and children taken as prisoners. The last anti-Muscovite campaign was conducted under the leadership of the Cheremissian commander, Ahmet, who was defeated and captured by the Russians. After the initial successes of the Tatar rebellion the Kazanian Prince Mamys-Berdej determined to restore the political system of the Khanate and to obtain the military support of the Nogais. The sources referring to his attempts are rather confusing. It appears that Ali Ekrem, a son of the Nogai Prince Yusuf and a brother of Suyun Bike, was installed as the last Khan of the Kazan Khanate. The reason and the circumstances of Ali Ekrem's death are not recorded in the published texts. MamyS-Berdej's relationship with Ali Ekrem and his dynastic policies are also obscured by the reference to the Nogai Tsarevich Axpolbej in Russian sources. According to Muscovite chronicles, MamyS-Berdej, after having been captured, claimed to have killed Axpolbej. (C/., PSRL XIII [1904/1965], Part I, pp. 228-230, 234-235, 245-247, 265-266, 269-270, 282; Solov'ev, htorija Rossii..., Ill, pp. 477-480; Xudjakov, Oierki..., pp. 148-152, 158). 1M Xudjakov, for example, divided the history of these relations into four major epochs: (1) the Khanate's power and independence (1438-1487); (2) the Muscovite protectorate (1487-1521); (3) the national revival (1521-1550); (4) the decline and collapse (1551-1556). Smolitsch modified Xudjakov's outline by reducing his four stages to three: (1) the epoch of the political power of the Khanate until 1484; (2) the period of Muscovite protection from 1484 to 1521; (3) the period of Tatar attempts to restore national and political independence, ending in the liquidation of the Khanate by Muscovy in 1552 (JfGOE VI [1941], p. 63).

50

PART ONE

concerning the period until 1487. No one denies that during this time the Kazan Khanate was a well-established and reputable state, regarded as a partner of Muscovy. Disagreement enters with interpretations of their intercourse between 1487 and 1552. A careful evaluation of the political and diplomatic relations between the two countries indicates that from 1487 to 1505 (with a brief interruption in 1496) the Khanate was a dependency of the Muscovite state. While respecting the internal independence of the Khanate, the Muscovite Grand Prince influenced its foreign policy and, to a certain extent, its dynastic succession. Then, in the period between 1505 and 1516, the Khanate regained some freedom of action in its contacts with other states and became virtually separated from Muscovy. During the years 15161519, Kazan reverted to Muscovite protection and the Khan became a vassal of the Grand Prince. In 1521, Muscovite suzerainty was thrown off once more and the Khanate reasserted its formal independence, a status which it was able to retain until 1532 (i.e., until the fall of Sefa Girey). From 1532 to 1535, Kazan was ruled by Khan Can Ali, who had been installed under conditions which indicate the restoration of the Muscovite protectorate. Can Ali's status was that of a vassal of the Muscovite ruler. The coup of September 25, 1535, during which Can Ali was killed, initiated another decade of Kazanian sovereignty. In 1546, Muscovy recovered her position in Kazan for about a month. Then, Sefa Girey again managed to claim the throne which he held until his death in March of 1549. Between 1546 and 1551 (the last three years of Sefa Girey's reign, plus the two years of Siiyiin Bike's regency), Kazan was independent and its khan a sovereign ruler. The reinvestiture of §ah Ali for six months (August 1551 - March 1552) marked the reestablishment of the Muscovite protectorate; Kazan's ruler again became a vassal of the Grand Prince. The projected treaty of 1552 provided for the transformation of Kazan into a province of the Muscovite Empire with a degree of internal autonomy. After the coup of March 9, 1552, Kazan regained the status of a separate country under Khan Yadigar Mehmet, whose rule ended with the conquest of the Khanate in October of the same year. This brief outline of Muscovite-Kazanian relations justifies the following conclusions: The Kazan Khanate for most of its history was an independent state.104 After the war of 1505-1507, relatively long periods 104

Further study is necessary before an evaluation of the relations between Kazan and the Crimea can be made. It is obvious that at certain times the Kazan ruler was a vassal of the Crimean Khan.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

51

of formal independence (1505-1516; 1521-1532; 1535-1546; 1546-1551) alternated with shorter spans (1516-1521; 1532-1535; 1546) during which Muscovy exercised the role of protector and was influential in the domestic affairs of Kazan. This suggests a considerable internal viability of the Tatar state and its institutions. Muscovy's direct involvement in Kazanian politics was usually of short duration; this partially explains the former's inability to force her will upon the Khanate. It is, therefore, necessary to reconsider the theory of Russian imperial historiography that, beginning in 1487, Kazan had become and remained a vassal state of Muscovy. It is more correct to speak of vacillations, depending on the relative strength of the two powers at any given time, between Kazanian independence and the sovereignty of its ruler and the often successful attempts by Muscovy to impose her supremacy on Kazan. The political and legal relationship between the two states having been established, it is necessary to offer some observations concerning the general nature of Slavic-Tatar intercourse. Traditionally, Russian imperial and national historiography (Karamzin, Solov'ev), as well as Soviet historiography (BazileviS, Smidt, Moiseeva), following the political and ideological line of the Muscovite chronicles of the sixteenth century, had tended to emphasize the hostility and struggle between Muscovy and the Tatar world. Historical writings of the Tatar scholars (Xudjakov) are also marred by this viewpoint, which is typical of all national historiographies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: they are characterized by an exaggeration of the conflicts and an emphasis on the virtues of the nation in question. On the other hand, one observes a tendency in today's historical writing to play down the national antagonisms, as well as mutual religious hostilities and ideological struggles. This attitude is reflected in claims that Slavic-Tatar relations as exemplified by the Muscovite-Kazanian case were predominantly "pragmatic", "generally friendly", "peaceful" and "unaffected by national and religious animosities".106 While it is true that these interactions were not permanently marked by perpetual and irreconcilable hostility, one cannot overlook Muscovy's numerous attempts to make the Khanate first a dependent country, then a vassal state, and finally a province of the Empire. As has been shown in this analysis, periods of peaceful and mutually benevolent intercourse alternated with times during which savage wars were fought and hostility, even bestiality, prevailed. It would also be incorrect to regard the conquest of Kazan as accidenK e e n a n , SR XXVI, 4 (1967), p p . 549, 553.

52

PART ONE

tal. While it is true that Muscovy had no master plan to conquer Kazan as early as the reign of Ivan III, it is clear that the decision was arrived at before 1547. There is enough evidence to conclude that, beginning with the 1520s, the Muscovite court and church advocated expansion to the East and Kazan's subjugation. An element of pragmatism also characterized the relations between Muscovy and Kazan; they were not locked in a constant life-and-death struggle. The two countries pushed their policies as far as they could, but if success could not be obtained, "peace and friendship" became the dominant theme, although this did not preclude the laying of foundations for future victories. There was one essential difference in the attitudes of the two countries: the Kazanian Tatars were primarily concerned with slaves and ransom. They showed no desire to appropriate Muscovite territory, possibly because they were not sufficiently powerful to do so. Muscovy, on the other hand, was interested in expansion; she was determined to crush Kazan and to acquire the lands and riches of the Khanate and to control the Volga trade. Muscovy's final success in conquering Kazan was in part a consequence of the considerable differences in the two countries' political systems, their social structures and economic foundations. Muscovy had already become a centralized national monarchy before the last phase of the Russo-Kazanian conflict, i.e., the period between 1545 and 1552. With deliberate support from the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly the militant ecclesiastics of Josephan orientation, the Muscovite dynasty succeeded in developing a strong autocratic political system; it was typical of such political systems that they favored expansion and annexation of foreign territories. On the eve of the Kazan conquest, the Muscovite autocratic system rested upon a relatively diversified society in which the church hierarchy, the emerging service nobility (dvorjanstvo), the rising bureaucracy and individual members of the old patrimonial aristocracy were the most influential elements. The economy of Muscovite Russia was predominantly agricultural. Retardation of municipal growth and stagnation of domestic, as well as international, commerce were also apparent. In spite of this overall imbalance in economic growth, the increasing agricultural output and the sedentary nature of Russian society assured the continuing stability of the political system. Because the centralized state was able to utilize the country's resources for foreign policy purposes rather effectively, it conducted several wars against Kazan and benefited in the long run from these protracted confrontations. The Muscovite government could raise large armies without

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

53

regard for any limiting institutions. Muscovy's strong military position vis-a-vis the Kazan Khanate was an inevitable result of her more stable sociopolitical system. Russia also profited from the lack of political cooperation among the Muslim states, their mutual suspicions, conflicts and jealousies. The growth of internal Muscovite power and the corresponding domestic decline of the Kazan Khanate predetermined the outcome. Muscovy's prevailing over Kazan was also aided by her utilization of an improved military technology. The application of new engineering techniques in the conquest of cities and the use of modern infantry (streVcy), the cannons and, in particular, huge amounts of explosives to destroy city walls contributed to the ultimate victory. Muscovite superiority became apparent in the last seven years before the conquest of Kazan, as well as in the course of the final siege. The Kazan Khanate, on the other hand, was not a unified and centralized national monarchy. Its political system was patterned to some degree on the model of the Golden Horde, strongly resembling the organization of the latter's other successor states, such as the Khanates of Crimea, Astrakhan and Siberia. It was referred to as yurt or carstvo [khanate], attesting to its independent and sovereign status in the MongolTurkic system of the post-Golden Horde period. However, the Kazan Khanate had a much more heterogeneous character than the other successor states, and this proved to be one of its major weaknesses. It represented a loose conglomeration of a variety of peoples,106 some of whom were organized in principalities under native rulers. Although the Tatars were the dominant people of the Khanate, and their central political system corresponded to those of the other Mongol-Turkic states, the various non-Tatar territories appear to have enjoyed farreaching autonomy in their own local affairs. The sovereignty of the state was vested in the office of the khan (car' in Russian sources) who, according to the rudimentary Mongol-Turkic political theory, was an unlimited ruler.107 In actual practice, only the powerful khans of Kazan, such as Ulu Mehmet, Mahmut, Sahip Girey and Sefa Girey, were at certain times able to exercise their prerogatives in a more traditional manner. Quite frequently the nobility and "the land" exerted their influence in Kazan politics and considerably limited the power of the 105

Cf. Chapter I, pp. 4-8, n. 2. Xudjakov, Oierki ..., p. 167; B. Ja. Vladimircov, ObScestvennyj stroj mongolov (Mongol'skij koievoj feodalizm) (Leningrad, 1934), p. 100; Spuler, Die Goldene Horde..., pp. 250, 252, n. 24. 107

54

PART ONE

khan who in the majority of instances could be invested or deposed only with the consent of the ruling elite. Certain khans (Sefa Girey was one of them) attempted to bring about some changes in the political system of the Khanate. While it may not be entirely proper to speak of the reign of Sefa Girey as the period of "national revival" (a concept more justifiably applied to sociopolitical and cultural developments of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries), it can be shown that he sought to introduce reforms and inaugurate policies aimed at the foundation of a cohesive centralized state (khanate). Apparently his endeavors were only partially successful. After his death, members of the aristocracy managed to prevent the investiture of a strong khan and instead were ready to accept the transformation of the Khanate into a province of the Muscovite state. In theory, only legitimate Chingizids and Muslims were regarded as appropriate candidates for the khan's position. The same applied to the other successor states of the Golden Horde, with the exception of the Nogai Horde where the descendents of Edigu founded a new dynasty. After the extinction of the line of Ulu Mehmet, the contenders for the Kazan Khanate most frequently came from the two related dynastic branches, i.e., the Gireys and the Kasimov line of the descendents of Temir Kutlu. The various contenders strove to obtain the endorsement of a coalition of local forces, as well as the support of powerful foreign allies (such as the Crimea and Muscovy). Women generally played a significant role in Mongol-Turkic politics, and Kazan was no exception. Three women, Nur Sultan, Gevher §at and Siiyiin Bike, in particular made their imprint on Kazanian affairs either as valuable links in MongolTurkic princely marriage politics or as independent figures. The khan's power was also limited by the karagi ['councillors', 'advisors', 'overseers'], who formed a group similar in function to the royal council. A comparison with the institutions of the Golden Horde's successor states suggests the existence of four karagi in the Kazan Khanate (as also in the Crimea). These four karagi represented the four most distinguished families in the country (apparently the Tatar coreland). One of them was called ulu karagi or boVsoj karagi (the great karagi) implying his elevated position among other members of the council. §inn Prince Bulat and later his son Nur Ali held this office for a long period, a fact attesting to the authority of this highly esteemed princely family in Kazanian politics. The office of the karagi was hereditary, indicating to what extent the aristocracy could wield its power over the political affairs of the country.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

55

Another notable institution of the Kazan Khanate frequently referred to in Russian sources was vsja zemlja kazanskaja. Xudjakov advanced a fairly convincing hypothesis that this reference denoted a traditional Tatar or, to be more precise, Mongol-Turkic qurultai 'Assembly of the Land'.108 This institution is mentioned fourteen times in Russian sources; the first reference is dated 1496, the last 1551. The Assembly of the Land met to decide major state matters, such as the deposing or electing of a khan or the concluding of a treaty with a foreign power (Muscovy). It is rather difficult to establish the social composition of the Assembly of the Land since only one description of it has been preserved. According to Russian sources, the qurultai of 1551 was attended by the princes and mirzas, together with the great karagi, the oglans and the clergy, i.e., the landed ruling aristocracy, the military and the ecclesiastical establishment. However, the institution vsja zemlja kazanskaja is occasionally used interchangeably with the concept vse ljudi kazanskoj zemli. In some cases the latter formulation also included other social strata such as tarxans and kazaks, suggesting that at certain times the social basis of the qurultai was broadened. This does not, however, preclude the predominantly aristocratic — or aristocratic-military — character of the qurultai. The Kazan Khanate had at its disposal a fairly well developed administrative apparatus patterned on the model of the Golden Horde and reminiscent of those of her successor states. The most important administrative function in Mongol-Turkic states was the collection of taxes and duties. The yarlik of Sahip Girey (1523) provides a whole list of various titles of officials who served the khan as judges, postal servicemen, customs officers and collectors of duties. It also refers to city elders or mayors, great sultans and unspecified lords who were high-ranking administrators. The duties assigned to these officials imply that the Khanate's bureaucratic apparatus was organized to effectively conduct the administration of the towns, as well as that of the countryside. The Muslim ecclesiastical establishment constituted a significant factor in Kazanian politics and society. The chief ecclesiastical official — the seyit — was regarded as one of the most prestigious political personages in the Khanate. Some seyits actively participated in governmental and 106 Cf. his Oierki..., pp. 184-188. In general, Xudjakov's treatment of the Kazanian institutional and socio-economic affairs is quite reliable {ibid., pp. 167-238; "Kazan' v XV-XVI stoletijax", in: Materialy po istorii Tatarskoj ASSR [Piscovye knigi goroda Kazani 1565-1568 gg. i 1646 g.], Materialy po istorii narodov SSSR, vyp. 2, Trudy istoriko-arxeografiíeskogo instituto AN SSSR [cited hereafter as MP1 TASSK] [Leningrad, 1932], pp. VII-XXV).

56

PART ONE

diplomatic affairs. The Muslim religious organization consisted of a variety of ecclesiastical offices. Among others, sheikhs 'preachers and elders', mollas 'performers of religious services' and dervifçs 'Muslim devotees' are most frequently mentioned. The Muslim religion was the official state religion of the Khanate; however, there is enough evidence to conclude that relative religious tolerance existed vis-à-vis the nonMuslims. This attitude reflected a continuation of the religious policies of the Golden Horde, as well as of the other states of the Mongol-Turkic state system. The structure of the Kazanian society was characterized by ethnic and religious variety. The source material supplies most of the available data about the Tatar coreland. However, some of the conclusions arrived at on the basis of this data can also be applied with modifications to the dependent non-Tatar lands. The upper class of the Kazan Khanate was the landed aristocracy, some members of which represented the major segment of the Kazanian ruling elite. Emirs, begs and mirzas were the most privileged landowners. The aristocracy also included autochthonous Chuvash, Cheremissian and Votiak princes, as well as members of princely families, some of whom had migrated to the Khanate from Siberia, the Crimea and the Nogai Horde. The existing Tatar sources provide most conclusive information about the tarxans, a very significant social group of Kazanian society. The literature on the term tarxan is quite extensive.109 Its original meaning in the Turkic-Mongol language is 'smith', 'master', 'craftsman'. The term also designated freedmen who were former slaves. Already by the time of Chingiz Khan, tarxans were exempt from taxes and various economic services; they later became a privileged class or estate. In Kazan society the tarxans constituted a privileged, landowning and heredFor a discussion of this term and pertinent literature, see V. V. Bartol'd, "Dvenadcat' lekcij po istorii tureckix narodov Srednej Azii", in: Sodinenija (6 vols.; Moscow, 1963-1968), V, p. 182; A. Alfôldi, "A tarchan méltôsâgnév eredete", Magyar Nyelv XXVIII (1932), pp. 205-220; Vladimircov, ObScestvennyj stroj mongolov, pp. 69, 93, 117, 164; S. P. Tolstov, "K istorii drevnetjurkskoj social'noj terminologii", Vestnik drevnej istorii I: 2 (1938), pp. 77-79; R. N. Frye, "Tarxûn-TûrxÛn and Central Asian History", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies XIV: 1-2 (1951), pp. 105-129; K. H. Menges, The Oriental Elements in the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Epos, the Igor Tale, Supplement to Word VII, Monograph No. 1 (New York, 1951); L. Krader, "Principles and Structures in the Organization of the Asiatic Steppe-Pastoralists", Southwestern Journal of Anthropology XI : 2 (1955), pp. 81-82; B. Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran (Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit, 1220-1350) (Berlin, 1968"), pp. 275-276, 307, 484-485, 489.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

57

itary nobility which was freed from taxes and other obligations. The tarxan yarhk of Sahip Girey specifically enumerates the various exemptions of the tarxans. S. F. Muxamed'jarov, on the basis of the evidence found in this yarhk, has advanced the hypothesis that there existed a "conditional military-feudal landownership in the form of soyurghal"}10 The term in Mongol meant 'grant' or 'bestowal' (Lehen), lu and was generally used to denote privileges, hereditary land grants and bestowal of offices in the Mongol, as well as Turkic, sociopolitical system beginning with the age of Chingiz Khan.112 The concept soyurghal embraced feudal land grants awarded to the military, as well as to members of other social strata, and grants pertaining to entire territories in the period between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. At the beginning of this period the soyurghal was understood to mean primarily militaryfeudal land grants, since the owners of such lands had to provide military service for the ruler. However, these lands were regarded as hereditary and were exempt from taxation and administrative obligations. Although the yarhks of Sahip Girey and ibrahim do not specify the conditions under which the holding of land by the Kazanian tarxans was exercised, Muxamed'jarov's hypothesis is acceptable since land grants were given to the tarxans quite obviously in exchange for some type of service, most probably of a military nature, and because convincing analogies can be drawn from the Turcological material provided by Petrusevskij. The military played a distinctive role in Kazanian state affairs and can be regarded as a separate social group since they were represented in the qurultai. Among the military, the oglans were the most distinguished; their members were occasionally in charge of the government in times of crisis. Since cavalry constituted the backbone of the Mongol and Turkic armies, it may be assumed that the oglans commanded cavalry detachments.118 It is rather unclear what kind of privileges were granted to the oglans. Xudjakov was convinced that they were awarded small landed 110

Muxamed'jarov, Novoe oproslom ..., p. 106. Cf. his "Social'no-ekonomiieskij i gosudarstvennyj stroj Kazanskogo xanstva (XV-pervaja pol. XVI v.)", unpublished candidate's dissertation, Institute of History, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 1950, pp. 156-157. 111 Vladimircov, ObSiestvennyj stroj mongolov, p. 115, n. 2. 111 For an analysis of this term and relevant literature, see V. Minorsky, "A Soyurghal of Qasim b. Jahangir Aq-qoyunlu (903/1498)", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies IX (1939), pp. 927-960, in particular p. 944; I. P. PetruSevskij, "K istorii instituta sojurgala", Sovetskoe vostokovedenie VI (1949), pp. 227-246. "* Until the twentieth century the slavicized form of the word oglan was used to denote cavalry troops (Polish ulan).

58

PART ONE

estates.114 Contemporary sources also mention kazaks who occasionally participated in the qurultai and apparently served in regular and permanent military formations. Another military title, icki, meaning 'inner', most probably referred to members or officers of the garrison troops stationed in the city of Kazan. The lower strata of society consisted of various groups in the urban population (merchants, artisans, etc.) and free Tatar, as well as non-Tatar (Turkic and Finno-Ugric) peasants, who provided most of the taxes for the khan's government. In addition, the landed aristocracy and the tarxan nobility owned dependent peasants or serfs who worked on their estates. Finally, there were large numbers of slaves, most of whom were utilized in agriculture and among whom was included a considerable amount of captives, both Russian and non-Russian. The presence of a multitude of slaves in the Khanate can be attested by the fact that the Khan, the largest single slave holder, had to release two thousand seven hundred Russian captives in 1551. Because of its geographic location Kazan was a center of the profitable, international Volga trade. Since most of this commerce was transient, it is rather difficult to establish the direct involvement of the Kazanian merchants in it. Nevertheless, the Khan of Kazan collected large revenues from the commercial transactions which took place on the territory of the Khanate. The Kazan Tatars, like other peoples of the Mongol-Turkic world, conducted an extensive slave trade; this partially explains the frequency of their raids against Russian borderlands. However, the economy of the Kazan Khanate rested predominantly on agricultural foundations. According to the traditional point of view, entertained mainly by Russian national historians of the nineteenth century, the Kazan Tatars as well as other peoples of the Khanate had developed only the most rudimentary forms of agriculture and earned their livelihood primarily from the occupations and trades typical of nomadic societies. Those historians who adhered to this view also applied the concept of "steppe politics" to the relations between Muscovy and Kazan. This traditional approach has, however, been abandoned by modern scholarship on the basis of archeological evidence and on account of new insights into the socioeconomic relations in the Khanate. Four major arguments can be advanced in favor of the new revisionist interpretation. The Khanate's territory in general, and its heartland in particular, have an ancient agricultural tradition. In the early tenth 114

Xudjakov, Oierki...,

p. 198.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

59

century, at the time of the formation of the old Bulgar Empire on the Volga, the area in question was already basically agricultural.116 Export of grain by the Volga Bulgars to old Rus' is attested rather early. The Primary Chronicle, under the entry for the year 1024, reports: "There was great upheaval and famine throughout that whole land [Suzdal']. All the people went along the Volga to the Bulgars from whom they bought grain and thus sustained themselves".116 The agriculture of the Bulgars was perpetuated when their country was subjected to the rule of the Golden Horde and later to the Kazan Khanate. This agricultural tradition served as a crucial link of continuity between the Bulgar Empire and the Khanate of the Kazan Tatars. 117 The contemporary socioeconomic terminology found in the tarxan yarhk of Sahip Girey discloses that the Kazan khans had fairly well developed policies concerning the taxation and duties of the sedentary rural population. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate the proposition that Kazanian tax structure was adapted to a sedentary-agricultural economy. The tarxans — a privileged estate — were exempt not only from the basic tithe (yasaq) but from qalan, meaning both land tax in the broad sense and tax on cultivated plots of land.118 Yer xablasi 'land tax' (or, to be more specific, a tax imposed upon the sale of land) is another duty directly connected with cultivated land.119 Furthermore the existence of a tutun sani or 'house tax' 120 can serve as convincing proof of the sedentary nature of the great majority of the Kazanian population. 116

A. P. Smirnov, "OCerki po istorii drevnix bulgar", Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoriceskogo muzeja (cited hereafter as TGIM) vyp. XI (1940), pp. 55-129, in particular p. 70; for another survey of the history of old Bulgars, see also his "Volzskie Bulgary", TGIM vyp. XIX (1951), pp. 1-74; B. D. Grekov, "Voliskie bolgary v IX-X vekax", IZ XIV (1945), pp. 4-6. PSRL I (19262/1962), p. 147. 117 Halasi-Kun, Analecta I (1942), p. 139. UB Muxamed'jarov, Novae oproSlom ..., p. 108; Bartol'd, "Persidskaja nadpis' na stene Anijskoj meiete Manu£e", in: Socinenija IV (1966), p. 331; Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran, p. 309; Grekov and Jakubovskij, Zolotaja Orda..pp. 55, 111; S. F. Muxamed'jarov, "K voprosu o poloienii krest'janstva v Kazanskom xanstve", Iz istorii klassovoj bor'by i obscestvermoj mysli v Povolz'e i Priural'e, Sbornik state], Ucenye zapiski Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. V. I. Ul'janova-Lenina (cited hereafter as UZ) CXJOI: 2 (1962), pp. 150, 152. I. P. PetruSevskij maintains that the term qalan was used to denote land tax as well as other taxes and duties (Zemledelie i agrarnye otnoienija v Irane XIII-XIV vekov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960), p. 384). 1W Muxamed'jarov, Novoe oproslom ..., p. 108; Vaxidov, /CM/£ XXXIII: 1 (1925), p. 91; Xudjakov, Ocerki..., pp. 204-205; Muxamed'jarov, XJZ CXXII: 2 (1962), pp. 152-153. 1M Muxamed'jarov, Novoe o proSlom .... p. 108; Muxamed'jarov, UZ CXXII: 2 (1962), p. 153.

60

PART ONE

The fact that a large segment of the Kazanian society was agricultural is also corroborated by historic-linguistic evidence. Extensive terminology, covering a wide range of equipment used in tilling the land, crops yielded (particularly grain), and descriptions of a variety of activities typical of a rural population, can be attested in the Turkic and FinnoUgric languages spoken by the peoples of the Khanate. 121 Finally, the extent of agricultural development in this country can be ascertained on the basis of the Russian Cadaster Books from Kazan, compiled in 1565-1568m and 1602-1603123 Among other things, these Books reveal the early post-conquest agricultural property relations in the Khanate's territory. The materials of the Cadaster Books also disclose that large land areas were cultivated under Russian auspices very soon after the conquest. Russian agriculturalists (secular and ecclesiastical landlords as well as peasants) were able to continue the work of the expropriated Tatar landowners by immediately exploiting the land instead of colonizing it first. Furthermore one can deduce from these materials that a three-field agricultural system had already been utilized by the Tatars. Not the least important is the fact that direct statements referring to agricultural practices in the period of Mehmet Emin are made in one of these Cadaster Books. A critical appraisal of the institutions and the socioeconomic structure of the Kazan Khanate justifies the conclusion that its society was prevailingly sedentary, although an imperfect one. It would be misleading to approach East European Mongol-Turkic history as isolated from the histories of the agricultural Slavs and to mechanically apply the static model of "steppe politics" to Kazanian domestic relations and RussoTatar intercourse. In order to understand the dynamics of this society it 1,1

S. F. Muxamed'jarov, "K istorii zemledelija v srednem Povoli'e v XV-XVI vekax", in: Materialy po istorii seVskogo xozjajstva i krestjanstva SSSR, Sbornik 3 (Moscow, 1959), pp. 110-113. Muxamed'jarov's studies on the agriculture of the Kazan Khanate represent the most significant recent contribution to its socioeconomic history. For additional general observations on this problem, see his "K voprosu o sisteme zemledelija v Srednem Povoli'e nakanune prisoedinenija k Rossii", UZ CXVII: 9 (1957), pp. 43-46; "Osobennosti ob££estvenno-politi£eskogo stroja tatarskogo naroda do prisoedinenija k Rossii", in: Mezvuzovskoe naulnoe soveSianie. Voprosy istorii gosudarstva iprava (Charkov, 1958), pp. 53-56; Zemel'nye pravootnoSenija v Kazanskom Xanstve (Kazan, 1958). For some supplementary information on Tatar agriculture, ef. E. I. CernySov, "Tatarskaja derevnja vtoroj poloviny XVI i XVII v.", in: Ezegodnik po agramoj istorii vostodnoj Evropy 1961 g. (Riga, 1963), pp. 174-183. 111 MPI TASSR, pp. 1-56. in

¡5. F. Muxamed'jarov, "Maloizvestnaja piscovaja kniga Kazanskogo uezda 16021603 gg.", Izvestija Kazanskogo filiala Akademii Nauk SSSR, Serija gumanitarnyx nauk, No. 2 (1957), pp. 191-196.

RELATIONS BETWEEN MUSCOVY AND THE KAZAN KHANATE

61

is of utmost importance to recognize that the Mongols and later Kazan Tatars lived together in intimate association with the Slavs and borrowed from their sedentary agricultural experience. This symbiotic relationship, along with local Bulgar practice, influenced the traditional Tatar nomadic way of life and determined its evolution toward a mixed sociopolitical system. The changing nature of the Kazan society, together with built-in ethnic, economic and political contradictions, was the main reason for the ultimate fall of the Khanate. The Kazanian political system, resembling, at least on the surface, the classic nomadic model, did not satisfactorily adjust to the existing socioeconomic conditions and, for this reason, became more and more outmoded. While the society of the Khanate became progressively more sedentary, it failed to develop a modern political system. At the same time, it neglected to preserve the old military virtues of the nomadic empires. A similar situation had occurred in the Golden Horde in the later part of the fourteenth century when the old nomadic practices yielded to an agricultural way of life and the new Mongol-Turkic peasants had no time for military training. This prevented their khans from maintaining a powerful cavalry in permanent combat readiness and consequently from retaining absolute military supremacy over Eastern Europe.124 Aside from these objective factors, the Kazanian ruling elite in the late 1540s and the early 1550s was in a state of turmoil and disintegration. This precluded it from making the supreme effort in mobilizing the forces of the country in the face of an imminent threat of extinction. Apparently, the majority of this elite lacked the necessary will to survive which was mandatory in a confrontation with an ambitious, aggressive and ideologically motivated state like Muscovy. Her government together with the Russian ecclesiastical circles, developed a set of claims, assertions and justifications which provided the ideological basis for Muscovite expansion and the conquest of the Tatar Khanate. The following pages will be devoted to the analysis of the legal, dynastic, historical, national and religious justifications for the conquest which marked the transformation of the Muscovite state into a multinational empire.

1M B. Spuler, "Die Goldene Horde und Russlands Schicksal", Saeculum VI (1955), p. 401.

PART TWO

MUSCOVITE LEGAL CLAIMS TO THE KAZAN KHANATE AND HISTORICAL, DYNASTIC, AND NATIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ITS CONQUEST

Ill INVESTITURE O F K H A N S WITH THE KHANATE O F KAZAN — A LEGAL PREROGATIVE O F THE MUSCOVITE RULERS

The first major theory o f importance, which developed in Muscovite Russia to substantiate her claim to interfere in internal affairs of Kazan, dealt with the right o f the grand prince to invest the Kazan khans. The Russian legal claims originate from 1487, when Ivan III successfully intervened in a dynastic struggle in the Kazan Khanate o n the side o f the contestant, Mehmet Emin. The phrase o f the official Muscovite chronicles that "Grand Prince Ivan VasiPevid installed Khan M e h m e t Emin in the Khanate [Tsardom] of Kazan", 1 together with their interpretation o f 1

In the original, the phrase reads as follows: "... i ktyaz' velikij Ivan Vasil'evii vsea Rusii carja Maxmetjamina iz svoei ruky postavil' [italics mine] na carstvo v Kazani...". The term postavil' was utilized by the Simeon Chronicle PSRL XVIII [1913], p. 272); Tipografskaja letopis' [Typographic Chronicle] (PSRL XXIV [1921], p. 205); SokraSiennyj letopisnyj svod 1493 g. [The Abridged Codex of 1493] (PSRL XXVII [1962], p. 288); Ioasaf Chronicle (IL, p. 126). The page with the crucial statement is missing in the Uvarov copy of the continuation of the Moskovskij letopisnyj svod konca XV veka (1479) [The Muscovite Codex of the End of the Fifteenth Century] ( P S R L XXV [1949], p. 331). On the basis of the reconstruction of the missing text I came to the conclusion that the wording of the crucial phrase, including the term postavil', corresponded to that of the above quoted chronicles. The same phrase, but with the wordposadil', was used by the Sokrasiennyj letopisnyj svod 1495 g. [The Abridged Codex of 1495] (PSRL XXVII [1962], p. 359); Vologda-Perm Chronicle (PSRL XXVI [1959], p. 278); Voskresensk Chronicle (PSRL VIII [1859], p. 217); Nikon Chronicle (PSRL XII [1901/1965], p. 218). In the oppositional Metropolitan's Codex or the Unofficial Codex of 1489-1490 this important statement is lacking. However, the following statement was included in the latter in the description of the events of 1487: "... knjaz' ie velikij rad' byv', i posla k mitropolitu, povelS molebnaja s'verSati: mitropolit' ze povelfi zvoniti vo vsja kolokoly, ..." cf. Second Sophia Chronicle (PSRL VI [1853], p. 352); L'vov Chronicle (PSRL XX [1910], Part II, p. 237). This statement was included in the Codex of 1489-1490, with the purpose of enhancing the role of the Metropolitan. For the discussion of the ideological conflicts in Russian chronicle writing of the later part of the fifteenth century and the literature on the subject, see the studies by Ja. S. Lur'e, "Iz istorii politiieskoj bor'by pri Ivane III", Uienye Zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, No. 80, Serija istoriieskix nauk, vyp. 10 (1941), pp. 75-92; "Iz istorii russkogo letopisanija konca XV veka", Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury (cited hereafter as TODRL) XI (1955), pp. 156-186; "Bor'ba cerkvi s velikoknjaieskoj vlast'ju v konce 70-x - pervoj polovine 80-x godov XV v.", TODRL XIV (1958), pp. 219-228. For

66

PART TWO

the events surrounding the new Khan's ascension t o the throne, b e c a m . the foundation for the theory, formulated by nineteenth-century Russian imperial historiography and reasserted by some Soviet historians, that a Muscovite protectorate was established over Kazan as early as 1487 and that from that time o n the khan was a vassal o f the grand prince o f Muscovy. 9 This theory is in need o f major revision. It is true that Ivan III managed to impose a number of practical limitations on the sovereignty o f the Kazan Khanate after 1487, particularly in the realm of foreign relations. On account o f these limitations, Kazan became, to use a modern term, a "satellite" country of the Muscovite Grand Principality. However, one can reach a better understanding of this problem b y examining the use o f legal titles in the diplomatic correspondence with the Crimea and the Nogais, and in the letters exchanged by Ivan III and Mehmet Emin, o f additional observations on the Muscovite codices of the end of the fifteenth century, cf. A. G. Kravcenko, "Moskovskij letopisnyj svod 1493-1494 godov po Beljaevskomu spisku", TODRL XII (1956), pp. 379-386; S. M. KaStanov, "O spiskax dvux neopublikovannyx letopisnyx svodov (1493 i 1495 gg.)", Problemy istocnikovedenija (cited hereafter as PI) VIII (1959), pp. 445-465. 2 Historians have used various legal terms to describe this "protectorate" more precisely. Solov'ev spoke of "subordination" (Istorija Rossii..., Ill, p. 71). BazileviC stated that after 1487 Kazan came under Muscovite "protection" and Mehmet Emin became a vassal of the Muscovite Grand Prince (VneSnjajapolitika ..., p. 205). Vernadsky also described Mehmet Emin as a "vassal" of Ivan III (Russia at the Dawn ..., p. 82). The idea of a "protectorate" was even used by Xudjakov (Oierki ..., p. 43). Fennell certainly overstated the case for the vassalage theory by asserting that Mehmet Emin "was as much Ivan's vassal as were the Tatar tsarevichi of Kasimov" (Ivan the Great ..., p. 96). He also follows the propagandistic phraseology of the Muscovite chronicles a bit too closely, when he speaks of "treacherous Kazanites". 1.1. Smirnov attempted to buttress the theory of vassalage with a phrase from the Ustjug Chronicle, where the entry for 1486 contains the following reference: "This year Tsar Mehmet Emin fled from Kazan, from his brother llham, and submitted to the Grand Prince. And he called the Grand Prince his father, and he asked him for support against his brother llham, the Tsar of Kazan; and the Grand Prince promised him his support" (ULS, pp. 95-96). From this passage and some questionable evidence to be found in Kazanskaja istorija, such as the statement that the Grand Prince installed in Kazan sluiaSiego svoego carja Maxmet-Emina (PSRL XIX [1903], p. 22), Smirnov concluded that "bit'e ielom and recognition of someone as 'father' were concepts of Russian feudal law by which vassal dependence was expressed" (IZ XXVII [1948], p. 18, n. 1). This argument is not very convincing, nor is the Ustjug Chronicle the best source for a clarification of legal and political relationships. While it has great value as a source for local events connected with Ustjug, its reliability for Russian and external affairs is questionable. In addition, it contains some sixteenth-century insertions and rephrasings. But even if we were to accept the submission of Mehmet Emin to Ivan III as "father" at face value, the phrase was used in 1486, when Mehmet Emin was in great difficulties, and was ready to make any concessions in order to obtain political and military support. There is no evidence that he repeated it after he was invested with the Khanate.

INVESTITURE OF KHANS

67

which a few have been preserved.3 For example, in 1489, the Nogai Prince tpek was informed that Ivan III "had installed in this yurt of Kazan his brother and son, Tsar Mehmet Emin". 4 A copy of this letter was sent to the Khan of Kazan. In this copy, however, the word "son" is conspicuously absent. 5 Such omission is suggestive of the shrewd use of titles and legal phrases in Muscovite diplomacy. It should be pointed out that the "father-brother" or "son-brother" relationship between Ivan III and Mehmet Emin was recognized by the Nogai Prince Musa and the Khan's mother, Nur Sultan, who was the wife of the Crimean Khan Mengli Girey.6 The terms "brother and son" and "father and brother" reflected the real nature of the link between Muscovy and Kazan, but they were used exclusively in the correspondence between Muscovy and the Nogais, or the Crimea. In direct exchanges Ivan III and Mehmet Emin addressed each other as "brother" only, indicating a status of formal equality. This practice reveals Ivan's interest in maintaining correct relations with the Khan of Kazan by acknowledging his formal sovereignty and independence. At the same time, the Muscovite ruler used all possible devices to extol his de facto and de jure position with regard to Kazan in his contacts with other powers concerned. One is justified, however, in speaking of the establishment of the Muscovite protectorate over the Kazan Khanate in the period between 1516 and 1519. In the year 1516, according to Muscovite chronicles, the seriously ill Mehmet Emin and the Assembly of the Land (vsja zemlja kazanskaja = qurultai) made a clear commitment (apparently for the first time) not to invite a khan or prince to Kazan without the Grand Prince's knowledge.7 Mehmet Emin's death in December of 1518 was exploited by Muscovite diplomacy to strengthen the Russian hand in Kazan. The chronicles state that Kul Dervis, a Kazanian envoy who arrived in Moscow on December 29, 1518, to report the death of Mehmet Emin, delivered a document addressed by the princes, nobility, clergy, » SIRIO XLI (1884), pp. 85, 92, 96, 130-133. SIRIO XLI (1884), p. 83. 6 SIRIO XLI (1884), p. 85. • The letter of Prince Musa to Ivan III includes the following statement: "Thou art father, brother, and friend of Mehmet Emin ... If thou shouldst order Musa to give his daughter in marriage to Mehmet Emin, he shall do accordingly; if thou shouldst order him not to, he shall not" SIRIO XLI (1884), p. 90). A similar phrase is to be found in Nur Sultan's letter to Ivan III of 1491 (ibid., p. 126). 7 IL, p. 167; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 260; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 25 ("... a Magmed'-Amin' car' da i vsja zemlja Kazanskaja dadut velikomu knjazju pravdu, kakovu knjaz' velikij poxoiet, ¿to im bez velikogo knjazja vedoma na Kazan' carja ni carevi£a nikakova ne vzjati"). 4

68

PART TWO

members of the council (karagi), and "all the people of Kazan" 8 to the Grand Prince, containing the following declaration: "The Kazan land [belongeth] to God and to thee, the Sovereign and Grand Prince, and we are servants (xolopi) of God and of thee, the Sovereign, and thou shouldst bestow thy favor upon us and think about the whole Kazan land, and grant us a sovereign, and consider what should become of us".* While some may regard this to be a later interpolation, the subsequent agreements of the new Khan §ah Ali and the representatives of the princes, the nobility and the Muslim ulema, who ostensibly spoke for the Kazan state, imply that the Tatar Khanate had submitted to formal Muscovite sovereignty. The treaty of friendship and fraternity and the personal oath of fealty signed by §ah Ali, as well as similar agreements entered into by the seyit, the princes and all the people of Kazan in March 1519, attest to this legal submission.10 B. Nolde was the first to observe that the agreement concluded by Vasilij III and §ah Ali in 1519 was tantamount to the establishment of a Muscovite protectorate over the Kazan Khanate. 11 Nolde's choosing of the year 1519 was a bit too literal, but it speaks for his precise legal thinking inasmuch as he had just grounds for rejecting the date of 1487. It seems more likely that Kazan became a vassal state of Muscovy during the years 1516-1519.12 Moscow's legal claims to Kazan rested on the alleged prerogative of its grand princes to invest the khans with the Khanate. This claim to a right of investiture dates back to 1487, but it was expanded into an 8

The chronicles apparently refer to vsja zemlja kazanskaja [Assembly of the Land]. • 1L, p. 176; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 266; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 31. 10 IL, pp. 176-177; PSRL VIII (1859), p. 266; PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 32. Muscovite chronicles maintain that all Kazanian princes, oglans and nobility took an oath of allegiance to Ivan III in connection with the investiture of Abdull&tif in the Khanate in 1497. Such an oath could be interpreted as the first recorded act of legal submission of the entire people of Kazan to the Muscovite state. However, it is more probable that the oath of allegiance, allegedly taken to Ivan III, is a later addition inserted to antedate Muscovite legal claims (IL, p. 132; PSRL VIII [1859], p. 232; PSRL XII [1901/1965], pp. 243-244). 11 Nolde, La formation ..., I, p. 21. 11 The evidence for any hypothesis on this matter is fragmentary and incomplete. In Smidt, Opisi ..., p. 18, texts of agreements between Muscovite rulers and Mehmet Emin, Abdullatif, and the Assembly of the Land are mentioned which pertain to the period before 1516 ("Ja56ik 13-j. A v nem gramota Sertnaja Magmed'-Amineva careva s velikim knjazem Vasil'em o Abdeletife care; i gramota Sertnaja vsee zemli Kazanskie. JaSiik 14-j. A v nem gramoty Sertnye Magmed'-Aminevy carevy i Abdeletifovy carevy s velikim knjazem Ivanom i s velikim knjazem Vasil'em — a vsex gramot 11"). Unfortunately, the agreements dealing with the direct relations between Kazan and Muscovy are not available. Herberstein observed that "Vasiley, Prince of Moscow, has so subjugated them [Kazanian Tatars], as to bring their kings entirely under his sway" (Notes ..., Part II, p. 58).

INVESTITURE OF KHANS

69

elaborate theory and used in diplomatic negotiations almost simultaneously with the events of 1516-1519, especially in the period between 1517 and 1521. Already in 1517, in their famous conversations with Sigismund von Herberstein, the imperial envoy, Muscovite courtiers, on instructions from the Grand Prince, presented the following version of the history of Muscovite-Kazanian relations: In the beginning, Ibrahim was Tsar in Kazan; and when Ibrahim passed away, our father [Ivan III] personally installed llham as Tsar in Kazan; and Ilham began to commit injustice against our Great Sovereign; and our father sent [for him], and commanded Tsar Ilham to be brought before him; and those of his princes who were with him and who committed evil deeds he [also] commanded to be brought before him and ordered them to be executed. And he gave Kazan to his brother Tsar Mehmet Emin; and while being in Kazan and having listened to [the advice] of evil people on account of his youth, Tsar Mehmet Emin began to commit unjust deeds; and our father sent for Mehmet Emin and bid the latter to stay with him. And he [Ivan III] sent to Kazan as Tsar [Mehmet Emin's] brother Abdullatif; and Tsar Abdullatif while being in Kazan and having listened to [the advice] of evil people, began to commit evil deeds; and our father sent for him, and commanded Abdullatif to be brought before him, and kept him in the prison fortress [under guard]. And our father admonished Tsar Mehmet Emin and executed those who thought evil of him [Ivan III]; and he again pardoned Mehmet Emin and granted him Kazan; and now Tsar Mehmet Emin, whom our father and we have installed, ruleth in Kazan. And we admonished Tsar Abdiillatif, and having pardoned him, we released him from the prison fortress, and granted him the town of KoSira in our state; and now Tsar Abdiillatif, while being in our grace, is serving us, and we are merciful to him." Although Ilham was never invested by Ivan III, the Russian government made the claim that he was subject to the Grand Prince to push the date of formal submission by Kazan to the Muscovite ruler back in time. "This interpretation of events was completely tendentious, which did not prevent it from exercising a decisive influence on Russian historians". 14 Curiously enough, in this Muscovite statement the line of Kazan princes begins with Khan Ibrahim. The name of Khan Mahmut was simply eliminated. Contemporary Russians preferred not to remember his policies and activities. Muscovite diplomacy was quick to take advantage of the accomplishments of 1516-1519 in their external affairs. Muscovite envoys were ordered to inform Lithuania in March of 1520, and the Teutonic Order " Pamjatniki diplomatileskix snoSenij drevnej Rossii s deriavami inostrannymi (cited hereafter as PDS) I (1851), pp. 288-289; cf., SIRIO XXXV (1882), pp. 530-531. " Nolde, La formation ..., I, p. 21, n. 3.

70

PART TWO

in Prussia in May of the same year, that the Grand Prince had invested a new khan in Kazan. 15 They explicitly declared that "the tsars had been installed in the past", implying that this procedure was not an innovation. In June of 1521, the Russian government came out with a modified assessment of the development of Muscovite-Kazanian relations. The Muscovite envoy Vasilij Tretjak-Gubin received instructions to negotiate with the Turkish Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. This instruction, aiming at the rejection of the Crimean claims that Kazan was a Crimean yurt, represented, at the same time, an exposition of Muscovite "rights" to decide internal affairs in Kazan. Our Sovereign hath heard now that Tsar Mehmet Girey had written in his letter to the Sultan [claiming] that the Kazan land was allegedly his yurt, and that our Sovereign had made §ah Ali, an enemy of [Mehmet Girey], the Tsar of Kazan, and that our Sovereign had allegedly ordered that their mosques be destroyed, and his Christian churches be built, and bells hung there. Just as in the past, the Crimeans asserted unjust claims with their false inventions, so now they abstain not from false statements: they are making such unjust claims as calling Kazan their own [yurt}\ however, the Kazan yurt was not theirs from antiquity [iztiacala], but there were independent [opriinye] tsars in Kazan: Mahmut was a Tsar in Kazan, and his son tbrahim, and after tbrahim his son Mehmet Emin submitted to our father, the Sovereign Ivan, by God's grace Sovereign of all Rus', and Grand Prince. And the father of our Sovereign Ivan, by God's grace Sovereign of all Rus' and Grand Prince, personally installed Mehmet Emin as Tsar in Kazan, and he stayed there, and was in all respects a subject to our father, the Sovereign. And after this, our father, the Sovereign, bid Mehmet Emin to stay with him, and he also personally installed Abdiillatif as Tsar in Kazan, and after this, the father of our Sovereign bid Tsar Abdiillatif to stay with him, and he again installed Tsar Mehmet Emin in Kazan, and all his life long Emin was in all respects a subject to our Sovereign; and when God's will was fulfilled and Tsar Mehmet Emin passed away, the seyit in charge, and oglans, and princes, and ickis, and mirzas, and the whole Kazan land entreated our Sovereign to grant them a tsar for Kazan; and our Sovereign Vasilij, by God's grace Sovereign of all Rus', and Grand Prince, granted them Tsar §ah Ali as Tsar of Kazan and made him a tsar in that yurt the same as [in the past] the former tsars in this yurt were subject to our Sovereign; and our Sovereign did not order the mosques destroyed, and he did not order churches built, and no bells were [hung] there, and their mosques stand there according to the old custom; the Crimeans have only put forward all these foolish assertions.16 In this exposition the Muscovite Grand Prince conceded the historical existence of an independent Kazan Khanate. His proposition coincides with the versions of the Voskresensk and Nikon Chronicles and with the » "

SIRIO XXXV (1882), p. 559; SIRIO LIII (1887), p. 218. SIRIO XCV (1895), pp. 695-696.

INVESTITURE OF KHANS

71

theory that Mahmut was the founder of the Kazan state. Khan Ilham was intentionally omitted from the line of Kazan rulers because Vasilij III wished to avoid any controversies over ilham's violent removal and Moscow's use of force to install a pro-Muscovite khan. The whole argument is based upon the prerogative of investiture and the concept of voluntary submission, first of the Kazan khans, and then of the Kazan land. To this extent the exposition is historically correct. Only after the death of Mehmet Emin did the whole state surrender legally to the will of the Muscovite sovereign. Vasilij's own statement, addressed to a Muslim ruler, and therefore more cautious and more objective, helps to solve the old problem concerning the dating of the Kazan Khanate's entry into a vassalage relationship with the Muscovite state (1516-1519). The right of the Muscovite ruler to invest the khans of Kazan was reemphasized in diplomatic instructions from the subsequent period. The Russian go-between, Jakov Sozina, was directed to explain the events of 1535 to the Lithuanian Prince, Jerzy Mikolaj Radziwitt, in the following manner: It is known to thee that Kazan [hath belonged] to our Sovereigns from antiquity, and that our Sovereigns personally install [their] tsars there; and now our Sovereign installed Tsar Can Ali in Kazan, and the latter began to commit wrongful deeds on account of his youth: he began to travel to improper places; and in Kazan there are many evil people who come from other countries, and they killed the Tsar. And those who killed him departed to Astrakhan and to other countries; and those who did not contemplate the killing of the Tsar became afraid of being disgraced by the Grand Prince for having killed the Tsar and [they] took a tsarevich from the Crimea [as their ruler] who was previously in Kazan. And now [the new] Tsar entreateth [our] Sovereign to keep him in Kazan in our Sovereign's name; and the princes and all the people of Kazan also entreat our Sovereign to revoke the disgrace [imposed upon them], and not to take away their Tsar from them. And the Kazanians do this not for the first time: during the winter they cause trouble, and cometh the spring, they submit; and the Sovereign punisheth the evil ones, and he granteth his grace to the good ones.17 This account of the insurrection of Kazan and the development of affairs after the death of Can Ali places some guilt on the latter, characterizing him as a youthful and inexperienced ruler who made foolish moves and who contributed to disorders. Foreign intruders or people from outside of the Kazan Khanate are blamed for the death of Can Ali. These outsiders cause all the trouble while the population of the Khanate is depicted as moody and inconsistent. The Kazanian Tatars are portrayed "

SIRIO LIX (1887), p. 26.

72

PART TWO

as being frightened on account of deeds of these people, and their invitation to a khan from the Crimea (Sefa Girey) is being explained rather naively. The new khan, Sefa Girey, did not ask for Moscow's consent to rule in Kazan in the name of the Russian sovereign, nor did the princes and the people of Kazan. The assertions of this diplomatic instruction are very clearly contradicted by the official Letopisec nacala carstva as far as the death of Can Ali and the offer to Sefa Girey of the Kazan throne are concerned. Under the year 1536, the following description of the events and reasons for Muscovy's military intervention is provided : In the very same month of December the Grand Prince and his mother sent their Princes Semeon Gundurov and Vasilij Zamyckij to wage war against Kazanian territories on account of treason and breach of oath by Tsarevna Gevher §at, and the leading Prince Bulat, and all the oglans, and princes, and the whole Kazan land who took an oath of allegiance and gave sworn charters to the Great Sovereign Ivan Vasil'eviS, [to the effect] that they would always be [united] with the Grand Prince, all their lives long, and also their children and the whole Kazan land; and that they would not invite another tsar to Kazan without the Grand Prince's consent, and would not send [for one] to other states without his knowledge. They, the evil and unclean barbarians, are neither afraid of God, nor ashamed to [break] an oath — the madness of all these infidels is the same! Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evió bestowed his grace upon them and because of their entreaty he granted them the very same Tsar Can Ali, whom his father, the Grand Prince Vasilij Ivanovic, by bestowing his grace upon them, had [formerly] granted them on account of their petition; [however] the cunning and shameless barbarians sent secretly [for a tsar] to the Crimea, without the Grand Prince's [knowledge], and took Tsarevich Sefa Girey as the Tsar to Kazan, and they killed Tsar Can Ali. And because of this, the Grand Prince commanded his voevody Semeon Gundurov and Vasilij Zamyckij to wage war against Kazanian settlements [u/usy].1" In this passage the justification for the opening of military operations against Kazan is based upon the claim of the Muscovite ruler to invest a khan in this Khanate. It stresses not only the Grand Prince's prerogative of investiture, but also his right to grant permission before negotiations with other states concerning the invitation could be undertaken. On the more factual side, the Letopisec naéala carstva admits quite openly that the overthrow of Can Ali and the installation of a new khan from the Crimea were carried out by the indigenous Kazanians, and not by a few outsiders who had no roots in Kazan. For a decade after the violent death of Can Ali and during the reign of Sefa Girey, the legal claims of Muscovy concerning her rights in the Kazan Khanate were contradicted "

PSRL

XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 105-106; PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 23-24.

INVESTITURE OF KHANS

73

by the actual power relationships. The fact that §ah Ali was able to retain the Kazan throne only for one month in 1546 speaks for itself. The death in 1549 of Sefa Girey, who had ruled after the ouster of §ah Ali for an additional two years, and who was succeeded by his two-yearold son Otemi? Girey, also received a rather peculiar interpretation in the official pronouncements of Muscovite diplomacy. This interpretation is refuted by the Muscovite chronicles, as shown below: Diplomatic instruction to PolandLithuania of July 1549 It is known to thee that Kazan [hath belonged] to our Sovereigns from antiquity, and that our Sovereigns personally install their tsars [there]; and now [our] Sovereign hath installed §ah Ali as Tsar in Kazan. And the Kazanians have ceased to serve [us] faithfully, and they began to negotiate with Tsar Sefa Girey. And Tsar §ah AH came to our Tsar, and our Sovereign commanded a war waged against Kazanian land. And the Kazanians, being afraid of the wrath of our Sovereign, killed Tsar Sefa Girey, and entreated our ruler [to grant them] §ah Ali as a Tsar. 19

"

Letopisec naiala carstva Carstvennaja kniga [Entry 1549] ... on March 25, the Tsar and Grand Prince [Ivan IV] was informed that the Kazanian Tsar Sefa Girey died in Kazan; he died in his quarters [ubilsja v svoix xoromaxj. The Kazanians and the Crimeans, having united, installed in the Kazanian Tsardom his son Otemij Girey, a Tsarevich two years of age; and they sent many envoys to the Crimea to ask for help and a tsar of their faith. And Uraéko and his comrades, cossacks in the service of the Tsar and Grand Prince, killed the Kazanian envoys, captured their yarhks, and sent them to the Sovereign; and they let no one go to the Crimea. In this very same year, on July 6, Tsar Otemi? Girey sent his man Bak§anda from Kazan with a letter to the Tsar and Grand Prince [Ivan IV] concerning peace. And [in response to this], the Tsar and Grand Prince sent the same man Bak§anda with a letter to Tsar Otemi§ Girey stating that [Tsar Otemi§ Girey] should send his good men if he wisheth [to negotiate] peace.20

SIRIO LIX (1887), pp. 320-321. PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 157; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 56; PSRL XIII (1906/1965), Part II, p. 459. The Kazanskaja istorija offers a very colorful description of his death: "He was killed neither by sword, nor by lance, [although] at many times during the war he had appeared to be mortally wounded. And being drunk, the very same man [while] washing his hands, and face, and feet, although in vain he [tried] to stand on his feet, he [fell and] hit his head on a stone bath tub. ... And because of this he died on the very same day, saying [before his death] that Christian blood had killed him" (KI/M, p. 82). 80

74

PART TWO

The narrative of the Muscovite chronicles makes evident the accidental character of Sefa Girey's death, which resulted apparently from an innocent incident brought about probably by himself. Quite obviously the alleged killing of Sefa Girey by his own subjects who feared Ivan's wrath was an invented story aimed at covering up continuing difficulties with the Kazan Khanate. It deserves to be noted that Muscovite diplomacy interpreted the death of Khans Can Ah and Sefa Girey as being to Moscow's benefit. In both cases the Tatar population was portrayed as foolish and even irresponsible, but loyal to Muscovy. In the case of Can Ali, Muscovite diplomats were instructed to undermine his reputation. The open enemy of Moscow, Sefa Girey, was supposedly killed by his own subjects. The fact that the Kazanian Tatars, in agreement with his Crimean supporters, invested his minor son as the next ruler excludes the possibility of external violence. Although the Khanate of Kazan was virtually independent from Muscovy between 1535 and 1551 (with the exception of a brief interlude in 1546), Muscovite diplomacy continued to emphasize its right of investiture. The instructions of the envoys and couriers to the Polish-Lithuanian state consistently repeated that the khan ruled in Kazan with the consent of the grand prince (1536, 1537,1542, 1543).21 In short, while it had no real control over Kazan for prolonged periods of its history, the Muscovite government in its relations with Poland-Lithuania, the Crimea, and the Ottoman Empire upheld its "right" of installing the rulers in the Khanate. The claim put forward by Muscovite statesmen and bookmen to the effect that the Russian rulers had an exclusive right to invest the khans of Kazan was medieval and parafeudal in nature. The idea of a personal bond22 between the grand prince and the khan (later also between the "

SI RIO LIX (1887), pp. 40, 54,116-117, 179-180, 227, 320-321. It is generally accepted that the personal rather than the institutional element was the main trait of feudal political relations. Cf. M. Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, eds. G. Roth and C. Wittich (3 vols.; New York, 1968), I, p. 256; O. Hintze, "Wesen und Verbreitung des Feudalismus", in: Staat und Verfassung (Gottingen, 19622), p. 87; H. Mitteis, Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt (Darmstadt, 19582), p. 16; M. Bloch, Feudal Society, tr. by L. A. Manyon (2 vols.; Chicago, 1961), II, pp. 444-445; F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism, tr. by P. Grierson (London, 1952), p. xv; J. R. Strayer and R. Coulborn, "The Idea of Feudalism", in: Feudalism in History (Princeton, N.J., 1956), pp. 4-5. For an illuminating analysis of the concept of feudalism, see O. Brunner, "'Feudalismus' — Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte", Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialmssenschaftlichen Klasse 10 (1958), pp. 591-627. One piece of information to be found in the unpublished Xolmogorskaja letopis' attests to the familiarity of the Russian chronicle writers with the concept of the personal bond between the grand prince and 2a

INVESTITURE OF KHANS

75

grand prince and the various groups comprising Kazan's population) was the most outstanding feature of this legal claim. This bond was based upon the oath of fealty exacted from the khans and their subjects, as well as the concept of voluntary submission. However, the khans did not receive the khanate in the form of a fief (beneficium, Lehen) ; they succeeded to the khanate in their own hereditary right. Furthermore the reciprocal obligations of the Muscovite lord and his Tatar vassal were never clearly defined. While Mehmet Emin was expected to act under certain circumstances in accordance with Ivan's will,23 he was not required to perform any perpetual services for the Russian ruler. It was assumed that the khan owed the grand prince fidelity, some sort of obedience, and military support in special instances. In the interpretation of Russian sources the grand prince had rights, but no duties with regard to the khan and his subjects. The authors of these sources attempted to present the khan and the Kazanians in the role of the servants of the grand prince. The personal and one-sided contractual relationship was usually stressed by Muscovite diplomacy in negotiations with foreign countries. In reviewing the history of this crucial legal claim, one can observe that the Russian court had a profound understanding of the three elements which make such a claim persuasive: antiquity, tradition and continuity.

the khan. In discussing the events of 1505, i.e., the break of the vassal relations by Mehmet Emin with the Muscovite ruler, the source in question asserts that the Khan justified his act with the argument that the change of the successors to the Muscovite Grand Principality was illegal, due to the fact that Vasilij III became Ivan's successor instead of Dmitrij Ivanovic. According to the source, Mehmet Emin had allegedly given a vassal's oath of fealty to Dmitrij Ivanovii and refused to enter into a vassal relationship with Vasilij III. While this is an isolated and still unverified piece of information, it nevertheless reflects the thinking of its author or editor about the personal bond between the Grand Prince and the Khan. The relevant passage from the Xolmogorskaja letopis' reads as follows: "Az esmi celoval rotu za velikogo knjazja Dmitreja IvanoviCa, za vnuka velikogo knjazja, bratstvo i ljubov' imeti do dni zivota nasego, i ne xoiju byti za velikim knjazem Vasil'em IvanoviCem. Velikij knjaz' Vasilej izmenil bratanidju svoemu velikomu knjazju Dmitreju, poimal ego ierez krestnoe celovan'e. A jaz, Magmet Amin, kazanskij car', ne rek sja byti za velikim knjazem Vasil'em Ivanovicem, ni roty esmi pil, ni byti s nim ne xoSCu" (cf. Ja. S. Lur'e, "O neizdannoj Xolmogorskoj letopisi", in: Issledovanija po oteéestvennomu istoénikovedeniju [Sbornik statej, posvjaícennix 75-letiju professora S. N. Valka], Trudy Leningradskogo otdelenija Instituía istorii, Vyp. 7 [Moscow - Leningrad, 1964], p. 452; see also his "Xolmogorskaja letopis"', TODRL XXV [1970], p. 144). 2S Cf. supra, Chapter II, p. 29.

IV T H E K A Z A N YURT — A VOTClNA MUSCOVITE RULERS

O F THE

As a corollary to the investiture theory, the Russian government, beginning with the early 1520s, started to advance another legal claim to the Kazan Khanate based on the assertion that the latter was a patrimony (yotcina or otcina)1 of the Muscovite grand princes. 1

The use of the term votcina or otcina poses one of the most complicated legal and social problems to be found in the sources of old Rus'. It can be adequately translated as patrimonium or patrimony; however, it has a variety of connotations. It was commonly applied to denote a hereditary possession (land or province) or any type of movable or immovable property which a son or sons inherited from the father. The term also meant a hereditary estate or landed property connected with certain types of immunities. The closest Western equivalents of the later meaning of votiina would be seigneurie, manor or Grundherrschaft. The word otcina appears for the first time in the Primary Chronicle under the entry for the year 968 in reference to the plea of the Kievan people to Svjatoslav, asking him to attend to his duties as their prince instead of engaging in adventures in foreign lands (ASce ti ne ial' ociny svojeja, ni matere, stary suSca, i ditii svoix [PSRL I {19262/1962}, p. 67]). According to 1.1. Sreznevskij's interpretation, the term oiina, in this particular case, would signify patria or fatherland (Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka [3 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1893-1903, reprint 1958], II, p. 830). One can argue, with some justification, that it may also have been used in the sense of patrimony. In Kievan Rus' otcina acquired a very specific legal meaning in relations between princes. It was used to characterize a land or domain inherited by a son or sons from their princely father. In 1097, at the meeting at Ljubed, otcina was formalized as a principle of princely relations. The report of the Primary Chronicle on this meeting reads as follows: "Svjatopolk, Vladimir, David son of Igor', Vasil'ko son of Rostislav, David son of Svjatoslav, and Oleg his brother, met at Ljubei to make peace, and said to one another: 'Why do we ruin the land of Rus' by our continuous strife against one another? The Polovcians harass our country in divers ways, and rejoice that war is waged among us. Let us rather hereafter be united in spirit and watch over the land of Rus', and let each of us hold his own patrimony [kozdo da deriit' otcinu svoju]: with Svjatopolk [retaining] Kiev [the heritage of Izjaslav], while Vladimir [holds the patrimony of] Vsevolod [i.e., Perejaslav], and David, Oleg, and Jaroslav [between them possess that of] Svjatoslav [i.e., Cernigov], Let the cities apportioned by Vsevolod stand, leaving the city of Vladimir [in Volhynia] in the hands of David, while the city of PeremySl' belongs to Volodar' son of Rostislav, and Vasil'ko son of Rostislav holds Terebovl''" (PSRL I [1926J/1962], pp. 256-257). The patrimonial principle was an outgrowth of Jaroslav I's decision to divide the Kievan realm among his sons in 1054. The history of the relations between the princes

THE KAZAN 'YURT'—'A VOTCINA'

77

In April of 1522, a year after §ah Ali was forced out of Kazan, Vasilij Polikarpov, the Russian envoy to the Polish King Zygmunt I, was instructed to answer inquiries concerning the situation in Kazan: of old Rus' was characterized by conflict between the patrimonial law, which assured each son a part of his father's possession, and the seniority principle according to which the prince ruling in Kiev had a right to reign over all Rus' (for the best analysis of this intricate problem, see A. E. Presnjakov, Knjaioe pravo v drevnej Rusi [St. Petersburg, 1909], pp. 43-116). It goes without saying that the principle of patrimony and diversity prevailed over that of seniority and unity. The patrimonial princely law predominated in the history of the various independent lands of old Rus' in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in spite of a tendency in the Suzdal' - Vladimir Grand Principality and the Galician - Volhynian state (its status was defined as a principality or kingdom) to establish strong autocratic or royal rule which favored the seniority principle. The patrimonial concept also remained in effect after the Mongol invasion of Rus'. Russian princes went to the Horde to obtain confirmation from the khans as rulers in their "patrimonies". The latter actually utilized both principles. They issued yarliks for the grand princely titles and "seniority" among the Russian princes to various rulers of Vladimir, later also of Tver and Moscow, and invested individual princes with their patrimonies as well. This double practice had already been started by Batu in 1243-1244 (PSRL XV [1922/1965], p. 31; PSRL XXX [1965], pp. 90-91; cf. Presnjakov, Obrazovanie ..., p. 51). From the thirteenth to the fifteenth century a considerable number of small patrimonial principalities had been formed in the Great Russian territory and were ruled by princes from the various branches of the family of Vsevolod III Jur'eviC of Vladimir (1176-1212). In the fourteenth century one observes an increasing tendency toward further fragmentation of the princely patrimonies into smaller units which came to be known as udely. It is generally accepted that udel was a son's share of the patrimony which he received, together with his brothers, as inheritance from the father. The term udel signified principality or estate. In some instances, and particularly beginning with the sixteenth century, udel and votiina were used interchangeably in the sources. The Muscovite Grand Principality also expanded on the basis of the patrimony of the Moscow princes who made great efforts to keep their patrimony from disintegrating into small units. This tendency becomes apparent in the testament of Ivan Kalita from approximately 1339 (L. V. Cerepnin [ed.], Duxovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikix i udel'nyx knjazej XIV-XVl vv. [Moscow - Leningrad, 1950], pp. 7-11). Grand Prince Semen Ivanovic reintroduced the concept of unity and seniority into the treaty with his brothers Princes Ivan IvanoviC and Andrej IvanoviC, while simultaneously preserving the old notion of a patrimony owned by all brothers (ibid., p. 11). The growth of the Muscovite principality was accelerated by the fusion of the Moscow patrimony with the Vladimir Grand Principality by the treaty of 1389 between Grand Prince Dmitrij Donskoj and Prince Vladimir AndreeviC of Serpuxov and Borovsk (ibid., pp. 30-31). An analogical conflict between the seniority principle and patrimonial tendencies can be observed in the Tver Grand Principality in the fourteenth and the first half of fifteenth centuries. While the Tverian grand princes, like their Muscovite counterparts, attempted to introduce into their Principality a political system of patrimonial autocracy, their efforts did not meet with success on account of their inability to effectively subdue the small princely patrimonies and to prevent Muscovite intervention in their support. The period from roughly the end of the fourteenth to the middle of the fifteenth century witnessed a breakup of the traditional patrimonial system in the Great Russian area. This development was accompanied by the growth of the Muscovite Grand Principality, the rulers of which, particularly Ivan

78

PART TWO

It is known to thee, Sovereign, that [there are] many evil people [and] traitors everywhere; in the beginning the Kazanians betrayed the father of our Sovereign; and our Sovereign's father [Ivan III] took this [Kazan] patrimony of his, [in accordance] with God's will, and he personally installed a tsar [there]. i n , realized the unification of the Great Russian territory (for the most perceptive and objective analysis of the complicated patrimonial problem and the issue of princely seniority, compare Presnjakov, Obrazovanie ..., pp. 160-222, 325-427). The incorporation of independent Novgorod (1471-1478) and the Grand Principality of Tver (1485) were also justified by the patrimonial principle, although neither of them had been Ivan Ill's patrimony. It seems that it was the only available legal notion which the Muscovite court had at its disposal in the fifteenth century. By the time of Ivan Ill's reign the concept of patrimony had acquired a somewhat different meaning. The patrimonies referred to in his title signified lands or even countries. When Ivan III raised the claim that all Russian lands were his patrimony, the latter acquired a national connotation (...ne ti odny gorody i volosti russkie, kotorye nyni za nami — naSa otiina: i vsja russkaja zemlja ... iz stariny, ot naSix praroditelej nasa otcina, ... [Akty Zapadnoj Rossii I {1846}, No. 192, p. 281]). Of lesser importance for this purpose is the application of the term votcina to hereditary estates or landed property in the broadest sense. Votiina was the predominant form of land ownership in the Great Russian area in the period between the twelfth and approximately mid-sixteenth centuries. The term covered land property of the boyars, the various types of free service people, the church and monasteries (for a discussion of the different types of votiina land ownership, see the fundamental studies of S. B. Veselovskij, K voprosu oproisxoidenii votfinnogo reiima [Moscow, 1926]; FeodaVnoe zemlevladenie v Severo-Vostoino] Rusi [Moscow - Leningrad, 1947], vol. I; cf. also L. V. Cerepnin, Obrazovanie russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV-XV vekax [Moscow, 1960], pp. 149-210; on some aspects of the related problem of Russian feudalism, compare G. Vernadsky, "Feudalism in Russia", Speculum XIV [1939], pp. 300-323; M. Szeftel, "Aspects of Feudalism in Russian History", in: Feudalism in History, pp. 167-182). Between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries Muscovite legislation recognized various types of patrimony, such as family estates, land acquired by purchase, patrimonial estates obtained by grants, and princely estates (for an analysis of the legal aspects of the patrimonial law in this period, consult M. F. VladimirskijBudanov, Obzor istoriirusskogoprava IPetrograd - Kiev, 19157], pp. 529-566; Veselovskij, Feodal'noe zemlevladenie ..., pp. 17-109). The significance of the votcina institution began to decline with the introduction of the service system based on pomest'e land tenure. Paragraph 85 of the Sudebnik of 1550 limited the sale of patrimonies to a considerable extent (B. D. Grekov [ed.], Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov; Preparation of texts: R. B. Mjuller and L.V. Cerepnin; Commentaries: A. I. Kopanev, B. A. Romanov and L.V. Cerepnin [Moscow-Leningrad, 1952], pp. 171-172,297-319. For an English translation of the Sudebnik of 1550, c f . Muscovite Judicial Texts, 1488-1556, compiled, translated and edited with annotation by H. W. Dewey [ = Michigan Slavic Materials, No. 7] [Ann Arbor, 1966], pp. 47-74, especially pp. 69-70). Legislative Decrees of 1551 and 1562 further restricted the patrimonial rights of princes, boyars, and churches (for a discussion of these Decrees, see 1.1. Smirnov, Ocerki politiieskoj istorii russkogo gosudarstva 30-50-x godov XVI veka [Moscow - Leningrad, 1958], pp. 441-454). The Law about the Service of 1556 equalized the status of patrimonial owners and pomesciki (PSRL XIII [1904/1965], Part I, pp. 268-269; cf. A. A. Zimin, Reformy Ivana Groznogo [Moscow, 1960], pp. 437-439). The Law Code of 1649 was responsible for further disappearance of legal differences between votiina and pomest'e. The Decree of March 23, 1714 formalized the final fusion of the two forms of land ownership.

THE KAZAN 'YURT'—'A VOTClNA'

79

And how the Kazanians are also betraying our Sovereign; ... And now the Kazanian Tsar hath sent [a message] to our Sovereign, and this [happens] not for the first time, [entreating] our Sovereign to grant him his grace, and to keep him [in his mercy], similarly as our Sovereign had previously kept in grace former tsars.2 The contention that Kazan had previously been a patrimony of Ivan III was a deviation from the 1517 negotiations with Herberstein. At that time the Muscovite diplomats rejected Herberstein's statement (inspired by the Poles) that Ivan III had returned Kazan to the infidels. They stressed that the forefathers of Vasilij III, his father Ivan III, and Vasilij III himself had already granted various tsars and tsareviches possessions in their state and kept them in service.3 Their argument was quite correct because various Tatar princes were then serving in Muscovy (Kasim, etc.). The assertion, formulated in April of 1522, to the effect that Kazan was a patrimony of Ivan III, represents an addition with the obvious purpose of making the Muscovite claims to the Khanate appear older and therefore more justified. Some months later, in November of 1522, a Muscovite embassy to the Polish king was ordered to reassert the Russian position of April 1522, pertaining to the Kazanian betrayal of the Grand Prince Ivan III, the possessor of the Kazan patrimony. 4 Concurrently with these developments the Russian government began to denote as an act of "treason" any independent change in Kazan policies or any attempt by the Kazanian Tatars to decide by themselves whom to invite as a ruler to their Khanate. In June of 1524, shortly after Vasilij III had dispatched his troops against Kazan, the Muscovite envoy Ivan Kuricin to the Polish King Zygmunt I was advised to respond to queries regarding Kazan. His diplomatic missive turned out to be an updated and quite sophisticated combination of arguments with the introduction of an additional political claim: It is known to thee [that] the Kazan land [zemlja] [hath belonged] to our Sovereigns] from antiquity, and [that] our Sovereigns personally install [their] tsars in Kazan; and those Kazanian people, who are evil, betrayed our Sovereign and invited a tsar to Kazan without our Sovereign's knowledge; and those seyits and princes who serve our Sovereign sent to him [a petition] entreating our Sovereign to grant them his grace, and to send his troops against the evil people. And our Sovereign, granting his grace to those who serve him, and punishing those who do not serve him, sent his troops, ... [as requested].6 a

SIRIO PDSI SIRIO « SIRIO 8 1

XXXV (1882), p. 617. (1851), p. 288; SIRIO XXXV (1882), p. 530. XXXV (1882), p. 659. XXXV (1882), p. 690.

80

PART TWO

This new political claim was quite simple and obvious. It downgraded the Kazan Khanate to the concept of land (zemlja), implying that it was one of the many lands under the rule of the Muscovite grand prince. Such a proposition was not without logic, in view of the previous assertion that it was a patrimony of the Grand Prince Ivan III. The results of the agreements of 1516-1519 were incorporated into this missive with some skill. The Tatars were charged with treason for having invited a new khan "without the knowledge of the [Muscovite] Sovereign". The Russian court shrewdly divided the Kazan population into good and evil people. Those who were good asked the sovereign to establish order, those who were bad rebelled. The troops were sent supposedly upon the request of loyal servants, against those who refused to serve. But in 1524 no major group of Kazanian nobles or princes had asked for the intervention of the Muscovite army; at least there is no indication in the Muscovite chronicles to support this allegation. On the ^contrary, there is enough evidence to conclude that Vasilij III failed to remove Khan Sahip Girey from Kazan. Nevertheless, in this document of 1524, the agreement of 1519, i.e., the oath of fealty given by Kazanian nobles on behalf of themselves and their children to the grand prince, was apparently used to prove a direct relationship between the grand prince and his vassals, the Tatars of Kazan. The claim of the Russian court that Kazan was a patrimonial possession of the Muscovite grand princes, conveyed to a Western ruler, was also repeated in exchanges with the Turkish Sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. In September of 1524, during the course of negotiations between Muscovite diplomats and the Sultan's envoy Iskander, Kazan became the subject of a political and legal dispute. The Russian side rejected Turkish suggestions to come to terms with Sahip Girey, the Khan of Kazan, on the basis of its alleged traditional prerogative of investiture. "Thou hast conveyed to us the Sultan's [position] that we should make peace with Tsarevich Sahip Girey whom the Kazanian traitors, having betrayed us, invited to Kazan. However, it is well known to thee that we have personally installed tsars in this yurt from antiquity. And [in accordance] with God's will we now intend to continue this custom". 6 Iskander countered this Muscovite contention with the following new Turkish claim to supremacy over the Kazan Khanate: "You said that the Kazan yurt [hath belonged] to your Sovereigns] from antiquity. However, Tsar Sahip Girey sent [his embassy] to entreat our Sovereign [with a plea] last spring, • Dunaev, Maksim Grek ..., Prilozenie, p. 76.

THE KAZAN 'YURT*—'A VOTClNA'

81

and he submitted to our Sovereign; and this yurt [belongeth] to our Sovereign, and the Grand Prince should not send his army against Kazan".' Sigona Podiegin, a Russian diplomat, speaking on behalf of Vasilij III, reiterated the Russian position by stating plainly: "Tsar Sahip Girey [may have] entreated the Sultan—however, he [the Sultan] knoweth well [that] this yurt [hath belonged] to our Sovereigns] from antiquity".8 Muscovite diplomacy was able to adjust its political and legal terminology quite successfully in negotiations with Muslim rulers. In adopting the concept yurt9 commonly applied in the Mongol-Turkic system with reference to political entities, such as Kazan, Muscovite diplomacy translated it with its most appropriate equivalents, votcina or zemlja, to suit internal Russian as well as Western purposes. Furthermore it is worthwhile to remember that the notion of patrimony had been already employed by Muscovy thirty years before the conquest of Kazan in order to support her claims to the Tatar Khanate. After the death of Vasilij Hi, especially in the period 1533-1550, contemporary Russian sources refrained from using votiina in relation to Kazan. In the Postnikov Chronicle, which is one of the sources for this period, the following phrase can be found under the year 1535: "This very same year, in September, Kazan separated [from Muscovy], and betrayed the Grand Prince".10 Discussing the events of 1546 the Postnikov Chronicle confined its political evaluation to some remarks about the investment of §ah Ali and the submission of the Kazan Tatars. 11 It may only be a coincidence that the term votcina was not used in the years following Vasilij Ill's death. However, it may be assumed that its application was closely correlated with the status of power and personal involvement of the individual ruler. Vasilij III was the first to have ' Dunaev, Maksim Grek..., Priloienie, p. 77; cf. also Smirnov, /ZXXVTI (1948), pp. 53-54.

* Dunaev, Maksim Grek ..., Prilozenie, p. 77. 1

The Turkic term yurt originally meant a nomadic pasturage or a territory granted to a vassal, clan or people. Its corresponding Mongol word was nuntux — rut tug. Yurt signified a specific territory which represented a socioeconomic and political unit, being sometimes the core area of the Horde or one of her dependencies. In later periods yurt acquired, in addition to its original connotations, a variety of meanings, such as possession, land, country or fatherland (BartoPd, Soiinenija V [1968], p. 133, n. 8;

Vladimircov, Obiiestvennyj stroj mongolov, pp. 43, n. 1, 57-58, 111; S. E. Malov, Pamjatniki drevnetjurkskoj pis'mennosti Mongolii i Kirgizii [Moscow - Leningrad, 1959], p. 390). The concept yurt, as applied to the Kazan Khanate, denoted a land or a country in the sense of a separate or independent political unit. 10 M. N. Tixomirov (ed.), "Zapiski o regentstve Eleny Glinskoj i bojarskom pravlenii 1533-1547 gg.*\ IZXLYl (1954), p. 284.

"

Ibid., p. 286.

82

PART TWO

ordered the employment of the notion of patrimony for denoting the relationship between the Muscovite grand prince and the Kazan Khanate. After his death, and particularly until 1545, the personal prerogatives of a ruler were not extolled in the same manner as they had been during his lifetime. Only after Ivan IV took the title of tsar and gained full power did imperial ideology begin to receive new dimensions in the works of Muscovite writers in the middle of the sixteenth century. The view that Kazan was a patrimony of the Muscovite ruler was again put forward in Russia's relations with other countries. In December of 1550, the Muscovite envoy Jakov Ostaf'ev was sent by Ivan IV to the PolishLithuanian ruler Zygmunt August with the following directive: The Kazan patrimony [hath belonged] to our Sovereign[s] from antiquity; and the Kazanians invited Tsarevich Sefa Girey from the Crimea [as a tsar] to Kazan, and because of this our Sovereign sent his troops against them. And the Kazanians killed Tsar Sefa Girey; and our Sovereign granted them $ah Ali as Tsar, and they refused to obey Tsar $ah Ali in all respects, and because of this Tsar §ah Ali left [Kazan] and returned to our Sovereign; and because of their transgressions our Sovereign personally went against Kazan, and he devastated the whole Kazan land. And those people who locked themselves in the city entreated our Sovereign not to deport them [ctob gosudar ix ne rozvodil], and [promised that] they would pay all tributes according to ancient custom. And the Sovereign responded to their plea, and did not deport them from the city [iz' goroda ix ne vyvodil], and now they pay all tributes to our Sovereign according to ancient custom. And the Sovereign wisheth to grant them a tsar from among the tsareviches of Astrakhan, whoever is most suitable ...12 One of the essential elements of this passage is the renewed use of the concept of patrimony to describe relations between the Muscovite ruler and the Kazan Khanate. The story of Sefa Girey's violent death was repeated, which indicates that Muscovite diplomacy had decided to utilize his death for its own political intentions. This account is rather inaccurate in chronology, since the installation of §ah Ali as Khan of Kazan (1546) is placed after the death of Sefa Girey (1549). The instruction was aimed at creating the impression that the Kazan Tatars, after having been punished for the eviction of §ah Ali, had again become obedient subjects of the Muscovite ruler. While it is quite understandable that the Russians preferred to be silent about the investiture of Otemis " SIRIO LIX (1887), p. 343. The only reference to a Muscovite attempt to collect duties (poSliny) in Kazan is contained in a strongly worded protest of Mehmet Emin to Ivan III from 1491, in which the Khan vehemently objects to such an endeavor by the Russian official Fedor Kiselev (... cego iz stariny ne byvalo ...) (Sobranie gosudarstvennyx gramot i dogovorov [cited hereafter a SGGD] V [1894], No. 18, p. 10).

THE KAZAN 'YURT'—'A VOTÍINA'

83

Girey as the new Khan of Kazan (this investiture reflected the continuous strength of the national and politically independent forces in Kazan), the hint that Ivan IV wished to install a prince from Astrakhan as Khan of Kazan is more difficult to explain. It is true that Astrakhan was often at war with the Crimea and that its relations with Muscovy were quite peaceful. Nevertheless, Moscow attempted to keep princes from other independent khanates away from the throne of Kazan. Moscow's first choice was khans from Kasimov who served the grand prince as his acknowledged vassals. It may be that the Russian government already anticipated by that time the changes which were to come in Astrakhan politics: the Khan of Astrakhan, Yagmurci, expressed his desire to submit to Russian protection in 1551.13 Another possibility is that the Muscovite court was aware of the presence of influential circles in Kazan who would have been interested in a candidate from Astrakhan or the Nogai Horde in order to escape the option of either Muscovy or the Crimea. The existence of such a political orientation is attested by Prince Beybars' attempt to obtain help from the Nogais in 1551. Muscovy's hint to Astrakhan in the envoy's directive was probably made in anticipation that Kazanians might invite an Astrakhan prince to rule in Kazan. It was meant to serve as a facesaving gesture, should this occur. It deserves to be mentioned that the last Khan of the independent Kazan Khanate was Yadigar Mehmet, an Astrakhan prince from the Nogai Horde. The diplomatic note of December 1550 to the Polish-Lithuanian ruler contained, in addition to the reintroduced patrimonial concept, two significant references concerning tribute and deportations. Firstly, it was stated that the Kazan land paid tribute to the Russian ruler according to ancient custom. This claim was an innovation, in view of the fact that previously the grand prince had limited his declared rights to the questions of the investiture of the ruler and to the possession of the Khanate on the basis of the patrimonial law. During the reign of Ivan IV the "right" of conquest was added. The argument of tribute was introduced for the first time in 1550 (or so it appears on the basis of printed material). This argument was to be mentioned again later, but in a different historical context. If it were true that the Kazanian Tatars had paid tribute to the Muscovite rulers before 1550, then the proposition that Kazan was a patrimonial possession of Ivan IV would have been based on solid foundations. However, neither the agreements of 1516-1519, nor the subse"

PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 170; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 166.

84

PART TWO

quent treaties concluded by the Kazan Khanate with the grand prince of Muscovy, specify any such tribute. In short, before the conquest of Kazan in October of 1552, no tribute, "according to ancient custom", was paid by the Khanate to Muscovy. The problem of tribute is one of the crucial factors for the proper understanding of Muscovite-Kazanian relations, as well as of the Russian claims to Kazan raised in conjunction with the vassalage theory. Whatever promises or agreements the Kazanian Tatars may have negotiated with the Muscovite grand princes, they meant very little in practical political terms, as long as the former paid no tribute to the Russians. From the Mongol-Turkic point of view, the obligation of tribute and the collecting of taxes reflected the real political relationship between two sides. Since the Kazanian Tatars paid no tribute to Muscovy before the conquest of Kazan they certainly did not regard themselves as vassals either in a political or legal sense, and it may be added that the Russians were definitely aware of this attitude on account of their own previous experience with the Golden Horde. Second, and equally important, is the reference to the possibility of deportation of the Tatar population (rozvodif or vyvodit'). A prerogative of the Muscovite ruler to decide where the Kazan Tatars should live (in the city or in the countryside) had not been mentioned in the available contemporary Russian sources before 1550. A project by a group of Tatar nobles to replace the khan by a Russian governor, whose powers would include the right to relocate the Tatar population and to collect taxes, was designed in the winter of 1551-1552. Tt is quite possible that this project had been inspired by the Russian government and then suggested to the pro-Muscovite group in Kazan. Deportations were regarded as an integral function of imperial politics. They had been applied by the Muscovite rulers in the process of consolidating the Great Russian ethnic territory (Novgorod, Pskov, Rjazan'). The Muscovite government considered using this device to bring about full subjugation of Kazan, even before its final conquest. The sack of the city of Kazan by conquering Russian troops for the most part solved the problem of deportation; the great majority of the inhabitants were killed or led off into slavery in the course of the fighting in 1552. The problem of deportation of Tatars became again acute after Kazan was rebuilt. Ivan IV claimed Kazan to be his patrimony before the final conquest of the Khanate not only in statements to a Western ruler, but also in his correspondence with the Nogai Horde. His letter of January 1552 to Prince Yusuf was written after Otemi? Girey had been taken with his mother to Moscow, and while §ah Ali was the nominal Khan in Kazan.

THE KAZAN 'YURT'—*A VOTÓINA'

85

And we have written thee many times about Kazan, [telling thee] that this yurt [hath belonged] to us from antiquity .... And Tsar Sefa Girey came to this yurt with the Crimean people without our knowledge, and committed many hostile deeds against us. And we have revenged this hostility [in accordance] with God's will, and recovered our yurt, and we have garrisoned our people there. And those Crimeans and Kazanians who were rude to us died at our hands, and thy people saw this. And Tsar Ótemi$ Girey, the son of Tsar Sefa Girey, is now [in captivity] in Moscow on account of his father's rudeness [toward us]. And his mother Tsaritsa Süyün Bike came to [stay with] us because Tsar §ah Ali refused to keep her with him." While maintaining that Kazan had been a yurt of the Muscovite rulers from antiquity, the letter asserts, in addition, that Ivan IV had mentioned this matter many times to the Nogai Horde. If this were so, the claim of owning the Kazan yurt must have been made before January 1552. Furthermore the letter does not pose any misrepresentation of facts: Khan Sefa Girey took the Kazan Khanate without the knowledge (i.e., permission) of the grand prince. He was succeeded by his son Otemif Girey whom the Russians deported to Moscow in revenge for his father's anti-Muscovite policies. Circumstantial evidence exists indicating that Ivan IV did in fact attempt to convince the Nogais that the Kazan yurt was his possession. In the diplomatic note from Mirza Ismail to Ivan IV dated May 1551 some revealing references are made to Kazan: "The Kazan yurt [had belonged] to thine enemy. Thou asked God for [this yurt~\, and He granted thee this state in good time ... it was known to the Prince, my brother, that the Kazan [yurt] [hath belonged] to thee and that Tsar $ah Ali hath been thy [servant] ...". u This statement discloses Ivan's claim to the patrimony of Kazan as described in his correspondence with the Nogai Horde. The note of Mirza Ismail emphasized the point that Kazan was the patrimony of Ivan's enemy in previous times. However, ismail adjusted his view to suit the Russian ruler by stressing that §ah Ali was dependent on Muscovy, and that subsequently Ivan IV justly regarded Kazan as his patrimony. It should be pointed out that the author or the compilers of the Povesi' about the conquest of Kazan, which constitutes a part of the Letopisec naiala carstva, used the term votiina in connection with the event itself. After the Muscovite troops had stormed the city of Kazan on October 2, 1552, Ivan IV was welcomed as the victor by his army. The Chronicle reports that Prince Vladimir Andreevió, the former Khan of Kazan §ah Ali, and the boyars and voevody who participated in the campaign were " "

PDRVVIII (1793), p. 310. PDRVV III (1793), pp. 329, 331.

86

PART TWO

present. When greeting the tsar, the voevody and the Christians allegedly exclaimed: "May the pious Tsar, the conqueror of the barbarians, live for many years to come! O, Sovereign, be greeted in thy patrimony granted to thee by God for all time to come".1* After the conquest, in October of 1552, the Russian government and Russian publicists referred to Kazan as the patrimony of the Russian ruler as a matter of routine. But by that time, these assertions reflected a new power alignment. The subjugation of Kazan was exploited by the Muscovite government in its relations with other countries immediately after its occurrence. The Russian bailiff, Ivan Sotnicyn, was instructed to inform the Polish-Lithuanian envoy, Jan Hajko, that "with God's grace our Sovereign hath taken Kazan, and he had all the men of Kazan killed, and he had their wives and children taken into captivity; and now he hath installed his governor, Prince Aleksandr Borisovic Gorbatyj, and his many other voevody in Kazan; and he hath imposed tribute on the common people, similarly as it had been [done] under former tsars. And he brought with him to Moscow [the captured] Khan Yadigar, where the latter is now staying". 17 Ivan IV soon decreed that the name of Kazan be included in his title. In his letter of January 23,1553, to the Nogai Mirza Ismail he used Kazan in his title and reasserted his contention that the Khanate has always been his possession: "And it is known to thee and [it had been known] to those before thee, that the Kazan yurt [hath belonged] to us from antiquity". 18 On August 11 of the same year, the Polish-Lithuanian envoys of King Zygmunt August were informed that the Russian "Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince hath taken his patrimony, the great Tsardom of Kazan ,..". 19 A similar approach to the idea of "the Kazan votiina" was applied in internal Russian affairs after the conquest of Kazan, as attested in a variety of sources. In his "Epistle of the Tsar and Sovereign to All His Russian Tsardom Against Those that Violate the Oath of Allegiance, Against Prince Andrej Kurbskij and His Comrades, Concerning Their Treacheries", of July 5, 1564, Ivan IV referred to Kazan as "our patrimony". 20 Finally, the Cadaster Book of the Kazan market from the year 1565 denotes Kazan as a patrimony of Tsar Ivan IV. 21 " " " "

PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 220; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 109. SJRIO LIX (1887), p. 363. PDRFIX (1793), pp. 63-64. SJRIO LIX (1887), p. 384. J. L. I. Fennell (ed. and tr.), The Correspondence between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, 1564-1579 (Cambridge, 1963), p. 138. 21 MPI TASSR, p. 56.

THE KAZAN 'YURT'—'A VOTCINA'

87

The Russian patrimonial claim to the Kazan Khanate represented an outgrowth of the traditional Muscovite legal theory concerning the relationship between the ruler and the land. Like its Western equivalents, Russian patrimonial theory made no distinction between the private and public spheres in the realm of law and political domination (.Herrschaft).22 Since Russian rulers regarded Muscovy, as well as other Russian lands, as their private possessions in which they reigned without any limitations, it was only natural for them to apply a similar approach to other territories and countries conquered by them. Furthermore it ought to be pointed out that the Russian law of the Muscovite period lacked a sophisticated theoretical framework and limited itself to a few general assumptions regarding the forms of political domination. Although the notion of votcina was undergoing internal evolution, the Muscovite government consistently employed the patrimonial argument in advancing its claims to a variety of territories and countries, such as Astrakhan, Old Rus' lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Livonia and later even to Siberia. In spite of the fact that the patrimonial claim is contradicted by the factual evidence of the Russo-Kazanian relations, the equation of the Russian concept of votiina with the Turkic notion of yurt attests the ingenuity of the Muscovite policy makers, as well as their knowledge and intimate perception of the political theory of their Tatar neighbors. This is also evident from the careful handling of the patrimonial claim by Russian diplomats and bookmen involved in defining the Muscovite pretensions to Kazan. The idea of patrimony was used extensively in relations with foreign countries (both Western and Muslim); however, the Russian sources persistently refrain from mentioning it when reporting on direct Muscovite-Kazanian exchanges before 1552. The investiture claim and the patrimonial "right" were assiduously synchronized by the Russian court for purposes other than those of bilateral Russo-Kazanian relations.

M Weber, Economy and Society, III, pp. 1013, 1028-1029, 1085-1086; for a historical discussion of the concept of patrimonialism and the scholarly controversies concerning the actual existence of a patrimonial state in medieval Germany, see O. Brunner, Land und Herrschaft (Vienna, 19594), pp. 146-164.

V T H E M U S C O V I T E "LAW O F C O N Q U E S T " A N D K A Z A N

During the reign of Ivan IV the Muscovite court applied a new argument to justify its absorption of Kazan. This argument rested upon the idea that conquest constituted legal grounds for possession, and Muscovite diplomacy added it on to other juridical claims to the Tatar Khanate. The first direct reference to the new claim is found in a letter, probably dated February 1534, in which the Russian government attempted to reject the assertion of the Crimean Khan Sahip Girey who maintained that the Kazan land was his yurt. To the best of my knowledge, this letter still remains unpublished. Excerpts f r o m this important document have been utilized by three historians, all of whom cited Dela Krymskie, Col. N o . 123, Book 8, p. 480, prserved in Central'nyj gosudarstvennyj arxiv drevnix aktov, as their source. 1 There is some divergence between the versions offered by the three writers, but the excerpt quoted by Smidt appears to be the most reliable: And concerning that which thou hast written us, namely that Kazan land is thy yurt, having consulted old chronicles, [we ask]: if one sovereign cometh with his army and captureth another sovereign, and after having deposed him, giveth his land to whomever he willeth, should not this land belong to the one who conquered it? And thou hast been silent [about this matter] while helping Kazan; thou dost remember that those tsars who were deprived of their yurts in the Horde took the Kazan yurt, having come there by wars and injustices; [however], thou dost not remember that our grandfather, Grand Prince Ivan [III] had taken Kazan by God's mercy, and deposed the tsar [together with] his mother and the tsaritsa and his brothers. And now, our brother, remembering thine old rights, thou shouldst not forget our old rights The passage contains the crucial allegation that Ivan III had conquered Kazan, and, as a result, had become the rightful sovereign of the Khanate. At the same time, the Tatar contenders to the Kazan Khanate are de1

Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii, III, p. 418; Xudjakov, Oierki..., p. 94; Smidt, TGI AIVI

(1954), p. 238. » Smidt, TGIAIVI

(1954), p. 238.

THE MUSCOVITE "LAW OF CONQUEST" AND KAZAN

89

scribed as intruders whose claims are illegal because they derive from injustices perpetrated and wars waged by khans expelled from the Golden Horde. Quite obviously there is an element of inconsistency in this statement, since the Muscovite conquest is presented as just, whereas conquests by the various Tatar contenders are called dishonest and deceitful. This Russian view of the conquest was to be recapitulated several times before the final incorporation of Kazan. It became an integral part of Muscovite political thought in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Muscovite diplomacy generally made reference to the old chronicles and history to support its interpretation of the law of conquest. In the summer of 1551, the same argument was used by the Russian government to annex the territory of the Hill-Cheremissians which constituted a part of the Kazan Khanate. The official chronicle Letopisec natala corsiva, while discussing the annexation of the Cheremissian land, invoked the law of conquest in quite unmistakable terms : And the Sovereign granted Kazan to Tsar §ah Ali and installed him in Kazan, and he gave him with Kazan the whole land of the Meadow- [Cheremissians] and the land of Arsk; and the land of the Hill- [Cheremissians] was attached to the city of Svijaisk because the Sovereign took it by God's mercy with the sword [sableju] before they [Kazanians] entreated [for submission]; ... And Aleksej AdaSev came to the Tsar on August 6, and conveyed to him the Sovereign's word as to how to deal with the Kazanians. And Tsar §ah Ali praised the Sovereign's deed, but he was not pleased that the land of the Hill[Cheremissians] would be attached to the city of Svijaisk, and not to Kazan wich [belonged] to him. And the boyars responded to him [§ah Ali] in accordance with the Sovereign's order that this matter could not be otherwise: whatever God granted to the Sovereign, this he would not forego." Two new elements had been incorporated into the theory of conquest: first, an open admission that the conquest was undertaken by war ("by the sword"), and, more significant, that once a conquest had been made ("by God's mercy") the Russian ruler would not retreat from it, or give up the conquered territory. The term "by the sword" was also introduced into the diplomatic correspondence between the Muscovite court and the Nogai Horde at about the same time. In his letter of January 1552, to Prince Yusuf, Ivan IV claimed that Kazan was his yurt obtained by » PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 64; PSRL X m (1904/1965), Part I, p. 167. Xudjakov remarked quite correctly that "in the past, Muscovite diplomats referred to a peculiarly interpreted 'conquest' of Kazan in 1487, and now they strengthen their right of conquest by more realistic arguments, i.e., the building of Svijaisk on Kazanian territory"

(Olerki..., p. 129).

90

PART TWO

conquest: "And our grandfather took it [Kazan] by his sword, and we shall acquire this yurt".4 The theory of conquest and the assertion that the Muscovite rulers alone had the right to invest the khans with Kazan were based on the events of the year 1487. The Muscovite envoy to Mirza Ismail received instructions in January of 1554 to convey the following statement: And concerning the Kazan land, thou knowest thyself very well that this yurt [hath belonged] to us from antiquity. And our grandfather took it by his sword, and our grandfather brought Tsar tlham [together] with his brothers and mother, and tsarinas and children from this yurt into his [custody]. And Tsar Ilham died in misery [while being held in captivity] by our grandfather. And thereafter on account of the treason of the Kazanian people many tsars and tsareviches came to this yurt. And as it is known to thee, other tsars from this yurt also died in our captivity, and [some] others were killed [as well].5 This statement recounted the deportation of Khan ilham and his immediate family previously mentioned in the letter of February 1534 to Sahip Girey. The allusion to the fate of those khans who did not cooperate with Moscow needed no further explanation. The Muscovite government did not advance the theory of possession by conquest indiscriminately. Direct reference to conquest "by the sword" was customarily reserved for negotiations with Muslim rulers or representatives of military-political state organizations, such as the Tatar khanates, where the argument of the law of conquest was apt to be the most persuasive. In the "Eastern" Muslim world a straightforward militaristic justification was not considered dishonorable, but, on the contrary, virtuous and admirable. It is quite possible that the Russians may have adopted it from Mongol-Turkic political theory in which it was held in high regard. However, this practice was not emphasized in diplomatic relations with Western governments, where the Muscovite court tended to stress the more defensive aspects of its policies. If the question of Russian expansion into Muslim territory arose, Muscovite diplomats usually provided religious explanations to representatives of Western countries (especially Poland-Lithuania and the Habsburg Empire), since they could be expected to be receptive to allusions to their common Christian heritage. In spite of its being based on an obvious act of violence, the law of conquest was a common legal idea among a variety of peoples and states. 4

J»Z)iJKVma793),p. 310. » PDRVIX (1793), p. 120.

THE MUSCOVITE "LAW OF CONQUEST" AND KAZAN

91

It can be traced back to the "nobler peoples" of antiquity (principally the Greeks and Romans). Conquest-law was also exercised by Western Christian states in the Middle Ages and is even evident in the early modern period of European civilization.8 Although this legal theory may have emanated from the assumption that "might makes right", it was viewed by contemporary rulers and jurists as perfectly acceptable, devoid of any negative moral connotations. In Russia, it reflected growing awareness by the emerging tsardom of its own power and its subsequent ability to speak from a position of strength. Muscovite legal claims to Kazan rested on predominantly historical, rather than theoretical, foundations, although the history of RussoKazanian relations had to be manipulated to sustain them. The manipulation was, on the whole, of a simple sort. Facts were twisted or ignored when they did not uphold the desired claims. A more elaborate and deliberate adaptation of history to contemporary needs was undertaken only after the conquest of Kazan, i.e., in the second half of the sixteenth century.

' For a discussion of the ancient, medieval and early modern materials on conquestlaw in the West, see D. Sutherland, "Conquest and Law", Studia Gratiana XV (1912), Post Scripta, pp. 33-52.

VI HISTORICAL AND DYNASTIC JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE KAZAN CONQUEST

Muscovite political thought of the crucial first decades of the second half of the sixteenth century was not satisfied with the relatively simple legalistic assertions. More ancient, famous and durable justifications were needed to glorify the forward march of the new empire. Formulation of more persuasive historical and dynastic justifications was facilitated by new developments in the middle of the sixteenth century. Ivan IV's coronation as tsar on January 16, 1547, the literary and ideological writings of Metropolitan Makarij, the Church Councils of 1547 and 1549, and finally, the conquest of the Kazan Khanate all contributed to the growth of the Muscovite national and imperial idea. In particular, with the coronation of Ivan IV the glorification and exaltation of the ruler in Russian political thought of the late fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth century had found broad application in the realm of practical political life. The coronation had enhanced the status of the Muscovite ruler, both politically and ideologically.1 The prestige of the newly crowned tsar and of his empire was epitomized in Russian court historiography, as well as in historic-ecclesiastical works compiled under the auspices of Metropolitan Makarij. The Russian imperial elite began to seek in history an explanation for its successes and achievements, as well as guidance for its future political action. Therefore, it was not a coincidence that Muscovite bookmen sought in East Slavic antiquity new justifications for the annexation of Kazan. They advanced the thesis that Muscovite grand princes and the recently crowned tsar were entitled to the territory of the Kazan Khanate because it had been for a variety of reasons a possession of the line of Rurik "from antiquity". This thesis was stated directly in a brief separate history of the origins of the Kazan Khanate and its relations with Muscovy, a history inserted under the 1 For a discussion of the texts describing the coronation and the relevant literature, see D. B. Miller, "The Coronation of Ivan IV of Moscow", JfGOE XV: 4 (1967), pp. 559-574.

93

HISTORICAL AND DYNASTIC JUSTIFICATIONS entry f o r 1555 in the " C o n t i n u a t i o n s " o f t h e Letopisec

nacala

carstva,

both of which were incorporated into the Nikon and L'vov Chronicles. 2 The crucial passage in this account asserts that before the foundation of this Tatar Khanate "Russian grand princes, beginning with Rurik, ruled and collected tribute as far as the Volga River and as far as the Caspian * The Letopisec was identified as a separate historical work and one of the sources of the Nikon Chronicle for the period from 1534 to 1556 by A. A. Saxmatov (cf. his Obozrenie letopisnyx svodov Rusi severo-vostoínoj A. I. Tixomirova [reprint from Otiet o sorokovom prisuidenii nagrad grafa Uvarora] [St. Petersburg, 1899], p. 73). For its components, dating, and probable authorship, consult the fine textual study by N. F. Lavrov, "Zametki o Nikonovskoj letopisi", Letopis' zanjatij Arxeografiieskoj komissii (cited hereafter as LZAK) vyp. 1 (34) (Leningrad, 1927), pp. 55-90. Lavrov concluded that the Letopisec had originally included events up to the year 1553 and that it was written between 1553 and 1555 (ibid., pp. 81, 87). His view that Metropolitan Makarij was probably one of the compilers of the Letopisec is strongly opposed by A. A. Zimin, who claims that this was an "official" work which came from the tsar's chancery and that it should be associated with the person of Aleksej AdaSev (/. S. Peresvetov i ego sovremenniki [Moscow, 1958], pp. 30-32). Recently, O. I. Podobedova contested Zimin's hypothesis concerning the authorship or editorship of the Letopisec. She points out, with considerable justification, that the ideas of this work correspond to those held by Makarij. In addition, she correctly observes that the general evaluation of the conquest of Kazan, both in political and religious terms, found in the Letopisec coincides with the Epistle of Makarij written during the siege of Kazan (Miniatjury russkix istorileskix rukopisej [Moscow, 1965], pp. 128-129, n. 109). In his discussion of the Letopisec, D. S. LixaCev refrained from identifying the possible author or editor and described it merely as "a panegyric of the [Kazan] victory, [Ivan] Groznyj and Metropolitan Makarij" (Russkie letopisi i ix kul'tumo-istoriieskoe znaienie [Moscow-Leningrad, 1947], p. 363). In my opinion, the Letopisec reflects the "official" views of the Muscovite court. This official character, however, does not preclude the possibility that Metropolitan Makarij played an influential role in its compiling and editing. His Epistles and other materials pertaining to his activities are included in the Letopisec in which, as a result of this, he receives more attention than any other personality, with the single exception of the tsar himself. These facts, as well as his elevated position in the Muscovite political establishment, permit the assumption that Makarij had been extensively involved in the compilation of this important chronicle. Letopisec naiala carstva was published as a part of the Nikon and L'vov Chronicles (PSRL XIII [1904/1965], Part I, pp. 75-228; PSRL XX [1914], Part II, pp. 419-538). The earliest version of this work appeared under the editorship of A. A. Zimin ( P S R L XXIX [1965], pp. 9-116). Lavrov suggested that the "Continuations" of the Nikon Chronicle for the years 1553-1556 constituted an independent text, the sources of which were the official documents of the Muscovite state archive and the "Draft Copies" of the "Chronicle of New Years" (LZAK yyp. 1 [34] [1927], p. 89). Since there is some evidence that Aleksej AdaSev participated in the writing of official chronicles (ibid., p. 90), one may speculate that he was one of the probable compilers of the "Continuations" of the Nikon Chronicle for the years 1553-1556, as well as 1556-1558. Zimin extended these observations to cover the "Continuations" for the years 1559-1560 in the L'vov Codex and used AdaSev's possible authorship of them as a significant piece of evidence to establish him as the most logical compiler of the entire Letopisec (I. S. Peresvetov . . . , p . 3 1 , n . l 7 ) . For the text of the "Continuations" in the Nikon Chronicle, see PSRL XIII (1904/ 1965), Part I, pp. 228-300; in the L'vov Chronicle, PSRL XX (1914), Part II, pp. 538-621.

94

PART TWO

Sea, and the Kama River".3 A modified version of this passage is to be found in the Kniga stepennaja, the compilers of which contended that "the Kazan land, which was previously called the Bulgar land, had been ruled from antiquity by Russian sovereigns, beginning with Grand Prince Rurik, who collected tribute as far as the Volga River, and as far as the Caspian Sea, and the Kama River". 4 Three questions arise with regard to these historical claims based on somewhat vague dynastic foundations: When were they formulated? What were their sources? Who was their author? Concerning the first, it seems likely that they originated in 1555 or 1556, but certainly before 1559-1560, since the writing of the "Draft Copies" for the Chronicle of the "New Years", or the "Continuations" of the Letopisec nacala carsua, was discontinued after 1560. Regarding the second question, I would like to propose the hypothesis that the major sources were selected passages from the description of the East Slavic tribes and their neighbors and from the narrative pertaining to the activities of Rurik, the alleged founder of the Kievan dynasty, in the Povesf vremennyx let, or the Primary Chronicle, viz: ... The Volga riseth in the same [upland] forest, but floweth to the east, and dischargeth through seventy mouths into the Caspian Sea ... Along the River Oka, which floweth into the Volga, the Muroma, the Cheremissians, and the Mordva [preserve] their [native] languages ... The following are other tribes which pay tribute to Rus': Chud', Meria, Ves\ Muroma, Cheremis', Mordva ... After two years, Sineus and his brother Truvor died, and Rurik assumed the [sole] authority. He assigned cities to his followers. Polock to one, Rostov to another, and to another Beloozero. In these cities there are thus Varangian colonists, but the first settlers were: in Novgorod, Slavs; in Polock, Krivichians; at Beloozero, Ves'; in Rostov, Merians; and in Murom, Muromians. Rurik had dominion over all these districts.6 These passages were quite skillfully adapted by the compilers of the Muscovite chronicles. At the same time, certain modifications and simplifications were undertaken to make the claims more concrete and comprehensive. The Primary Chronicle did indeed refer to the Cheremissians a

PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 251; PSRL XX (1914), Part II, pp. 556-557. The relevant passage can be found in Letopisec russkij [Lebedev Chronicle] in the version published in: Ctenija v ObSiestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom universitete (cited hereafter as COIDR) (1895), Book 3, sec. 1, p. 32. This passage has not been included in the most recent edition of the Lebedev Chronicle ( P S R L XXIX [1965],5 p. 235). 4 PSRL XXI (1913), Part II, p. 653. 4 S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (trs. and eds.), The Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text) (cited hereafter as RPCti) (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 53, 55, 60.

HISTORICAL AND DYNASTIC JUSTIFICATIONS

95

and Mordvinians as paying tribute to Rus' and located them on the Oka River. Muscovite bookmen, however, readjusted the geographic boundaries of the tribute-paying areas from the Oka to the Kama River and expanded them along the Volga to the Caspian Sea without naming the individual tribes. They also extended the dominion of Rurik far beyond the territories indicated by the Primary Chronicle. It is quite probable that the inclusion of the Caspian Sea was meant as an attempt to substantiate Muscovite imperial ambitions toward the Khanate of Astrakhan. In short, the historical justifications for the conquest of both Tatar Khanates were arrived at on the basis of a successful amalgamation of the relevant elements from the Primary Chronicle. The problem of Russian rule over the several peoples, including the ancient Bulgars, who inhabited the territory of the Kazan Khanate prior to its foundation, and of their tributary status under Vladimir Monomax, is also prominently discussed in the Slovo o pogibeli ruskyja zemli [Tale About the Downfall of the Russian Land], written sometime between March 4, 1238, and September 30, 1246, in connection with the Mongol invasion of 1237.® The Slovo contains two important references to the extension of territory under the princes of old Rus' and the tribute paid to Vladimir Monomax. Thou [Russian land] extendest as far as Hungary, Poland and the land of the Czechs, and from [the land] of the Czechs to [the land] of the Iatviagians, and from [the land] of the Iatviagians to the Lithuanians, and to the Germans, and from [the land] of the Germans to [the land] of the Karelians, and from [the land] of the Karelians to Ustjug, where the pagan Toymians live, and beyond the breathing sea, and from the sea to the Bulgars, andfrom [the land] of the Bulgars to the Burtassians, and from [the land] of the Burtassians to the Cheremissians, and from [the land] of the Cheremissians to [the land] of the Mordvinians [italics mine] - all these [lands and pagan peoples] were subjugated by God to the Christian people [of Rus'] and to Grand Prince Vsevolod, and to his father Jurij, Prince of Kiev, and his grandfather Vladimir Monomax, with whose name the Cumans frightened their children in their cradles, and [during whose ' The text of the Slovo was found in afifteenth-centurymanuscript which was compiled in the Pskov Monastery of the Caves. The text was published for the first time by X. M. Loparev, "Slovo o pogibeli ruskyja zemli", Pamjatniki drevnej pis'mennosti i iskusstva (cited hereafter as PDPI) XXXIV (1892). An almost identical copy of the Slovo was discovered in a sixteenth-century manuscript incorporated into an introduction to the Life of Aleksandr Nevskjj (cf. V. I. MalySev, "2itie Aleksandra Nevskogo [po rukopisi serediny XVI v. GrebenSCikovskoj staroobrjadieskoj obSfiny v g. Rige]", TODRL V [1947], pp. 185-193). For the most recent edition of the texts, literature and commentary, see Ju. K. Begunov, Pamjatnik russkoj literatury XIII veka (Moscow, 1965), for the dating, cf. pp. 107-123; English translation of the text by S. A. Zenkovsky, Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles and Tales (New York, 1963), pp. 173-174.

96

PART TWO

reign] the Lithuanians did not dare to show themselves in the open from their swamps, and [during whose reign] the Hungarians fortified the stone walls of their cities with iron gates, so that the great Vladimir might not pass through. And the Germans rejoiced in being so far [from the Russ] beyond the blue sea; and the Burtassians, Cheremissians, Viada and Mordvinians paid tribute of honey to Grand Prince Vladimir [italics mine],7

The fact that one of the versions of the Slovo was discovered as part of the Life of Aleksandr Nevskij in a manuscript of the middle of the sixteenth century brings up the question of its possible influence on the "Continuations" of the Letopisec, or on the crucial passage concerning the rule of Kievan princes over the territories of the Kazan Khanate. One is justified in asserting that the Slovo was not their direct source. The Slovo states that the Burtassians, Cheremissians, and Mordvinians paid tribute to Grand Prince Vladimir. The inserted passage in the "Continuations" does not enumerate the individual "pagan" peoples and does not name Vladimir Monomax at all. Instead, it introduces Rurik as the first ruler who collected tribute and uses rivers instead of territories to describe the borders of old Rus'. These two elements were taken from the Primary Chronicle where the references to Rurik and to the rivers are made in the same context. The Slovo, on the other hand, mentions neither Rurik nor the rivers. Although it contains similar elements, there is not enough evidence to connect it directly with the compiler of the "Continuations". To answer the question of authorship, it seems most likely that these claims originated either with Metropolitan Makarij himself, or within his immediate circle. The brief history of the Russo-Kazanian relations in the Nikon and L'vov Chronicles under 1555 was inserted into an account of a series of events in which Makarij had played an important role, namely the decision of Tsar Ivan IV, with the consent of Makarij and the Russian clergy, to establish an archbishopric of Kazan; the investiture of Gurij as its Archbishop on February 3, 1555, at an impressive ceremony attended by the envoy of the Polish-Lithuanian ruler; the decision to build a Church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in gratitude for the Kazan victory (the Cathedral of Vasilij the Blessed); and, lastly, the consecration of the Church by Metropolitan Makarij on orders from Ivan IV.8 This brief history of Russo-Kazanian relations, which included the remark about the rule of the Russian princes over the territories of the later Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates, is permeated with strong religious overtones and reflects the extremely intolerant anti-Tatar and ' 8

Begunov, Pamjatnik ..., pp. 154-155. PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 250-252; PSRL XX (1914), Part II, pp. 555-557.

HISTORICAL AND DYNASTIC JUSTIFICATIONS

97

anti-Muslim spirit of their author. The commentary, which immediately follows this passage, reads: And with God's grace and because of the great faith of the Orthodox Tsar Ivan Vasil'evii, and on account of his heart-felt desire, God turned over to him the godless Kazanian Tatars, and on account of his faith, desiring the love of God, our pious Sovereign destroyed their Mussulman faith, and he ruined and demolished their mosques, and he enlightened with his piety their tenebrous abodes, and he founded God's churches there and introduced Orthodoxy, and he established there an archbishopric and many clergymen in the churches.' The tone of this statement is highly reminiscent of Makarij's attested writings, and the crucial passage concerning the rule of Russian princes over the territories in question figures quite prominently in the Kniga stepennaja which was undoubtedly inspired by him.10 Closely correlated to the somewhat ambiguous historical contentions were the more clearly articulated dynastic claims which appear to be an outgrowth of the Kievan-Muscovite theory of continuity. These dynastic claims rested upon the assumption that the Bulgar land on the Volga River had been conquered by Vladimir I, and, as a result, had become a patrimony of the Russian grand princes. The problem of Vladimir's conquest of the Volga Bulgars represents one of the most complicated issues of the history of old Rus\ The Primary Chronicle, under the entry for the year 985, reports: "Accompanied by his uncle Dobrynja, Vladimir set out by boat to attack the Bulgars. He also brought along Torks overland on horseback, and defeated the Bulgars". 11 Russian historiography vacillated for a long time over whether this statement was made with regard to the Bulgars on the Volga River or the Bulgarians on the Danube. 18 I accept the conclusions of those authors who maintain that the campaign was directed against the Volga Bulgars because Jakov's Pamjat' i poxvala knjaz'ju Vladimiru, a work written relatively close to the event, corroborates their contention. 18 The relevant passage of this text reads as follows: "And wherever he went, he gained victory; he defeated the Rademichians and the • PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 251; PSRL XX (1914), Part II, pp. 556-557. 10 For the dating, authorship and the problem of the compilers of the Kniga stepennaja, see infra, Chapter X, p. 214, n. 1. 11 D. S. LixaCev (ed.), Povest' vremennyx let (cited hereafter as PFL (2 vols.; MoscowLeningrad, 1950), I (Tekst i perevod), p. 59. " For a discussion of the literature on this problem, see PVLII (Priloienija), p. 328; RPCh, Notes ..., p. 244, n. 89. " The best critical edition of the text, from a copy dated 1494, was published by V. I. Sreznevskij (ed.), "Pamjat' i poxvala knjazju Vladimiru i ego iitie po sp. 1494 g.". Zapiski Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk (8th series) I (1897), No. 6, pp. 1-12.

98

PART TWO

Viatichians and imposed tribute upon both of them, and he conquered the Iatviagians and he defeated the Silver Bulgars, and he went against the Khazars and defeated them and imposed tribute upon them". 14 Sixteenth-century Russian chronicles helped to clarify this issue by making unmistakable references to the Volga Bulgars. While their compilers engaged in no outright tampering with earlier sources, they apparently were not averse to setting the historical record straight. 15 Relying on the narrative of the Primary Chronicle, one is justified in concluding that Vladimir failed to exploit his victory in political terms. Vernadsky correctly observes that the campaign of 985 "ended in victory but a rather indecisive one". 14 It is only in the late fifteenth-century chronicles that one finds assertions concerning Vladimir's imposition of tribute on the Bulgars,17 or his subjugation of them. 18 Of particular importance for this purpose are the reports in the Nikon Chronicle of two additional campaigns against the Bulgars, under the entries for 994 and 997, which are not attested in earlier sources.19 The entry under 997 states: "Vladimir went against the Volga and Kama Bulgars, and having defeated them, he conquered them". A corresponding statement was included in the Kniga stepennaja which contends that Vladimir "twice ... waged war against them [the Volga and Kama Bulgars], and he triumphed, and defeated, and conquered them". 80 The Nikon Chronicle even credited the legendary Kij with having attacked and defeated the Volga and Kama Bulgars.21 The alleged conquest of the Bulgar land by Vladimir I in turn led to the argument that Ivan IV was simply reestablishing his rightful authority over the Bulgar-Kazan territories on the basis of the asserted KievanMuscovite dynastic continuity, an idea which was presented, apparently for the first time, in the Otryvok russkoj letopisi,22 Three special chapters of this historical account deal specifically with the conquest of Kazan. 23 14

Sreznevskij (ed.), "Pamjat' i poxvala ...", p. 6. PSRL VII (1856), p. 295 ("Victory Against the Bulgars Who Dwell on the Volga River"); PSRL IX (1862/1965), p. 42 ("Vladimir went against the Nizovskie Bulgars..."). " G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven and London, 4th printing, 1963), p. 60. " PSRL XXVII (1962), p. 23. 18 PSRL XXVIII (1963), p. 17. " PSRL IX (1862/1965), pp. 65-66. A. P. Smirnov utilized the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle on these campaigns without any critical evaluation ( T G I M , vyp. XI [1940], p. 86; TGIM, vyp. XIX [1951], p. 44). » PSRL XXI (1908), Part I, p. 116. " PSRL IX (1862/1965), p. 4. " The Otryvok represents the "Continuation" of the Second Sophia Chronicle. It was published as a supplement to the latter in PSRL VI (1853), pp. 277-315. » PSRL VI (1853), pp. 303-315. 16

HISTORICAL AND DYNASTIC JUSTIFICATIONS

99

They were most probably written very soon after the conquest of the Tatar Khanate (ca. 1553-1555). The first of these chapters on "The Succession to and, in Addition, the Recovery of the Ancient [Bulgar Land] by the Sovereign, Orthodox Tsar and Muscovite Grand Prince, Ivan Vasil'evii of All Rus' in the Year 1552" provides a brief history of the Russo-Tatar conflict and states the reasons for Ivan's campaign against Kazan. Its author or compiler attempted to substantiate the claims of Muscovy to the Bulgar land by utilizing the idea of exclusive dynastic continuity from Vladimir I to Ivan IV. A quotation from this chapter explains what was meant by "succession" and "recovery": The Sovereign and Grand Prince deliberated with his brothers, Prince Jurij Vasil'evic and Prince Vladimir Andreevic, and with his spiritual Father, the Right Reverend Metropolitan Makarij of all Rus', and with all his boyars, on how to proceed to his patrimony, to the new city of Svijazsk, to recover there with God's grace the Bulgar land, the patrimony of his ancestors, the Russian Grand Princes, Vladimir |I] and the second Vladimir Monomax, and Grand Prince Dmitrij Ivanovic Donskoj who excelled in everything and w h o gained victory against his foes, and against those who refused to submit to him. 24

The editors of the Otryvok, and particularly the author of this passage selected historical precedents which could support their case. Vladimir I had indeed defeated the Bulgars. Vladimir Monomax invested his son Jurij in Rostov, and he in turn attacked the Bulgars in 1120, was victorious and returned with many prisoners.26 Since this event had occurred during Monomax's lifetime, his inclusion in the line of the Bulgar conquerors was easily accomplished. More appropriate was the reference to Dmitrij Ivanovic Donskoj. In 1376, some Russian princes succeeded in imposing their supremacy over the Bulgars for a brief period. A Russian expeditionary force, combining troops from the Principality of Niinij Novgorod and Muscovy, under the leadership of the sons of Grand Prince Dmitrij Konstantinovid and commanders sent by Dmitrij Ivanovic of Moscow, attacked the Bulgars. The princes of the Bulgar state were defeated and forced to pay ransom and, in addition, they had to accept the introduction of a Russian customs official, at least for a brief time.26 Thus, a temporary Russian protectorate was established over the territory of the Bulgar people. It was not a lasting arrangement, however; Dmitrij "

PSRL VI (1853), pp. 303-304. PSRL I (1926-1928a/1962), p. 292; PSRL, II (1908a/1962), pp. 285-286. Cf. Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii ..., I, p. 408. M PSRL XVIII (1913), pp. 117-118. Cf. Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii ..., II, p. 282; Tixomirov, Rossija v XVI stoletii, p. 21. 25

100

PART TWO

Donskoj's position in the East was too weak to maintain it after 1382. There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Metropolitan Makarij may have also been instrumental in fostering the idea that the Bulgar land had been an ancient patrimony of the Russian rulers since Vladimir I. The passage in the Otryvok prominently mentioned Makarij in connection with Ivan's plans and preparations for the Kazan campaign, although the dating of the entry (1552) in which this passage appears confuses the situation somewhat. Letopisec naiala carstva reports that Ivan IV "held council with his Spiritual Father Metropolitan Makarij and with his brothers Prince Jurij Vasil'eviC and Prince Vladimir and the boyars"27 in 1549, seeking their advice for the campaign of 1549-1550. It seems that the author of the entry in the Otryvok used an event of 1549 to develop a thesis concerning the Bulgars. The Otryvok is the only chronicle to include a copy of Makarij's Epistle to Ivan IV, written in August or September of 1552.28 A comparison of a crucial phrase from this Epistle with a remark from the chapter of the Otryvok, entitled "The Succession to ..." will indicate that both were most probably formulated by the same author. Speaking of the Tsar's intentions concerning Kazan, the author states that the Russian ruler desired "to recover there with God's grace the Bulgar land, the patrimony of his ancestors...". 29 In his Epistle to the Tsar, which is incorporated in the Otryvok, Makarij observed that Ivan IV undertook the Kazan campaign "to recover the property of his ancestors, the Russian grand princes, his patrimony the Kazan land".30 This phrase is almost identical with the corresponding remark in the Otryvok, except that here the term Kazan is used instead of Bulgar. In addition, it ought to be kept in mind that the activities of Makarij received prominent attention in the Otryvok. Beginning with his investiture as Archbishop of Novgorod on March 4, 1526,31 one finds here constant references to his political actions and ecclesiastical endeavors. Under the entry for the year 1528 the Otryvok reports on Makarij's reform of the monasteries.32 It describes in admiration his initiative concerning the redecoration of the church of St. Sophia and the painting of new icons.33 As will be shown later, his proselytizing activities were " » " M

" " "

PSRL PSRL PSRL PSRL PSRL PSRL PSRL

XXIX (1965), p. 57. VI (1853), pp. 308-309. VI (1853), p. 304. VI (1853), p. 308. VI (1853), p. 282. VI (1853), pp. 284-285. VI (1853), pp. 285-286.

HISTORICAL AND DYNASTIC JUSTIFICATIONS

101

commented upon extensively in this source. While Makarij's influence on the writing and compiling of Muscovite chronicles of the sixteenth century cannot be dealt with here in extenso,3* the extraordinary display of respect and admiration for his work in this Chronicle suggests that the Otryvok was compiled either by his close subordinates, or under his personal supervision. One may even speculate that he was the "editorin-chief" of this Otryvok russkoj letopisi. The most convincing argument in favor of crediting Metropolitan Makarij with the introduction of the claim that Bulgar land was a patrimonial possession of the Russian dynasty can be derived from the Kniga stepennaja. In this work the theory of continuity of rights to the old Bulgar state from the times of Vladimir I to Ivan IV, as well as its close identification with the Kazan Khanate, is strongly emphasized. It finds its clearest expression in the chapter dealing with "The Victory Against the Volga Bulgars and the Most Recent Triumphs of the Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan". It must have been written after the establishment of the Archbishopric in Kazan and after the conquest of the Astrakhan Khanate, that is, between 1556 and the early 1560s. This chapter constitutes a part of the "first degree" which was composed on express request from Metropolitan Makarij, in which he receives respectful attention. 35 Since the latter represents one of the first "degrees" of the Kniga stepennaja, one may even assume that it was compiled before 1560. The relevant chapter reads as follows: Afterwards, the God-loving Vladimir, hearing that the godless Volga and Kama Bulgars were not straight in [their dealings] with him, but in accordance with their cunning custom always broke peace treaties and committed perjury, — because of this he set out to war against them, and twice with all his might he waged war against them, and he triumphed, and defeated and conquered them. And in spite [of the fact] that they were often defeated and conquered, they did in no way convert to piety since they were stern and of cruel M

E. E. Golubinskij credited Makarij with the initiative in the compilation of the Nikon Chronicle. In addition, he attributed to him the Sofijski] vremennik and the Voskresensk Chronicle (lstorija russkoj cerkvi, [1st ed., Moscow, 1900], n , Part I, pp. 853-854; II, Part II, pp. 191-193). The existing evidence is insufficient to attribute the compilation of the Nikon and Voskresensk Chronicles to Makarij. According to A. E. Presnjakov, a special recension of a Chronograph up to 1533 may have originated with Makarij ("Letopisnoe delo v XV-XVI w.", lstorija russkoj literatury do XIX v., ed. A. E. Gruzinskij [Moscow, 1916], I, p. 265). In his study of the Licevojsvod [Illuminated Chronicle] and one of its components, the Carstvennaja kniga, D. N. Al'Sic connected the editing of an "official'* chronicle (Sinodal'nyj spisok), which covered the reign of Ivan IV from 1533 to 1560, with the activities of Metropolitan Makarij ("Ivan Groznyj i pripiski k licevym svodam ego vreraeni", IZ XXIII [1947], pp. 257, 261, 266). » PSRL XXI (1908), Part I, p. 58.

102

PART TWO

heart and inconsistent concerning the truth. And thus for many years they were cunning and full of flattery, as was their pagan custom; they remained sly and did not cease to inflict upon the Christians much hostility and bloodshed and to take them prisoner, until the God-crowned Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviC, the Autocrat of all Rus', who was from the progeny of the saintly Vladimir in the seventeenth generation, set out with God's pious zeal against them. And with God's help he gloriously defeated them and he deposed all their cunning slyness, and he destroyed all their pagan councils and perfidy, and he ravaged their towns and settlements, and he liberated countless multitudes of Christian prisoners, and he became ruler over the whole Kazan and Bulgar Tsardom which Pieth] on the Volga and Kama, and as far as the very sea, and he conquered the Astrakhan Tsardom. And founding in all pagan settlements many holy churches and venerable monasteries, and renovating old towns, and building new ones, and converting the infidels to the Orthodox faith and establishing Christian law there, he sent the first Archbishop Gurij to the famous city of Kazan who [at the time] of the Synod was invested by the Most Reverend Makarij, the Metropolitan of all Rus', and piously ruling his God-given state, he imitated in every way his ancestor, the famous and truthful Vladimir, and all others who governed in Orthodoxy." This statement connected the political and religious activities of Vladimir I and Ivan IV directly. The Muscovite tsar had now taken up the task of his Kievan predecessor in the struggle against the infidels. In contrast to the Otryvok, the corresponding chapter from the Kniga stepennaja eliminated all the rulers who came between Vladimir I and Ivan IV, probably in order to exalt the personality of Ivan IV an3 to underline the direct continuity of the struggle, claims and achievements from the times of Vladimir I to the Muscovite present. In it Ivan IV is compared and made equal to Vladimir I. He "enlightens" the newly acquired Kazan land with Orthodox Christianity just as Vladimir previously had enlightened old Rus'. This chapter also contains a phrase reminiscent of the one found in the Nikon Chronicle in the entry under the year 1555 ("as far as the Volga River, and as far as the Caspian Sea, and the Kama River"),37 which links the chapter under consideration with historical material from the chronicles. Finally, Metropolitan Makarij is again prominently mentioned in this significant ideological statement. Leading representatives of the Muscovite religious and political elite continued to believe throughout the sixteenth century that the Bulgar land was a patrimony of the Russian rulers. In addition, a novel element in the development of the Bulgar patrimonial theory, as reflected in the chapter "The Victory Against the Volga Bulgars...", was the simultaneous M

PSRL XXI (1908), Part I, pp. 115-116. »' PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 251.

HISTORICAL AND DYNASTIC JUSTIFICATIONS

103

use of the terms the "Bulgar state" and the "Kazan Khanate" with the aim of equating them. As will be shown later, this identification of the states became one of the most important pillars of Muscovite imperial thought concerning Kazan. 38 No other than Patriarch Germogen, the first Metropolitan of Kazan and Astrakhan, regarded it as necessary to include these concepts and to reassert them very specifically in his "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij" written in 1596 or 1597.39 And when God was kind enough to grant the pious and Christ-loving Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evic, the Autocrat of all Russia, the city of Kazan in his patrimony of the Bulgar land, then the pious Tsar held council with his Spiritual Father, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Makarij of Muscovy and of all Russia and with other Reverend [Fathers] of the Metropoly of the Russian land, concerning whom to invest as archbishop in the newly acquired and newly enlightened city of Kazan ... And by the will of the autocratic Tsar, and with the blessing of the Right Reverend Makarij, the Metropolitan of all Russia, and by the advice of the entire Holy Synod, the Right Reverend Gurij, the first Archbishop, was invested in the newly enlightened city of Kazan and in the new city of Svijazsk and in other cities, in the third year after the conquest of the city of Kazan, on February 7, 1555." Germogen's statement that God granted Ivan IV "the city of Kazan in his patrimony of the Bulgar land" represents a far-reaching fusion of the two concepts: the ethnic and the political. In his version, the city of Kazan was a part of the old Bulgar patrimony. Germogen obviously wished to stress the antiquity of the claims of the Russian tsar to this "patrimony". His formulation was the final outcome of a development which had begun in the middle of the sixteenth century.

38

See infra, Chapter VIII, pp. 139-173. ** V. O. Kljuievskij, Drevnerusskie iitija svjatyx kak istoriieskij istoinik (Moscow, 1871), p. 305. An adequate, although not critical, edition of the text of the "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij" was published in: P. Ljubarskij (ed.), Sbornik drevnostej Kazanskoj eparxii (Kazan, 1868), pp. 7-32. This text was reprinted, without changes, in: Tvorenija svjatejSago Germogena, patriarxa Moskovskogo i vseja Rusi (Moscow, 1912), pp. 35-51. Both the "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij" and the "Tale About the Appearance of the Miraculous Icon of Our Lady, the Virgin Mary", composed by the same author, were the first literary works to appear in the conquered Kazan. They became, according to S. Kedrov, the foundation of Kazan historiography {¿izneopisanie sv. Germogena patriarxa Moskovskogo i vseja Rossii [Moscow, 1912], pp. 26-27). 40 Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., pp. 14-15; Tvorenija Germogena ..., pp. 39-40.

VII THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST: KAZAN — "A RUSSIAN LAND"

The historical arguments and dynastic claims to Kazan promulgated by Muscovy were founded upon the idea of continuity of Russian princes from Rurik to Ivan IV and on the allegation that these princes had ruled over the territories of the Tatar Khanate since antiquity. These claims stressed the patrimonial and personal relationship between the Russian prince and his subjects, although, at the same time, they had obvious national overtones, for contemporary sources strongly emphasized the Russian character of the dynasty. In addition, Muscovite publicists formulated a clearly defined national justification of the Kazan conquest which embraced concepts such as "Russian land" and "autochthonous Russian people". One example of this conceptual modernization and of the introduction of an ethnic and national element into Muscovite imperial ideology is the Kazanskaja istorija or Kazanskij letopisec.1 It is a historical, ideological 1

The literary history of the Kazanskaja istorija presents many complicated problems' The great number of manuscript copies, which attests to the popularity of the work among Russian readers, and the question of recensions and their relation to the protograph, which is no longer extant, rank among the more important of them. G. Z. Kuncevii, author of the magisterial study of the Kazanskaja istorija, was "more or less acquainted" with 152 manuscript copies and knew of 42 more (Istorija ..., pp. 12-163). Another student of this work, G. N. Moiseeva, used an additional 79 manuscript copies unknown to Kuncevii (KI/M, p. 20). The first critical edition of Kazanskaja istorija was published by G. Z. Kuncevii, Istorija o Kazanskom carstve (Kazanskij letopisec) in PSRL XIX (1903). KunceviC's edition was founded upon two recensions of the work. To reconstruct thefirstrecension, he used three manuscripts: the basic text—the manuscript of the Soloveckij Monastery (GPB. Sobr. Soloveckogo manastyrja, No. 1501/42); a manuscript of the Buslaev collection (GPB. Sobr. F. I. Buslaeva, Q.XVII.209), which provided Chaps. 2-5, lacking in the basic text; and a manuscript from the 1.1. Sreznevskij collection (BAN, 24.5.9) for textual variations. The second recension of the Kuncevii edition was reconstructed on the basis of eight manuscripts. With few exceptions, most of the manuscript copies utilized by KunceviS originated in the seventeenth century. The second critical edition of this work was provided by G. N. Moiseeva, who used a manuscript copy from the collection of V. N. Perec, deposited in the manuscript collection of the Institute of Russian Literature (PuSkinskij Dom), Academy of Sciences

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

105

and literary work written to glorify the Kazan conquest, to enhance Muscovy's image in the context of the history of old Rus', and to exalt her position in international affairs, and the role of her ruler, by depicting Ivan IV as an "ideal ruler". As a historical document, the Kazanskaja istorija should be treated with great caution. 2 It is, however, of significance for the study of Muscovite political thought and of the history of Russian literature. KunceviC's remark that "we still do not know quite sufficiently what the sources of the Istorija are"3 is valid even today. This is particularly true of the Tatar materials and popular traditions which might have been employed by the author or editor of the Kazanskaja istorija. Identification of the Russian sources was begun by Kuncevid in the fourth chapter of his work. 4 The results of his research demonstrated quite convincingly that among the many and varied sources of the Kazanskaja istorija the Muscovite chronicles played an essential role. Its author or editor made use of the Letopisec nacala carstva, the Nikon and L'vov Chronicles, the Voskresensk Chronicle, the Second Sophia Chronicle, the Fourth Nov-

(Q.26-P). She contends that this is the oldest available manuscript copy of the first recension and that it can be dated to the 1590s (KI/M, p. 25). Like to the Soloveck copy, manuscript Q.26-P does not include several important chapters: "About Batu's War against Rus', the Conquest of the Great Capital City of Vladimir and the Enslavement of the Russian Grand Princes", "About the Conquest of Great Novgorod by Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evii", "About the Tsar's Envoys Who Came to the Muscovite Grand Prince", and lastly "About the Final Desolation of the Golden Horde...". These chapters were included in Moiseeva's text from another copy of the first recension (GPB,F.IV.578) (KI/M, p. 28). There are no significant textual differences in the first forty-nine chapters of this work between recensions Nos. I, II and III-VIII (according to Kuncevii) and Nos. I and II (according to Moiseeva). Beginning with Chapter SO there are considerable discrepancies in the later recensions. Since both Kuncevii's and Moiseeva's editions of the Kazanskaja istorija display certain shortcomings, it would be unjustifiable to rank one above the other in terms of their reliability for scholarly purposes. The Kazanskaja istorija was also recently published in a popular edition with a poetic translation in modern Russian: Skazanie o carstve Kazanskom (Moscow, 1959). The introduction, the translation, and the commentary were provided by N. V. Vodovozov. This edition was published in 20,000 copies, a great number for this type of literature. For a recent German translation of the Kazanskaja istorija, see F. Kampfer (ed. and tr.), Historie vom Zartum Kazan (= Slavische Geschichtsschreiber, vol. VII) (Graz-Vienna-Cologne, 1969). 1 Its credibility was already questioned by N. M. Karamzin, Istorija gosudarstva rossijskogo (ed. P. Ejnerling) (12 vols, in 3; St. Petersburg, 1842-1843"), Notes to vol. VIII, p. 37, nn. 236-237, p. 40, n. 245. Solov'ev, Istorija Rossii..., Ill, pp. 361, 377; S. M. Spilevskij, Drevnie goroda i drugie bulgarsko-tatarskie pamjatniki v Kazanskoj gubernii (Kazan, 1877), p. 75. * KunceviC, Istorija ..., p. ix. 4 Ibid., pp. 193-515.

106

PART TWO

gorod Chronicle, the Muscovite Codex of 1479, the Russian Chronograph of 1512, the Carstvennaja kniga and the Kniga stepennaja. The problem of the influence of Russian literary works such as Povest' o vzjatii Car'grada turkami by Nestor Iskander, Skazanie o Mamaevom poboisce and Slovo o zitii i o prestavlenii velikago knjaz'ja Dmitrija Ivanovica carja russkago upon the Kazanskaja istorija has been dealt with extensively in professional literature.5 Some additional research on the sources of the Kazanskaja istorija has been undertaken by G. N. Moiseeva.8 She has shown that its author incorporated material from the political writings of Ivan IV, as, for instance, the "Epistle of the Tsar..." against Prince A. M. Kurbskij.7 Moiseeva attempted to prove that the author of Kazanskaja istorija utilized the interpolations of the Carstvennaja knigcP as well as the works of Ivan Peresvetov.9 However, there still remain many unanswered questions concerning the borrowings and adaptations in the Kazanskaja istorija. To some of these questions, tentative answers will be offered. Of particular importance for the establishment of the sources for the Kazanskaja istorija, and, at the same time, for the understanding of its political ideas, is the forty-ninth chapter of recension No. I, entitled "The Council of the Tsar and Grand Prince With His Boyars". Kuncevic had already remarked that the greater portion of this chapter "was adapted from Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix, in part literally, and in part just relating the contents of Skazanie",10 However, no comparative analysis 5 A. S. Orlov held that the Kazanskaja istorija was written "under the influence" of the Povest' o vzjatii Car'grada turkami. It is true that both works possess the same two familiar motifs: the struggle between Christianity and the Muslim world, and the personal experiences of the two authors, both of whom were in Muslim captivity. Orlov later modified his view somewhat regarding the influence of the Povest' on the Istorija, and spoke of a "parallel" relationship between the two works (O nekotoryx osobennostjax stilja velikorusskoj istoriieskoj belletristiki XVI-XVII vv. [St. Petersburg, 1909], p. 5; Geroiceskie temy drevnej russkoj literatury [Moscow-Leningrad, 1945], p. 113). • G. N . Moiseeva, "Avtor 'Kazanskoj istorii'", TODRL IX (1953), pp. 266-288; " O nekotoryx istocnikax 'Kazanskoj istorii'", TODRL XI (1955), pp. 187-197; "Kazanskaja carica Sjujun Bike i Sumbeka 'Kazanskoj istorii'", TODRL XII (1956), pp. 174-187. ' Moiseeva, TODRL XI (1955), p. 188. 8 Ib'd., p. 194. • Moiseeva, TODRL IX (1953), pp. 274-276. 10 Kuncevic, Istorija..., pp. 403-404; cf. also Orlov, Geroiieskie temy ..., p. 135. Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix was based on the Poslanie Spiridona-Savvy which was written between the end of the fifteenth century and the second decade of the sixteenth. The first recension of the Skazanie was compiled in the early 1530s. For the most recent discussion of the dating and the literature, consult R. P. Dmitrieva (ed.), Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955). For the text, see pp. 171-178.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

107

of the relevant texts has so far been published, to the best of my knowledge. Such a textual comparison will be helpful in determining the extent of the borrowings and adaptations by the author of Kazanskaja istorija from the Skazanie. Skazanie In the fourth generation after Grand Prince Rurik came Prince Vladimir, who enlightened the Russian land with holy baptism [III] in the year 6496 [988]. And in the fourth generation after Grand Prince Vladimir came his great-grandson' Grand Prince Vladimir VsevolodoviS Monomax. And when he reigned in the Grand Principality of Kiev, he began to take council with his princes, boyars and dignitaries, and said: "I am the most recent of all those who reigned before me and held in their hands the banners of the scepter of Great Russia, as Grand Prince Oleg went [forth] and exacted from Constantinople heavy tribute for all his host, and came back in good health; and then Grand Prince Svjatoslav Igorevic went [forth] and exacted heavy tribute from Constantinople. [II] And I am by God's grace the heir of my ancestors and of my father Grand Prince Vsevolod Jaroslavic and the inheritor of the same honor from God. [X] Now I seek advice from you, princes of my palace, and boyars and voevody, [I] and all the Christ-loving host under you; the name of the life-giving Trinity may arise with the power of your bravery, by God's will, under our command; what council do you give me?" His princes, boyars and voevody answered the Grand Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovic: "The heart of the Tsar is in God's hands [cf. Proverbs 21:1], and we are under thy will". Grand Prince Vladimir gathered the highly experienced and wise voevody and established captains over the various forces —

Kazanskaja istorija And he [Ivan IV] summoned his brothers, the noble Prince Georgij, and Prince Vladimir, and all local princes, and all great voevody, and all his noble dignitaries to the great golden palace. [I] And having seated them according to their rank [he] began to take good and wise council from them, wishing, for the second time, to advance against the godless and pagan Kazan, against his foes, the vicious and unfaithful Kazanians, in order to avenge Christian blood [just as Elesbaas, the Ethiopian Emperor, did to Dunas (Du Nuvas), the Jew, the Himyarite Prince] equaling his ancestor, Grand Prince Svjatoslav IgoreviC, who many times invaded the Greek land which was far distant from the Russian land, and who exacted great tribute from Car'grad, [II] from the noble Greeks, who in antiquity defeated Troy and also the marvelous and proudest Persian Emperor Xerxes. This Grand Prince Svjatoslav captured eighty Bulgarian cities located along the Danube. He [Ivan IV] also equaled his [Svjatoslav's] son, the Orthodox Grand Prince Vladimir, who shone in piety, because he enlightened his state, the Russian land, with holy baptism, [III] and who captured the great city of Kherson and other lands. Many nations served him, paying him tribute, and his hand was above all his foes. He [Ivan IV] also emulated Vladimir Monomax who had advanced with a great host against the Greek Emperor Constantine Monomax, and who did not want to renew the peace [treaty] with the Greek

108

PART TWO

chiliarchs, centurions, and pjatdesjatniki over the various ranks of forces — and gathered many thousands of warriors, and sent them to Car'grad in the Thracian province', and they captured most of it and returned with many riches. [IV] A t that time the pious Emperor Constantine was in Constantinople, and he waged war against the Persians and Latins. And he took wise and imperial [IX] council and sent his envoys to Grand Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovii: Neophytos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, and with him two bishops of Malatia [? ] [Militin'ska] and Mitylene [?] [Mitilin'ska], and Antipas, strategus[stratiga] ofAntioch, and the general of Jerusalem, Eustathius, and his other nobles. [V] And from around his neck he took the lifegiving Cross made from the same lifegiving tree on which the Almighty Christ was crucified. He took from his head the imperial crown and placed it on a golden platter. He ordered the sardonyx vessel to be brought, in which Augustus the Roman Caesar had rejoiced [drink], and a stole, which he wore on his shoulders, and a censer forged from Arabian gold, and many other imperial gifts. [VI] And he gave them to Metropolitan Neophytos and the bishops and the noble envoys, and sent them to Grand Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovic, pleading with him and saying: "Accept from us, O God-loving, Pious Prince, these honorable gifts [ot naiatka veinyx let tvoego rodstva pokolen'ja car'skij zrebij] [?], for thy glory and honor and for the coronation of thy free and autocratic empire. And by means of this, our envoys will entreat thee, and we ask for thy grace, peace, and love; and may God's churches be without strife, and may all the Orthodox remain in peace under the power of thine empire and thy free autocracy of

Emperor, and to pay tribute according to the agreement made by previous emperors with Russian princes. Grand Prince Vladimir Monomax, having virtually defeated all Thrace and Chalcedon, devastated all the Greek provinces surrounding Car'grad, and returned to Rus' with much booty and great riches, after having invaded the Greek Empire. [IV] The Emperor Constantine was in great bewilderment, sorrow and grief; and [after] having taken council with the Patriarch, he sent [his embassy] to Kiev in Rus', to the Grand Prince [asking] for peace, and [entreating] him to stop shedding the blood of fellow Christians, the faithful Greek people, whose innocent blood he had shed, and by being himself faithful, to obtain salvation for his whole land. And he [the Emperor] chose to send to him [Grand Prince] with great humility his great and wise envoys Neophytos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, and with him two bishops of Mitylene [?] [Mitulinskogo] and Malatia [?] [Meletijskogo], and John [?] strategus [ stratigaJ of Antioch, and the general of Jerusalem, Eustathius, and with them many other of his noble men [V] who could calm his princely fury and ferocity. With them he sent noble and great gifts of priceless value, his very own imperial crown, and purple robe, and scepter, and sardonyx vessel from which the great Augustus, the Roman Caesar, had drunk during his suppers and rejoiced, and gold, and silver, and beads, and countless precious stones, and a multitude of other valuable things [VI], appeasing his anger, and calling him the illustrious Russian Tsar, [beseeching] him not to advance to invade the Greek land. And on account of this, Grand Prince Vladimir, my ancestor, was called Tsar Monomax, [VII] and from him we begin to call

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

Great Russia; may thou be called from this time onward a God-crowned Tsar, crowned with the imperial crown by the hand of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Neophytos and the bishops." And from that time Grand Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovil was called Monomax and Tsar of Great Russia. [VII] And after that for a long time to come he remained in peace and love with the Emperor Constantine. [VIII] And from that time on with the imperial crown, which the great Emperor of the Greeks Constantine Monomax sent, the grand princes of Vladimir were crowned when they were established in the Grand Principality of Russia.11 [All italics mine.]

109

ourselves tsars because of the crown, the purple [robe] and the scepter of the Emperor Constantine Monomax. AndftheyJ concluded peace and [lived] in love for ages to come, as it had been in the past. [VIII] And the Tsar and Grand Prince thought about all these bygone [matters] with his brothers and the local princes and the great wise voevody in an imperial [IX] [manner], and said then: "Am I inferior to my father, the Grand Prince Vasilij, and to my grandfather, the Grand Prince Ivan, who lived just before me, and who ruled in Moscow, and reigned over the scepters of the Rus' state? They also subjected others to their rule —great cities and the lands of foreign countries — and they enslaved many unknown nations, and left great memory and praise to their eternal kin. And I, [being] their son and grandson, and having taken these cities and lands, shall hold them all myself. Those [cities and lands] over which they reigned, I reign over also, and those provinces which they ruled, I rule too, and all are being built by me now. And I am by God's grace Tsar and their heir to the throne. [X]la [All italics mine.]

The use of Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix by the author of Kazanskaja istorija is obvious from this textual evaluation. In at least ten instances he lifted whole sentences, phrases and words from the text of the Skazanie: (I) The Muscovite ruler Ivan IV holds council in the same manner as Vladimir Monomax. Ivan orders the princes and dignitaries to come to his golden palace, and Vladimir Monomax refers to the princes of his palace. (II) Grand Prince Svjatoslav Igorevic is credited with having collected considerable tribute from Constantinople (the phrase used in the two sources is very similar). The compilers of the Skazanie incorporated the 11

Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix, pp. 175-178. » KljM pp. 113-115; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 99-101.

110

PART TWO

assertion of the Primary Chronicle that the Greeks paid tribute to Svjatoslav. (III) Both texts emphasize that Prince Vladimir was the one to convert the Russian land to Christianity, and use the same wording to describe this event. (IV) The two sources maintain that Grand Prince Vladimir Monomax invaded and captured Thrace (in Kazanskaja istorija, Chalcedon [?] as well) and that he returned with a great amount of booty. (V) According to both sources, the Greek Emperor Constantine Monomax sent envoys to Rus' and to Grand Prince Vladimir Monomax. The names and titles of the envoys are identical in the two texts with one exception, viz., the strategus of Antioch who is called John in the Istorija, and Antipa (?) in the Skazanie. (VI) The gifts, insignia, and crown allegedly sent by the Greek ruler to Vladimir Monomax of Rus' are listed in almost the same terms. (VII) Both sources maintain that after Vladimir Vsevolodovic received the imperial insignia and the crown he was called Tsar Vladimir Monomax. (VIII) It is asserted that both rulers concluded peace and lived in friendship with each other. (IX) The formula po carski is used in both texts in a similar fashion. (X) In both sources Ivan IV is regarded as "by God's grace" ruler and heir to the Kievan and Vladimir princes, as was Vladimir Monomax vis-à-vis his ancestors. The Kazanskaja istorija tends to glorify the princes of Kievan Rus' much more emphatically than the Skazanie. The former enhances the image of Vladimir Monomax at the expense of the Greek Emperor Constantine Monomax, who allegedly found himself in "great bewilderment" and who had to enter into humiliating negotiations. According to the Kazanskaja istorija, the Greek ruler sent gifts and insignia to Vladimir Monomax to "appease his anger". Furthermore Vladimir I is portrayed as a great conqueror to whom many peoples submitted. The very same comment is made about Ivan III and Vasilij III. Their prowess at taking cities and foreign countries is praised as a remarkable virtue, indicating the political leanings of the author of Istorija. There are also some omissions in the Kazanskaja istorija as compared with the Skazanie. Nothing is said about Igor and, more curiously, about Rurik in the former, while both of them are prominently mentioned in the latter. By omitting Rurik, one eliminates the continuity in the

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

111

Augustus legend. Indeed, the author of the Kazanskaja istorija simply discarded the legend of the descent of Russian rulers from Augustus. However, he was well aware of the alleged invitation by the Russ to a foreign prince from the Prussian land. The evidence for this can be found in the chapter, entitled "About the Conquest of Great Novgorod by Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviS", in which the Novgorodians were scorned for having invited a foreign prince. The author's familiarity with this invitation was based on the story from the Skazanie. He drew, however, radically different conclusions from it. Skazanie At that time a certain voevoda of Novgorod, named Gostomysl, was dying, and he called together all those who ruled in Novgorod, and said to them: "O men of Novgorod, I give you this advice: send wise men to the Prussian land, and invite a ruler from among the families living there". They went to the Prussian land and found there a certain prince by the name of Rurik, who was of the lineage of the Roman Emperor Augustus. And the envoys of all Novgorodians entreated Prince Rurik to come and to rule them. Prince Rurik came to Novgorod, and he had two brothers with him: one was named Truvor, the other Sineus, and there was a third, his nephew, named Oleg. And from that time on [the city] was called Great Novgorod; and Grand Prince Rurik began to reign in it.13

Kazanskaja istorija They [Novgorodians], however unwise, having invited him from the Prussian land, brought a prince and autocrat from the Varangians, and turned over to him their land, so that he might rule them, as he desired."

The author of Kazanskaja istorija mentioned the invitation itself, but eliminated the name of Rurik and his supposed relative Oleg. While eschewing the Augustus legend, he carefully adapted the story of Monomax's crown and insignia from the Skazanie. By building up a very positive and heroic image of the historical Russian princes, and condemning those who invited a prince from a foreign land, the author of Kazanskaja istorija revealed himself not only as a fervent patriot of the Russian land, but also as the earliest attested "anti-Normanist". He consistently advocated the historical unity of all Rus' lands and the 18

Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix, p. 175. » KljM p. 54; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 5-6.

112

PART TWO

translatio theory: Kiev-Vladimir-Muscovy. There is evidence that he borrowed relevant political ideas from the Kniga stepennaja for his own purposes. Significant parallels to the chapter "About the Conquest of Great Novgorod by Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviC" can be found in the seventh chapter of the first Degree of the Kniga stepennaja, entitled "The Names of Russian Provinces", which represents an adaptation of the description of the old East Slavic tribes and their neighbors from the Povest'' vremennyx let.16 Kniga stepennaja

Multiple and varied were the names of the many countries of the Russian tsardom which were ruled over, and [from which] tribute was collected by the blessed family of this Grand Prince Vladimir Svjatoslavifi for generation after generation. The names of these lands, partly mentioned here, are as follows: ... the Slovenes [who inhabited] the province of Novgorod and Pskov, ... and in addition ... the Polianians, the Derevlians, ... the Polotians, ... the Volhynians, ... and many others. And in all these lands there were many powerful cities and many great provinces, and all these were one Russian state which is now divided into many regions.1'

Kazanskaja istorija

The Novgorodians did not want to have him [Ivan III] as their ruler or to recognize him as their Grand Prince. From antiquity and from the beginning, there was one tsardom and one state, a united Rus' state: and Polianians, and Derevlians, and Novgorodians, and Polotians, and Volhynians, and Podolians — all these [were] one Rus', serving one Grand Prince, paying him tribute, and obeying him, i.e., [at first] the Kievan [Prince] and [later] the Vladimir [Prince].17

The Kniga stepennaja is the only possible source from which the author of the Kazanskaja istorija could have borrowed the notion that Kievan Rus' had the status of a tsardom. The same can be said about the idea of the unitary character of the Rus' state. He introduced some modifications into his analysis by adding the Podolians, about whom the Kniga stepennaja was silent, and by asserting that they and the Volhynians were subjects of the Vladimir grand princes. This assertion was an obvious historical misrepresentation, since the Podolians and Volhynians had never been subject to them. The conquest of Novgorod by Ivan III was used by the author of Kazanskaja istorija to stress Muscovy's role in the "gathering of Russian lands". He repeated the allegations of the Muscovite chronicles which 14

" "

PSRL XXI (1908), Part I, p. 63; RPCh p. 55. PSRL XXI (1908), Part I, p. 63. KI/M p. 54; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), p. 5.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

113

contended that the Novgorodians were guilty of treason and religious deviation for having invited a "Latin" Lithuanian ruler (in reality Prince Mixail Olel'koviC of Kiev, whose Orthodox credentials were undisputed). The invitation was extended in complete conformity with Novgorodian constitutional tradition. In addition, the author scorned the Novgorodians for having neglected common Russian interests in the time of Batu's invasion, by conducting "separatist" policies. And in these sorrowful times of Batu, they turned away from their servile yoke, seeing in Russian states discord and disturbances. And they turned away and separated from the Russian tsardom of Vladimir. These Novgorodians remained [unharmed] without being subjected to war by Batu or being conquered [by him] ..." The author of the Istorija did not confine himself to Novgorod when discussing the position of Muscovy among the Russian lands, although this city-republic seems to have caused his greatest indignation. His view of the primacy of Muscovy and her political superiority among the Russian lands is very clearly presented in the chapter "About the Second Conquest of Kazan": Ivan [III], the son of the Grand Prince Vasilij [II], inherited the Grand Principality of Muscovy after the death of his father. This [Prince] took Great Novgorod with its pride, presumption and arrogance, as has been already said before, and Tver, and Vjatka, and Rjazan', and all the Russian princes bowed to serve him. And one [ruler] assumed the rule over all Russian scepters. And he repossessed many cities of his state from the Polish king, which had been conquered by Prince Gedymin. And there was [one] great Russian province. And from that time on the prince of the state called himself the great Muscovite [prince].1* While no literal borrowings can be detected in this passage, the strong accent on the element of unity of Rus' under Muscovite leadership reminds one of the general tenor of the Kniga stepennaja. The author also placed great emphasis on Ivan's attempts to "recover" old Rus' territories which were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. His consistent preoccupation with Muscovy's Western problems deserves special treatment which, however, lies outside the scope of this analysis. The most exuberant glorification of Muscovy in Kazanskaja istorija is connected with the evaluation of the political consequences of the "Vigil on the Ugra River". It is to be found in the revealing chapter, entitled "About the Final Desolation of the Golden Horde, and About Her Tsar, " "

KI/M p. 54; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), p. 6. KI/M, pp. 57-58; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), p. 21.

114

PART TWO

and About the Greatness of the Russian Land, and About the Honor and Beauty of the Most Famous City of Moscow". 20 And so died the tsars of the Horde, and by the design of God, the tsardom and the rule of the Golden Horde were destroyed.21 And then our great Russian land was liberated from the Muslim yoke and subjugation, and began to be renewed, and to change as from winter into serene spring. And [the Russian land] returned again to its former greatness and piety, and goodness, as [it was] under the first Orthodox Grand Prince Vladimir. O, wisest Lord Christ, let [it] grow as a child, and be enhanced, and expand and be everywhere as a mature man, until thy second glorious coming, and to the end of this age}* And now the capital and the most famous city of Moscow shineth forth as a second Kiev23 — I shall not be ashamed and [be held] guilty for saying this — as a third new great Rome,2* » KljM p. 57; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 8-9. " The earliest parallel to the idea of the "desolation of the Golden Horde" can be found in the Epistle to Tsar Ivan [IV] Vasil'evic written by Sil'vestr, the Archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kreml, most probably in the second half of 1550. The relevant passage reads as follows:"... and God defeated with His lance this impious and haughty Tsar [Ahmet] and destroyed all his tsardoms, and uprooted his tribe and the sons of his sons, and destroyed their temples [cf. John 2:19], and cut down their forests [cf. Jeremiah 46:23]. Their cities lie desolate until now and their memory hath perished with the din [cf. Psalm 9:6] and the Lord hath extinguished their name for all ages to come and they are not mentioned in any land, and they have scattered and perished, and are forgotten. And the Lord lifted the horn of the Orthodox grand princes and liberated them from the impious pagan tsars, and He destroyed all the states of the same impious tsars and obscured all their fame" (D. P. Goloxvastov and Leonid, "BlagoveSienskij ierej Sil'vestr i ego pisanija", COIDR [1874], Bk. 1, Sec. 1, pp. 71-72). For an analysis of this Epistle, see infra, Chapter XII, pp. 254-256. 22 A. S. Orlov pointed out that the author of this passage relied on the Russian Chronograph ("Xronograf i 'Povest' o Kazanskom carstve'", Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazika i slovesnosti AN SSSR [cited hereafter as SORJaS] CI: 3 [1928] [Sbornik statej v ¿est' akademika Alekseja Ivanovica Soboievskogo], p. 189). In the Russian Chronograph of 1512 two phrases read as follows: Chapter 130. "This happened to old Rome; our new Rome, Car'grad [Constantinople] nourisheth [itself] and groweth, becometh stronger and is being rejuvenated, it will grow until the end [of the world]." Chapter 208. "... our Russian land groweth, and is being rejuvenated and enhanced, because of God's mercy and the prayers of the Holy Virgin and all holy miracle workers; O merciful Lord Christ, let it grow, and rejuvenate and expand until the end of the age", PSRL XXII (1911), Part I, pp. 285,439-440. These statements were adaptations from the World Chronicle of Constantine Manassas (twelfth century), verse 2546fif. Cf. H. Schaeder, Moskau das dritte Rom (Darmstadt, 19572), pp. 18, 71. 33 V. S. Ikonnikov was the first to become aware of the concept "Moscow — the second Kiev" and to make an attempt at finding some meaningful parallels (Opyt russkojistoriografii, [2 vols.; Kiev, 1891-1908], II, Part II, p. 1285, n. 6). He found one in the last sentence of the Otryvok russkoj letopisi, which states: "May we see as a ruler in Kiev, the Orthodox Tsar, Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviS of all Russia" (PSRL VI [1853], p. 315). 24

Cf. V. N. Malinin, Starec Eleazarova Monastyrja Filofej i ego poslanija (Kiev, 1901), Appendix IX, p. 56; Appendix X, p. 63. On the problem of the theory of Moscow as "the third Rome", see the informative and well written work by H. Schaeder,

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

115

which hath shone in these last years as the great sun in our great Russian land, among all cities and all peoples of this country, adorned and enlightened by God's holy wooden and stone churches, like the heaven which we see ornamented and illuminated, adorned by bright stars, and unswerving Orthodoxy, affirmed by Christian faith, and untouched by heretics disturbing God's church. [All italics mine.] The elevation of Moscow to the rank of "a second Kiev" is undoubtedly one of the most intriguing aspects of the Kazanskaja istorija. So far, the identity of the first author or work to use this specific formulation has not been established. It cannot be stated with certainty that the Istorija initiated it.26 If the author of the latter was the first to make this statement, then his contribution to early Russian political thought would be of fundamental importance. This would be one of a very few major points where he could claim originality, since most of his ideology derives from adaptations of earlier or contemporary sources. Of equal significance as the origins of the concept of Moscow as "the second Kiev" is the question of the historical context in which it could have been born. The solution of this question would also be helpful in dating the chapter "About the Final Desolation of the Golden Horde", and, in fact, the entire Kazanskaja istorija. Two approaches can be adopted in analyzing the historical context: a simplistic/optimistic approach, according to which the notion Moscow — "the second Kiev" would imply the "idea of the revival of the Kievan state",28 or a complex/ critical approach which could suggest that Moscow's status as "the second Kiev" must have been preceded by the latter's "fall", just as Moscow's elevation to the position of "the third Rome" was made possible only after "two Romes had fallen". At what point could Kiev's "fall" have impressed itself upon the minds of Orthodox Muscovites? Moskau das dritte Rom. For more recent literature on this problem, consult N. S. Caev, " 'Moskva — tretij Rim' v politiieskoj praktike Moskovskogo pravitel'stva XVI veka", IZ XVII (1945), pp. 3-23; N. N. Maslennikova, "Ideologiieskaja bor'ba v pskovskoj literature v period obrazovanija Russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva", TODRL VIII (1951), pp. 187-217; Prisoedinenie Pskova k Russkomu centralizovannomu gosudarstvu (Leningrad, 1955); D. StremooukhofF, "Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine", Speculum XXVIII: 1 (1953), pp. 84-101; C. Toumanoff, "Moscow the Third Rome: Genesis and Significance of a Political-Religious Idea", Catholic Historical Review XL: 4 (1955), pp. 411-447; W. Lettenbauer, Moskau das dritte Rom (1961). 26 Ikonnikov, who had an intimate knowledge of Russian medieval sources and historiography, withheld judgement on this issue, probably being uncertain about its emergence. Kuncevii, who reprinted this formulation in his work, expressed no opinion about it (Istorija ..., p. 224). ae I. M. Kudrjavcev, "'UgorSCina' v pamjatnikax drevnerusskoj literatury", in: Issledovanija i materialy po drevnerusskoj literature (Moscow, 1961), p. 64.

116

PART TWO

The too obvious answer would be after 1596, i.e., after the proclamation of the Union of Brest. This Union and the scholastic ("Latin") training of the Ukrainian intellectuals, who were coming from Kiev to Moscow since the middle of the seventeenth century and who were identified with the Nikon reforms, caused great indignation on the part of the Muscovite Old Believers. The latter were convinced that "Little Russia had fallen into Latin heresy". If one accepts this line of reasoning, the author of the Kazanskaja istorija would have to be sought in the camp of the Old Believers, or at least among their potential sympathizers, making the 1650s the earliest possible date for the writing of this work, a date which is most unlikely. The author of the Kazanskaja istorija was more probably assigning the role of "a second Kiev" to Moscow because of a different "fall into heresy" in Western Rus'. A clue to the identity of this heresy is provided in the chapter "About the Investiture of the Archbishop in Kazan". Commenting on the reasons for the investiture of Archbishop Gurij, the author contends that it was imperative, among other things, so that "the [Russian] people who meet with the pagan Cheremissians — just as the [people of] the Lutheran Rus' do with the Poles — would not be tempted to marry with them, have sexual intercourse with them, eat with them, nor drink with them, nor invite them to their homes".27 The invective against the "Lutheran Rus'" helps one to understand why "Kiev had fallen". It is well known that in the 1550s and 1560s Protestantism had made considerable inroads among the Belorussian and Ukrainian nobility. The attack against Protestant Rus' would have been anachronistic in the seventeenth century. It made sense in the 1560s and roughly to the end of Ivan IV's reign, particularly if one takes into account that one of the major ideological justifications of the struggle against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Livonian war was the "Lutheran heresy" in Lithuania and in the Rus' lands. Among others the conquest of Polock by Muscovite armies in 1563, was also explained by the need to extirpate the "Lutheran heresy" in this "ancient patrimony" of the Muscovite rulers.28 A good example of this approach is the "Epistle of Pimin, the Archbishop of Novgorod, to the Pious Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evii, by God's Grace Sovereign and Autocrat of all Russia at the City of Polock, [Advising Him] to Struggle Val-

" »

KI/M, p. 162; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 170-171. PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 302, 313.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

117

iantly Against Godless Lithuania and the Most Unclean Lutherans...". 29 Muscovy was encouraged by the Patriarch of Constantinople Ioasaf to undertake a campaign against Protestantism. 30 His Epistle to Metropolitan Makarij was included in the official Muscovite chronicles under the year 1561. The Patriarch pointedly observed that in "Little Russia" the Protestant heresy had made advances. 31 The author of the Kazanskaja istorija drew a logical conclusion from these political conditions by elevating Moscow to the rank of "a second Kiev", since the first had fallen into Protestant heresy. The author's outspoken national approach was not restricted to the Russian past and the exaltation of Muscovy's role. It was also reflected in his version of the conquest of the Kazan Khanate, the territory and inhabitants of which were, in his interpretation, Russian "from antiquity". While the Nikon and L'vov Chronicles rested their case on the sovereign rights of the Rurikides in the Volga region, the Kniga stepennaja proclaimed that the areas inhabited by the Cheremissians and Mordvinians, which comprised a considerable part of the territory of the Kazan Khanate for more than a century, had been provinces of the "Russian Tsardom", ruled by the Russian dynasty since Vladimir I.32 Even more elaborate references to Kazan as "a Russian land" can be found in the Kazanskaja istorija : There was, from the beginning, the Russian land, as the Russians and barbarians say, always one Russian land, where now the city of Kazan standeth, extending into the valley from one [side] of Niinij Novgorod to the east, on both sides of the great River Volga, down to the Bulgar [boundaries] and to the Kama River, in breadth to the north to the so-called Vjatka land and Perm, to the south to the Polovcian boundaries — all this was the Kievan and Vladimir state and province, and since then and until now the Muscovite [state], Bulgar princes and barbarians lived beyond the Kama River in their part of the land, ruling the pagan Cheremissian nation, knowing no God and having no law whatsoever. Both of them were serving and paying tribute to the Russian tsardom until [the time] of Tsar Batu.38 M PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 306-308. It should be mentioned that Archbishop Pimin utilized Vassijan Rylo's Epistle to Ivan III as a model for his own exhortation. Cf. I. M. Kudrjavcev, "'Poslanie na Ugru' Vassijana Rylo kak pamjatnik publicistiki XV v.", TODRL VIII (1951), p. 183. >° PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 293-296. " PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 293. In the words of Prince Kurbskij, "almost the whole Volhynia was infected ... with the cancer ... [of Protestantism] ..." (N. Ustrjalov, Skazanija Knjaz'ja Kurbskogo [St. Petersburg, 1868'], p. 248). " PSRL XXI (1908), Part I, p. 63. " À7/M, p. 44; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 2-3.

118

PART TWO

Commentators on this passage usually compare it with the entry in the Nikon or Lebedev Chronicle (they could also have mentioned the L'vov Chronicle) under 1555 ("Russian Grand Princes, beginning with Rurik, ruled and collected tribute as far as the Volga River, and as far as the Caspian Sea, and the Kama River"), and with Ivan IV's letter to the Nogai Mirza Ismail of January 1553, which said that "the Kazan yurt [hath belonged] to us from antiquity". 34 The author of the passage in question, however, also relied upon ideas and concepts from other works. Similarities can be detected in the already-quoted chapter, "The Names of Russian Provinces", in the Kniga stepennaja.3S Speaking of the Cheremissians and the Mordvinians, the author of the chapter asserted that they populated "countries of the Russian tsardom which were ruled over and [from which] tribute was collected by the blessed family of the Grand Prince Vladimir Svjatoslavid for generation after generation", and that their lands were integral parts of "one Russian state". Another instructive parallel is to be found in the Russian Chronograph of 1512. In this work, a chapter eulogizing the deeds of Vsevolod III Jur'evic of Vladimir (1176-1212) ended with the statement that he "ruled over the whole Russian land along the Volga, and as far as the sea". 38 The author of the Kazanskaja istorija apparently adapted and integrated ideas from a variety of sources. In the chapter "About the Conquest of Great Novgorod by Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evi6", he was certainly indebted to the Kniga stepennaja for his views on the "Russian Tsardom" before Batu and its unitary character. Furthermore he may have depended on the Russian Chronograph of 1512, or its earlier version, for the formulation of his argument in favor of the incorporation of Kazan. However, in comparison with the previous sources he introduced some important modifications. He put the Bulgars beyond the Kama River into "their part of the land" and described them as overlords of the "pagan Cheremissian nation". Essentially new was the explicit statement that the territory from the city of Kazan down to the Kama River was "a Russian land". Such a definite claim was probably made for the first time in the Kazanskaja istorija; at least I have not found it in any published Russian source written earlier. The term "Russian land" was certainly not an accidental insertion or an interchangeable phrase, employed instead of "patrimony". Evidence for its deliberate use can be found in the chapter "About the First Origin of the Kazan Tsardom, and the "

PDRVIX (1793), p. 64. Cf. Kuncevii, Istorija ..., p. 195; KljM, p. 177.

" PSRL XXI (1908), Part I, p. 63. •• PSRL XXII (1911), Part I, p. 388.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

119

Local Riches, and the Dragon's Lair",37 which not only presents a vivid description of the legendary origin of the Kazan Khanate, but also extends its national claim to include the population inhabiting the territory. The text of this chapter deserves to be quoted in extenso: There was on the Kama River an old town, called Brjagov,"8 and from there came the Tsar, called Sayn Bolgarskij. He was looking for a place to settle when he came in the year 6685 [1177]," and he chose a locality on the Volga River on the very [boundary of] the Russian borderland, on this side of the Kama River, with one end bordering the Bulgar land and the other, Vjatka and Perm. The locality [was] famous and very beautiful, [good] for cattle grazing and [rich] with bees, and with all seeds growing in its soil, and very abundant with fruits, and [full] of deer and fish, and plentiful in all riches, and a second locality like this could not be found in our whole Russian land, nor anywhere else with such beauty and stability and riches for men — I [at least] do not know if there is one [like it] in foreign lands. 40 And because of that, Sayn Bolgarskij liked it very much. And as many people say, this locality was from antiquity a dragon's lair, known to all inhabitants of this land. A great terrifying and two-headed dragon had its lair there, and was living there: it had one head of a dragon and the other of a bull. With one he devoured people, cattle, and deer, and with the other he ate grass. And other dragons lay by his side, living with him in the same manner. For this reason the people could not pass "

KI/M, pp. 47-48; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 10-13. In some copies of the Kazanskaja istorija the town of Brjaxov or Brjaximov is recorded as being located on the Oka River (PSRL XIX [1903], p. 10). 88 In the Kuncevii edition of the Kazanskaja istorija, the year 6680 (1172) is mentioned (PSRL XIX [1903], p. 10). 40 The author speaks in admiration of the beauty and therichesof the land which was once Russian and which later became part of the Kazan Khanate, calling it the most marvelous of the Russian lands. A similar description is to be found in A. M. Kurbskij's History of the Grand Prince of Moscow, but this time referring to the conquest of the Arsk land: "And they [the Muscovite troops] ravaged the land for about ten days, for in that land there are great plains, which are most fertile and which abound in all kinds of fruits; also the courts of their princes and the houses of their magnates are extremely fine and indeed amazing, and there are many villages. As for grain, there are so many different kinds that it would indeed be hard to believe, were one to tell of them all — it would be like counting the multitude of the stars in the sky. There are also countless herds of different kinds of cattle and there is great profit to be had especially from the various wild beasts which are in that land; for costly martens breed there and squirrels and other animals which can be used for clothing and for food. Furthermore there are a great number of sables and also many kinds of honey — I know not where beneath the sun there are more" (Fennell [ed.], Prince Kurbsky's History ..., p. 51). It may well be that the Kazan land was abundant in beauty and riches at the time of the Russian invasion. The testimony of two writers so far removed as the author of the Kazanskaja istorija and Kurbskij justifies accepting their descriptions. On the other hand one must be aware that the motif of the beauty and the riches of the Russian land can be attested quite early. The most famous is of course to be found in the Slovo o pogibeli russkyja zemli (Begunov, Pamjatmk ..., p. 154). It should be added that the theme of beauty in Russian chronicles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has not been studied sufficiently. 88

120

PART TWO

by this place, because of the whistling of dragons and because of their exhalation, but had to bypass far around [them] by another road. The Tsar viewed this place for many days, going around it and growing fond of it, being unable to think of [a way] how to remove the dragon from its lair so that the town could be strong and famous. Among the soldiers an artful sorcerer was found, who said to the Tsar: "I shall kill the dragon and purify the place". The Tsar was happy and promised to reward him if he would accomplish that. And the magician gathered, by his sorcery, all the dragons which had lived in that place since antiquity, and he gathered them into one crowd with the big dragon, and he drew a circle around them all so that not one could crawl out of it, and killed them all with his diabolic sorcery. He surrounded them with hay and reed, and wood, and many dry rods. And he poured sulfur and tar [on them], and set a fire, and burned and extinguished the big dragon and the small; and from this there was a great stench in the whole land. It spread forward, indicating [the last] bad deed of the damned Tsar [and] his cursed Saracen [Muslim] faith. Many of his soldiers died from the terrible dragon's stench. Many of his horses and camels, standing near this place, fell down. And by this means the place was purified. The Tsar built at this site the city of Kazan, and none of the Russian rulers dared to say anything against it. And there standeth the city of Kazan until now, being seen by and known to all the Russian people and being heard of by those who had never known [or seen] it before. Just as before, a ferocious dragon and other similar [dragons] had their lair in this place, [so now], an infidel Tsar assumed the rule in this city: because of his heathenism he was filled with great anger, and lighting up like fire in fury against the Christians, and burning like fire and terrifying with flaming lips, he kidnapped and devoured like sheep the humble Russian people living in all [settlements] in the neighborhood of Kazan, and he expelled from there the Russians — the autochthonous [people] [Rus'-tozemca] — and devastated this land for three years. And he brought from beyond the Kama River fierce and pagan people, the Bulgar mob with their princes, elders, and many [others] serving him, and resembling dogs' heads and cannibals with their cruelty and evil customs. He filled this land with people such as the other Cheremissians called Votiaks, and it is also said that the Rostov mob had fled to these Bulgar dwellings from Russian baptism, and [that] the Tsar joined Bulgar towns to Kazan, which are [now] ruled by the Kazanian Tsar. This was the land of the Little Bulgarians [located] beyond the Kama River, between the great River Volga and Belyja Voliki as far as the great Nogai Horde. And the Great Bulgarians [are located] on the Danube. There was on the Kama River an old town, called the Bulgar Brjagov; now this town is deserted; the Grand Prince Andrej Jur'evii Vladimirskij took it for the first time and turned it over [to his troops] for final destruction, and subjugated the Bulgars under his rule. And the Balymaty [?] [dwell] twenty versts away from these Bulgars. And the Grand Prince conquered [this land] as far distant as that. And Kazan was the capital city, instead of Brjagov And soon the new Horde [emerged], and the "land", fertile, fruitful, and excellent, "flowing with milk and honey", [cf. Joshua 5:6] was given into the custody and rule and the inheritance of the pagans. And from this Tsar Sayn began the origins of Kazan, and it was called the Sayn yurt. And the Tsar loved [it], and came often from his capital city of Sarai and lived in it. And he left in this

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

121

new locality, his yurt, a tsar of his kin, a prince with warriors. And after this Tsar Sayn, many others tsars — the bloodsuckers — were destroying Russian people, and succeeding each other, ruled in Kazan for many years to come. Sayn Bolgarskij, the founder of the Kazan Khanate in this narrative, is not a historical person; Sayn was actually an epithet, used to refer to Khan Batu, which meant 'good' khan or 'distinguished' khan. 41 In the preceding chapter "About the Grand Prince Jaroslav Vsevolodovii...", the author of the Kazanskaja istorija erroneously considered Batu and Sayn as two different persons, and maintained that the latter succeeded Batu as Khan of the Golden Horde: After the death of Tsar Batu, who was killed by the Hungarian King Vladislav in his capital city of Radin, another Tsar, by the name of Sayn, began to reign in the tsardom as the first successor after Batu. Our rulers [became] terrified and stiffened [in fear] [instead] of going to him to the Horde to make peace with him. And the Tsar of the Horde, Sayn, rose to advance against Rus' with his dark forces. And he went like Tsar Batu to invade it [Rus' land] because of the contempt of the Russian rulers for him.42 Batu was not killed by a Hungarian king, but died of natural causes. The source of this tale is known, however; the author of the Kazanskaja istorija took it from the Russian Chronograph of 1512 or its earlier version. Xudjakov believed that the legend about the "dragon's lair" was written by the author of Kazanskaja istorija.*3 While it is true that the latter was the first to include such a detailed version of this legend in his work, an earlier example can be cited. It is attributed to no other than Metropolitan Makarij, who used it in his speech on the occasion of 41 Spuler, Die Coldene Horde ..., pp. 31-32; Kuncevii, Istorija ..., p. 229. Cf. modern Turkish word sayin 'esteemed'. " KI/M, p. 46; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), p. 10. 43 "Tatar, as well as Russian, bookmen injected into this legend an allegorical meaning; the Muslims attempted to see in the dragon paganism, expelled from Kazan and defeated by Islam, whereas the Christians implied that this was Islam, forced out by Christianity" (Oierki ..., p. 245). The author of the Kazanskaja istorija strengthened the Christian interpretation by introducing another story about a demon who had to retreat before the forces of Christianity. In another chapter, entitled "About the Demon Causing Disturbances Among the People Living in a Small Town", he related the following: "in addition, there occurred a third omen in my presence, when at that time I was still living in Kazan. There was in a certain Kazan settlement a small abandoned town. In it lived a demon, who caused disturbances for many years" (PSRL XIX [1903], p. 67; KI/M, p. 91). The Khan of Kazan, according to the Kazanskaja istorija, asked a Tatar dignitary to inquire from the demon who would be victorious — Kazan or the Muscovite tsar? To this the demon is supposed to have replied: "I am going away from here to deserted, inaccessible places, expelled by Christian power, since it is coming here with its glory, and will reign in this land and enlighten it by holy baptism" (PSRL XIX [1903], p. 68; KI/M, pp. 91-92).

122

PART TWO

Ivan IV's return to Moscow from the victorious Kazan campaign in October of 1552.44 The most essential statement of the chapter "About the First Origin of the Kazan Tsardom" is the assertion that the Kazan land was Russian and that originally it was inhabited by autochthonous Russian people. These "peaceful" Russians were allegedly expelled by the mythical Sayn Bolgarskij who settled the "Bulgar mob" and other pagans in their place. The Kazanskaja istorija specifically referred to the evicted populace of the area as "autochthonous Russians" (Rus'-tozemca). This was, of course, the most modern claim of all, since it even used an ethnic argument. In this respect, the Kazanskaja istorija seems to have anticipated political concepts which are usually considered as belonging to a much later period. The idea of "a Russian land" was also utilized by the Muscovite chronicles and the Kniga stepennaja to justify the conquest of the Astrakhan Khanate (1556) soon after that of Kazan. Astrakhan was declared to be the ancient Tmutorokan', although old Tmutorokan' was located on the Kerch Strait, i.e., opposite the Crimea, whereas Astrakhan was in the area where the Volga discharges into the Caspian Sea. Although it is possible that the Russians of the mid-sixteenth century may have had a rather vague notion of the exact geographical location of the old Tmutorokan', the relevant passage in the Muscovite chronicles clearly indicates that the identification of the cities was undertaken with the purpose of buttressing Muscovy's claim to an ancient "Russian land". 45 All these propositions represent an extension of the "gathering of 44

"O pious Tsar, God's grace descended upon thee: [God] granted thee the ruling city of Kazan with all its neighboring [territories] and destroyed the dragon laying there in its lair and hiding there in caves and devouring us all in evil fashion ..." (PSRL XXIX [1965], p. 114). Cf. Kuncevic, Istorija ..., p. 232. " "I vospominaja car* i velikij knjaz* drevnee svoe oteòestvo, jaze preie byvyi ego roditel' svjato poiivSij velikij knjaz' Vladimir, prosvétivyj Ruskuju zemlju svjatym kreSCeniem, razdèljaja oblasti na Casti détem svoim, a tu Astoroxan', togda imenovalasja Tmutorokan', i dal eè synu svoemu Mstislavu; v nei ie xram Preéistye sotvoren byl; i mnogie gosudari xristijanskie ot Vladimira preze poiivSii srodniki carja i velikogo knjaz'ja Ivana Vasil'eviia vseja Rusii tèmi mésty obiadali, da Bogu popuSiajuicu, grex radi xristijanskix i ne za ispravlenie zakona Xristova i mnogix mezuusobnyx branej Ruskix gosudarej, obladana byvSi neCestivymi cari Ordinskimi, ize imenovalasja Bol'Saja Orda" (PSRL XHI [1904/1965], Part I, pp. 235-236; PSRL XXIX [1965], p. 225; PSRL XX [1914] Part II, pp. 544-545). It deserves to be noted that the historicideological generalizations about "Tmutorokan' — Astrakhan", advanced in the official historiography of the 1550s, were toned down, or even eliminated altogether, in the text of the "Tale About the Conquest of Astrakhan" from the seventeenth century. Cf. S. O. Smidt, '"Skazanie o vzjatii Astraxani' v letopisnoj tradicii XVII-XVIII w . ' \ TGIAI XVII (1963), p. 396.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

123

Russian lands", an argument which was then applied to the former Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan. Once both came to be regarded as ancient "Russian lands", their recovery could easily be interpreted as the successful realization of the goal to unify all Russia. The author of the Kazanskaja istorija emphasized the Russian character of the territory of the Kazan Khanate and developed his thesis about the national differences of his countrymen and the Tatars in the chapter, entitled "About the Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviC, About His Intelligence and Wisdom, and About His Contemplation [Concerning] His Boyars, and About the Punishment, and About the Survey of His Land, and About the Love of His Warriors, and His Cognizance of the Kazan Tsardom". 48 This chapter can be considered as a statement of Ivan IV's projected policies after he was crowned Tsar in 1547.47 The program outlined was ambitious and aimed primarily at elevating the status of the Muscovite Tsardom among other nations and at correcting the evils of the boyar rule, which had flourished during the Tsar's childhood. The most outstanding feature of this program was the decision to continue and to intensify the struggle against the Khanate of Kazan. Ivan was portrayed as being very apprehensive about the existence of an independent Kazan Khanate, which had encroached upon Russian territory. In the passage acknowledging the great Tatar expansion into the Russian land, the author included a peculiar explanation of the reasons for this Tatar annexation and colonization: And the Tsar and Grand Prince [Ivan IV] learned that Kazan, the new Saracen Tsardom, was located on the land which hath been Russian from antiquity. Kazan in the Russian language means "boiler", "golden bottom", and the Russian borders suffer great sorrow and misfortunes from it; and although his father and grandfather, and great-grandfather had fought with them [the Kazanians], they could not inflict final defeat upon Kazan. And many years have passed by, up to three hundred years, [since] the first foundation of Kazan by Tsar Sayn. And from his time on, princes and tsars of this country ruled there, having taken possession of a large part of the Russian land. About the present Tsar [Ivan IV] hear now my narrative in praise of his valor. Many of his ancestors before him ruled Muscovy, the grand princes who rose up and took arms, wishing to take Kazan, the dragon's lair, the city of Kazan, and to expel them [Kazanians] from their fatherland, the Russian state, and having captured only the city of Kazan, and not being able to hold the Tsardom and consolidate their rule in it, they could not understand [their failures] because of the slyness of the Kazanians. And much blood was shed, either the Kaza" PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 43-46; KI/M, pp. 73-75. " It has been established by KunceviC that the text about the coronation of Ivan IV was taken verbally from the Third Novgorod Chronicle (Istorija ..., pp. 302-303).

124

PART TWO

nian, or, more often, the Russian blood. Our rulers rather seldom defeated the Kazanians, since they themselves were defeated more than twice, unable to inflict any harm upon the sons of Hagar, the descendents of Ishmael, and more than often, they, the idlers, returned from [Kazan], having been disgraced by them [the Kazanians]. The Ishmaelites are capable; they learn warfare from their youth; therefore they are stern, fearless, and fierce towards us, the humble. They have been blessed by their ancestors, Ishmael and Esau, who was full of pride, and they live by their arms. We are [descended] from our ancestor, the gentle and humble Jacob, therefore even more so we cannot oppose them, and humiliate ourselves before them, as Jacob did before Esau, but we defeat them with the arms of the Cross: this is our help in battles, and our support against our enemies. They, the Ishmaelites, have conquered many countries with their arms and have subjugated many great cities, as they have unjustly imposed their rule on the borderland of our Russian land and have settled in it, and they have multiplied in great numbers and consolidated [their gains], and they have been cruel towards us because of the multitude of our lawless acts before God.48 In this statement the idea that Kazan was Russian from antiquity was further elaborated. The territory of the Kazan Khanate, and previously of the Volga Bulgars, was referred to as a Russian borderland which the Tatars had occupied by military force. After the annexation of this alleged Russian land, the Tatars colonized it and their population increased until they acquired a strong hold over this land. The view that Muscovy was defending Russia's border regions can also be found in other sources, but it is spelled out most clearly in the Kazanskaja istorija. Even more significant was an explanation offered for Russian defeats as well as total victories based upon historical and religious differences in the national character of the two contenders. The Russians are described as peaceful and humble by nature, while the Ishmaelites appear as a bellicose and aggressive people, well-versed and experienced in the arts of warfare. The author of the Kazanskaja istorija was not always consistent in his delineation of the historical virtues of the two opposing nations. In most cases he praised the valor of Russian arms, but sometimes he acknowledged that the Kazanians were brave and fearless fighters.49 KunceviS made the first attempt to establish the date for the writing of the Kazanskaja istorija.*0 As the original version of the treatise is no longer extant, he based his analysis on a reconstrued recension I, and concluded that the protograph must have been written between 1564 and 1566. His reasoning was that the Kazanskaja istorija did not appear " KI/M, pp. 74-75; cf. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 45-16. " Chapter 83. "About the Fall of the Valiant Kazanians" (PSRL XIX [1903], pp. 160-161; KI/M, pp. 155-156). M Kuncevii, Istorija ..., pp. 176-179.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

125

prior to the death of Prince Semen Mikulinskij in 1562, because it is mentioned in the treatise;51 or before the death of Metropolitan Makarij on December 31, 1563.68 On the other hand, Khan §ah Ali is described by the author as a living person.63 Since §ah Ali died on April 20, 1567, Kuncevic assumed that the protograph of the Kazanskaja istorija could not have been composed after that date. Furthermore Otemi§ Girey, the son of Suyiin Bike, who was baptized with the name of Aleksandr, is referred to as a living person in Chapter 98.64 This would limit the period to early 1566, since he died on June 11 of that year. Moiseeva narrowed the dating still further to the years 1564-1565.66 M. N. Tixomirov developed another hypothesis. In his opinion, the work had a single author up to and including Chapter 67; for this part of the Kazanskaja istorija he accepted in general the dating offered by Kuncevic and Moiseeva. He then claimed that subsequent chapters were compiled by different authors, and that the date of the last chapter, entitled "In Praise of the Tsar and Grand Prince and All His Voevody and Warriors", should be placed in 1584, i.e., after the death of Ivan IV.86 Recently, another hypothesis has been advanced maintaining that version I of this text most probably appeared in the seventeenth century.67 The Kazanskaja istorija poses certain problems for those attempting to date it. Some references, such as the mentioning of Prince Kurbskij, can be used to question its traditional dating (the middle 1560s). Kurbskij fled to Poland-Lithuania in 1564, and his name would have been omitted from a work written after that time. Those who adhere to the accepted view can always contend that the passages containing Kurbskij's name were composed on the eve of his defection, thus invalidating the argument " "

PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 136-137; KI/M, pp. 138-139. PSRL XIX (1903), p. 107; KI/M, p. 119. PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 136, 183; KI/M, pp. 138, 172. H PSRL XIX (1903), p. 183; KI/M, p. 172. 56 KI/M, pp. 20-21, n. 5. " M. N. Tixomirov, Istoinikovedenie istorii SSSR (Moscow, 1962), pp. 263-265. " The controversial character of this hypothesis and the evident difficulties of substantiating it are reflected in the author's own statements. In his dissertation, Keenan attempted to narrow the dating of the Kazanskaja istorija to the years 1626-1640 ("Muscovy and Kazan'...", pp. 55-71). However, in his article on this work, the same author relates it only in a very general way to the literature of the early or the first half of the seventeenth century (E. L. Keenan, "Coming to Grips with the Kazanskaya Istoriya: Some Observations on Old Answers and New Questions", The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States [cited hereafter as Annals] XI: 1-2, 31-32 [1964-1968], pp. 146-160,183). Kampfer doubts whether this hypothesis will stand up to criticism and accepts the conventional dating (Historie vom Zartum Kazan, p. 31). 58

126

PART TWO

against Kuncevic's dating (1564-1566). Furthermore the text of this particular treatise includes many inventions and fantastic tales which sometimes defy a purely pragmatic approach. The study of the Kazanskaja istorija and the date of its writing could be facilitated by a competent linguistic analysis of its text. The presence of a few Polonisms (or their Belorussian/Ukrainian variants), such as parsuna,m should be explained. While it is true that they became quite frequent in Muscovy after the influx of Ukrainian and Belorussian intellectuals beginning in the middle of the seventeenth century, their limited use starting with the middle of the sixteenth century can be easily proved. It has recently been asserted that "parsuna, in the sense of 'portrait, likeness' is ... first recorded in Great Russian in 1617".59 However, parsuna or parsona (persona), meaning 'portrait' or 'likeness' is attested in Great Russian in connection with Ivan IV's plans for marriage to Lady Mary Hastings, a cousin of Queen Elizabeth, and figures quite prominently in Fedor Pisemskij's mission to England in 15811583.60 A considerable number of Polonisms can also be detected in the *• KI/M, p. 55. Unfortunately, the most recent linguistic study of the Kazanskaja istorija by A. K. Abdul'manova, as well as her article, does not pro vide the clarification of the various complicated terminological problems of this work ("ObSCestvenno-politi¿eskaja i voennaja leksika 'Kazanskogo letopisca"', unpublished Candidate's dissertation, KujbiSev State Pedagogical Institute, 1966; "Leksika, svjazannaja s ponjatiem gospodstva v 'Kazanskom letopisce'", Uienye Zapiski Kisenevskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta LXXXIV [1967], pp. 17-24). «• Keenan, "Muscovy and Kazan' ...", p. 64; Annals XI: 1-2 (31-32) (1964-1968), p. 174. w This mission was undertaken with the aim of concluding a Russo-English alliance against the Polish King Stefan Batory. The alliance was to be strengthened by marriage between Ivan and a relative of Elizabeth. The instruction for Fedor Pisemskij of April 18, 1581 reads as follows: "a pro toe devku k korolevne s Fedorom v posolstve napisati tajno, ctob korolevna Elisafet toe devku gosudarevu poslu Fedoru Pisemskomu pokazala, i lice ee parsonu napisav ..." (Pamjatniki diplomaticeskix snosenij moskovskogo gosudarstva s Anglieju [s 1581 po 1604 god], SIRIO XXXVIII [1883], p. 3). The Muscovite diplomat was to present his request in a somewhat more elegant manner to the Queen: "I ty b sestra naSa ljubnaja Elisavet-korolevna toe svoju plemjannicu naiSemu poslu Fedoru pokazati velela, i parsonu b esi ee napisav, k nam prislala i na dcke i na bumage ..." (SIRIO XXXVIII [1883], p. 5). In the special diplomatic report on the secret aspect of his mission, written as an appendix to his general report of June 23,1583, Fedor Pisemskij several times used the term parsuna or parsona, meaning 'portrait' or 'likeness' ("... i parson ee velela napisati ..."; "... i parson by ee velela napisat', kakova ona est'..."; "... i parson ee velju napisati..."; " a parsony ee nine v te pory ne pokazali ... i mne po sja mesta parsony ee ne davyvali ..."; "... a priSlju k tebe parsun ... korolevna de prislala k tebe parsun ...") (SIRIO XXXVIII [1883], pp. 65-66,69-70). The text of Fedor Pisemskij's report is also reprinted in Ja. S. Lur'e and R. B. Mjuller (eds.), PuteSestvija russkix poslov XVI-XVII vv. (Statejnye spiski) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1954), pp. 100-155. The Tsar's suit was discouraged by Queen Elizabeth very tactfully. She appeared to beflattered,but did her best to divert the attentions

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

127

writings of Ivan Peresvetov 61 who came from Belorussia or the Ukraine. He was certainly not the only adventurer who defected to the East to seek his fortune. Likewise, the employment of individual Turkic words or their Russian derivatives in the Kazanskaja istorija can be traced back to the sixteenth century. A good example of this would be the word basma which is confirmed in Great Russian in the 1580s.62 Any attempt at dating the Kazanskaja istorija must necessarily rest upon intangibles such as form, style, combination of ideas, possible conceptual influences and the identification of borrowed passages. In dealing with such material a variety of interpretations is possible, none of which can be considered as much more valid than the other and certainly none can be regarded as definite proof. Kazanskaja istorija is not a typical chronicle relating events in chronological order. From a purely formalistic point of view it falls into the category of the thematic historical tales (povest\ skazanie, istorija) which deal with a single, major, historical topic. 63 However, one ought to keep in mind that the voluminous Muscovite chronicles of the second third of the sixteenth century also differed considerably from their predecessors and represented compilations of a variety of works: tales, epistles, excerpts from diplomatic correspondence, and edited chronological narratives. Kazanskaja istorija was not the only tale of its time to deal with the conof Mary Hastings' suitor. Fedor Pisemskij received Mary Hastings' portrait and, in addition, left to posterity her physical description in the literary style of simplistic realism: "Princess Mary Hastings [is] tall, slender, pale-faced, [has] grey eyes, fair hair, a straight nose, and long tapered fingers" (SIRIO XXXVIII [1883], p. 69). 41 A. A. Zimin (ed.), Solinenija I. Peresvetova (Moscow-Leningrad, 1956), Commentary by Ja. S. Lur'e, pp. 288, 293; Zimin, I. S. Peresvetov ..., pp. 254-256. « PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 6-7; KI/M, p. 55; cf. Sreznevskij, Materialy ..., I, p. 44. Cf. also N. P. Lixaiev, "Basma zolotoordynskix xanov", in: Sbormk statej v ¿est' grafini P. S. Uvarovoj (Moscow, 1916), pp. 70-86. Similarly, references to valuable "Eastern" items, such as tent of "Persian" origin in the Kazanskaja istorija for which close parallels can be found in seventeenth-century sources (Keenan, Annals XI; 1-2 [31-32] [19641968], p. 175), do not invalidate the traditional dating of this work. Already in the middle of the sixteenth century the Russian court was in possession of rare "Eastern" items. For instance, a "Persian book" (apparently the work of the Arabic cosmographer Kazvini, entitled 'Aiffibu 'l-majjluqat [The Wonders of Nature]) was taken away from Kazanian envoys to the Crimea, who were intercepted by cossacks in the service of the Muscovite ruler, and delivered to Moscow on May 1,1549. The interest in this "Persian book" was awakened by a casual remark by A. I. Sobolevskij, "Materialy i izsledovanija v oblasti slavjanskojfilologiii arxeologii", SORJaS LXXXVIII: 3 (1910), p. 219, n. 1. The problem of its Kazanian origin as well as its appearance in Moscow was solved by A. D. Sidel'nikov, "Dve zametki po epoxe Ivana Groznogo", in: Sbormk statej k 40letiju dejateVnosti A. S. Orlova (Leningrad, 1934), pp. 165-167. Cf. also Tixomirov, Rossija v XVI stoletii, p. 490, n. 6. "

Cf. D. S. Lixa£ev, Celovek v literature drevnej Rusi (Moscow, 1970«), pp. 9-10.

128

PART TWO

quest of Kazan. Letopisec nacala carstva also included a separate Povest' on this topic, the title of which reads as follows: "The Beginning of the Tale of How the All-Merciful and Man-Loving God Performed the Most Famous Miracles in Our Gens Through Our Orthodox, Pious Tsar, Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evic, the Sovereign and Autocrat of All Rus' [by Liberating] the Orthodox Christians from Muslim Captivity and from the Servitude of the Godless Kazan Tatars, and About the Foundation of the New City of Svijazsk, Which Was Named After the Tsar, Ivangrad, in Which Churches and Dwellings for Christians Were Built, in the Year 1551, in the Nineteenth Year of His Rule, and in the Fifth Year of His Tsardom". 64 For some reason, the Tale remained unfinished. 65 This Tale was thematic and included a variety of sources, like the Kazanskaja istorija. It is quite possible that the Russian court and some leading representatives of the Muscovite political establishment were dissatisfied with the Povest' of the Letopisec and felt the need for a more accomplished literary treatment of the Kazan conquest. A separate Tale about the conquest of Kazan (most probably by Andrej-Afanasij, the Tsar's confessor and the Metropolitan of Russia since 1564) was incorporated into the Kniga stepennaja.66 In 1962, A. N. Nasonov published a Skazanie and a Povest' about the Kazan campaign and the triumph over the Khanate both of which originated in the Troice-Sergiev Monastery and were written soon after the conquest. 67 The Povest', made available by Nasonov, possesses several peculiarities in common with the Kazanskaja istorija.** It seems that the latter represents an intermediary form of povest' which shares many literary features with the historical and ideological works of the 1550s and 1560s and which in some respects is similar to the early seventeenth-century historical tales. 69 D. S. Lixa&v remarked that the Kazanskaja istorija introduced realistic elements into its narrative and departed from the established literary etiquette by attributing positive and negative characteristics to Russians and Tatars alike, in a fashion similar to the author of the Chronograph of 1617,™ although he conceded that the latter did so more consistently. H PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 59. •6 For some additional comments on this problem, see infra, Chapter IX, pp. 204-205. «• PSRL XXI (1913), Part II, pp. 638-651. Cf. infra, Chapter X, pp. 221-226. 87 A. N. Nasonov, "Novye istoiniki po istorii kazanskogo 'vzjatija'", AE 1960 (1962), pp. 3-26. " Ibid., p. 6. " Cf. O. A. Derzavina (ed.), Skazanie Avraamija Palicyna (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955); N. F. Droblenkova (ed.), Novaja Povest' o Preslavnom Rosijskom Carstve (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960). D. S. Lixacev, Poetika drevnerusskoj iiteratury (Leningrad, 1967), p. 107.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

129

The style and the general tone of Kazanskaja istorija appear to be more archaic and ornamental as compared to those of the chronicles and historical tales of the seventeenth century which reveal literary features of simplistic realism. The thematic works of the early seventeenth century and the Siberian chronicles abstained from making long digressions about issues not directly pertaining to their topic (as for example, the extensive treatment of the unification of Russian lands), and concentrated instead on the immediate problem (smuta, conquest of Siberia, etc.). Their authors had more distinctly individual styles. While frequently using a traditional concept or stylistic device, they shied away from copying whole passages from other ideological or literary works, such as Skazanie o knjazjax Vladimirskix or Povest' o vzjatii Car'grada turkami.71 Although retaining a Providential interpretation of history and injecting general moral comments, often in conjunction with a miraculous event, the authors of the seventeenth-century works were not apt to use motifs such as prophetic demons and dragons to substantiate their position. Contrary to the established assumption that the text of the Kazanskaja istorija reveals strong religious overtones only beginning with Chapter 50 or 67, one can maintain that the entire work is permeated with Orthodox fervor. The religious justification of the Kazan conquest figures in this work as prominently as it does in the Letopisec rtacala carstva, the Carstvennaja kniga and the Kniga stepennaja. The struggle of Christianity against Islam constitutes an important topic of the Kazanskaja istorija. It appears in the first sentence of the treatise and serves as an introduction to the narrative: O Christian people, we should listen with joy to this beautiful and new story (novyja povesti),'2 how famous deeds happened in our land and in our days, in the years [of the reign] of the most famous and pious and imperial Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evid, loved by God, chosen by God, and crowned by God, I say the same autocrat of Vladimir, Muscovy and all Great Russia. God hath granted him the world-wide victory and famous triumph against the most vicious Saracen Tsardom, the most wondrous Kazan, because of his righteous faith in Christ." The religious arguments for the Kazan conquest presented by the Kazanskaja istorija correspond to those advanced by the official chron71 A close resemblance in the description between the battle scenes in Kazan and the struggle for Constantinople was established by KunceviC, Istorija ..., pp. 511-512. " The closest parallel to the literary term novaja povest' in the opening statement of the Kazanskaja istorija is to be found in the title of the Novaja povest' o preslavnom rosijskom carstve, written between December 1610 and late January 1611 (for the most recent discussion of its dating, see Droblenkova [ed.l, Novaja Povest' ..., pp. 85-86). " KljM, p. 43.

130

PART TWO

icles. They reflect Orthodox enthusiasm over the fall of a "pagan" country. The author emphasized the national aspect of this religious victory by applying the notion of ruskaja vera which he attributed to Nogai mirzas.™ In Kazanskaja istorija the Muslims also refer to a "Russian" God who is just and who rewards and punishes according to merit.75 An analysis of the major political ideas of the Kazanskaja istorija indicates that it was influenced by ideological works which, while still current and binding in the seventeenth century, were developed and utilized to a much greater extent in literary and historical works of the previous century. It has been shown that the ideas of the Kniga stepennaja were incorporated, both in the text of the reconstructed first recension and in the "missing chapters" of the Istorija. The adaptation of the Skazanie o knjazjax Vladimirskix would also bring the Kazanskaja istorija into closer relationship with Muscovite political thought of the second third of the sixteenth century. Metropolitan Makarij received considerable attention in this work, as well as in the official chronicles. The representatives of the Troice-Sergiev Monastery saw to it that their ideological interpretations of the Kazan conquest would also be included in the Kazanskaja istorija. Finally, the use of the political concepts such as Moscow — "the third Rome" and Moscow — "the second Kiev", or Russia — "the second Jerusalem",' 6 while not abandoned by the seventeenth-century publicists, was more in line with ideological trends of the second half of the sixteenth century, than with those of later periods. How, then, can one explain the inconsistencies, lack of cohesive unity, mixtures of literary devices, anachronistic references, and interpolations? It can be argued that the Kazanskaja istorija was not a unified work, written at one given time. More probably it was composed at different times and by various people who left the mark of their own political interests, ideological prejudices and even familial concerns. It was a compilative work, a considerable part of which was written in the 1560s (including the "missing chapters", although they can be found only in manuscript copies of a later period). The political and intellectual climate of the sixties was ideal for such an undertaking. The memories of the great triumph were still fresh and vivid. There was obviously no pressing political necessity or social demand in the seventeenth century for producing a counterfeit ideologic-literary work extolling the Kazan " "

PSRL XIX (1903), p. 85; KI/M, p. 103. PSRL XIX (1903), p. 17; KljM, p. 51.

"

I. U. Budovnic, Russkajapublicistika

XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1947), p. 301.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

131

conquest of the previous century. However, a need for a work glorifying an event in which many Muscovites had personally participated existed in the second half of the sixteenth century, since the official Povest' in the Letopisec had many shortcomings and was not in finished form. At the same time, a sociopolitical revolution from above (opriénina) was taking place; in such a situation, ideological interpretations of a country's destinies assume great importance. Large-scale foreign policy schemes and grand imperial designs are formulated to overcome conflicts and uneasy confrontations. A great success like the Kazan conquest could be easily exploited to unify national sentiment and to appeal to all elite groups. For some reason, the Istorija did not reach its final version. This could have been due to certain conditions which abruptly terminated the compiling and editing of the voluminous official works towards the beginning of the 1570s: foreign policy setbacks, internal reverses, lack of secular and ecclesiastical personalities of Makarij's caliber who could supervise and guide literary tasks on a large scale. The work may have been resumed in more limited form and in a different moral and political environment after the death of Ivan IV. The second stage of writing and editorial revisions probably fell in the period between 1584 and 15921594. The last chapter of some manuscript copies refers to Ivan IV in the past tense and eulogizes his deeds as if posthumously. In many copies of the reconstructed second recension the narrative concludes with Germogen's intercession on behalf of the local martyrs Ivan, Stefan and Petr, and all Russian military killed in the Kazan campaign. Germogen, in his letter to the Patriarch of January 9, 1592, asked for permission to hold memorial services for them.77 Strangely enough, the "Tale About the Appearance of the Miraculous Icon of Our Lady, the Virgin Mary [of Kazan]" was not incorporated in the known manuscript copies, although it falls into a similar genre as the martyr tales from the Kniga stepennaja. One can speculate that circles close to Metropolitan Germogen were responsible for the inclusion of the materials pertaining to Kazan martyrs in manuscript copies of what is believed to be a second recension. A considerable number of copies of the Kazanskaja istorija quite probably underwent a third editing in the seventeenth century undertaken by authors with specific personal interests who inserted words, names " PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 486-496. For the available editions of the text of Germogen's letter, see Ljubarskij, Sbomik ..., pp. 66-73; Tvorenija Germogena ..., pp. 58-62.

132

PART TWO

and hidden allusions, often quite meaningless to contemporaries, as well as to the present reader, apparently to advance some kind of material or moral gain. It is also possible that they are responsible for that lack of internal logic in this work which troubles some recent researchers. The author of the Kazanskaja istorija has not been definitely identified. For a long time the view prevailed that he was a priest, named Ioann Glazatyj. 78 Spilevskij was the first to question this assumption,79 and his doubts were later reexamined and reasserted by KunceviS. 80 The editor of the most recent critical edition of this work, Moiseeva, continued research into the author's political attitudes, on the basis of which she attempted to determine his social and professional background. 81 Most of what has been said about the author of Kazanskaja istorija rests upon internal evidence and upon a few comments which he made about himself in the text.82 From these autobiographical remarks, students of the Kazanskaja istorija drew the conclusion that the author was a Russian who was taken prisoner by the Tatar troops in the early 1530s and brought to the city of Kazan. He apparently wished to create the impression that he had an exceptional familiarity with the internal affairs of the Kazan Khanate. The statement that the Khan "knew me very well and loved me; his dignitaries respected me beyond limits" 83 implies that he was on good terms with the Tatar ruler and the court officials. He also stressed his extraordinary personal relationship with 78

V. N. Tatiscev, Istorija rossijskaja (7 vols.; Moscow-Leningrad, 1962-1968), I, p. 85; A. N. Pypin, Istorija russkoj literatury (4 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1911-1913*), II, p. 483. Spilevskij, Drevnie goroda ..., pp. 560-561. 80 KunceviC, Istorija ..., pp. 551-567. 81 Moiseeva, TODRL IX (1953), pp. 266-288. 82 He explains his personal acquaintance with the Khanate in the following way: "Because of my sins it happened that I was taken prisoner by the barbarians and was led away to Kazan. And I was given as a gift to the Kazanian Tsar [Sefa Girey]. And the Tsar took me with love to serve him, and in the court he let me wait upon him. And I was living there for twenty years. During the conquest of Kazan, I left Kazan under protection of the Muscovite Tsar's name. The Tsar thus baptized me, added me to the ranks of the Christian faithful, and granted me some land as an udel. And I began to serve him faithfully" (PSRL XIX [1903], pp. 3, 192). There are additional instances where the author alludes to his personal experiences directly. In the chapter, "About the Invasion of the Russian Land by the Kazanians, and About the Defamation of the Holy Churches and the Abuse of the Orthodox Christians by Them", the author states: "This I saw with my own eyes — and I write, having seen this bitter lot" (PSRL XIX [1903], p. 47; KI/M, p. 76). Relating the prophecies about the fall of Kazan, the author remarks that "there occurred a third omen in my presence, when at that time I was still living in Kazan" (PSRL XIX [1903], p. 67; KI/M, p. 91). "

PSRL XIX (1903), p. 3; KI/M, p. 44.

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

133

authoritative circles in the following words: "And I heard by word of mouth many things from the Tsar and from his dignitaries".84 In addition, the author displayed some compassion for the Kazanian Tatars. This is perticularly revealing in the chapter, entitled "About the Fall of the Valiant Kazanians", as well as in his portrait of Siiyiin Bike, "very beautiful and very wise in reasoning".86 He relates, with warm sympathy, events from her life and her deportation to Muscovy with her infant son Otemi? Girey. Some statements by the author of Kazanskaja istorija provide further details about his personality. By implication he must have renounced his Christian faith and become a Muslim (which was common among the prisoners taken from Russian lands); otherwise there would have been no need to return him to Christianity. He indicated his being a beneficiary of the Kazan conquest, like so many of his contemporaries who received grants of land in the course of the subsequent Russian colonization. These autobiographical comments, together with other circumstantial factors (ideological interpretations and the use of sources), have prompted Moiseeva to propose the hypothesis that the author of the Kazanskaja istorija was an "ideological supporter of the emerging dvorjanstvo" and one "of the Russian scribes" to whom Prince Kurbskij referred in a highly critical manner.88 M. N. Tixomirov expressed the opinion that the author was "a man of service".87 Already KunceviC had shown that a number of items attested in the Kazanskaja istorija are corroborated exclusively by information to be found in diplomatic papers.88 This congruence of sources would suggest that the author of the former was connected with the circles of the PosoVskij prikaz,89 On the other hand, such a conclusion does not explain his dependence on the variety of official chronicles and ecclesiasti"

PSRL XIX (1903), p. 3; KI/M, p. 44. PSRL XIX (1903), p. 80; KI/M, p. 99. Cf. Moiseeva, TODRL XII (1956), pp. 174187. M Moiseeva, TODRL IX (1953), p. 286. Cf. Fennell (ed.), Prince Kurbsky's History..., pp. 96-97. " Tixomirov, Istolnikovedenie ..., p. 265. While rejecting the evidence of the autobiographical remarks altogether, Keenan followed a similar line of reasoning, by suggesting that Kazanskaja istorija arose in the circles ofprikaznye d'jaki, and by juxtaposing names (Obljaz—d'jak Gavrilo Oblezov; Pankratij's Day — d'jak Grigorij Pankrat'ev) he attempt»! to pinpoint the authors of two different versions ("Muscovy and Kazan' pp. 48,65-71; Annals XI; 1-2 [31-32] [1964-1968], pp. 172,175-176). While it may be possible that these d'jaki, or their scribes, modified some texts for their own purposes, the proof for their authorship remains inconclusive and insufficient. 88 KunceviC, Istorija ..., pp. 321-322, 331, 374. " Keenan, "Muscovy and K a z a n ' . . . " , p. 51. M

134

PART TWO

cal materials evident in this work. In other words, either the author, or authors, of the Kazanskaja istorija had access to different offices and chanceries, or representatives of various interested institutions participated in the compilation of the material for this treatise and saw to it that their point of view was incorporated. Therefore, it would be more justifiable to speak of an editor or compiler of the Kazanskaja istorija than of a single author. The term author/compiler seems most appropriate. In analyzing this work, one is struck by a very peculiar feature, namely the author's or editor's lack of any interest in the Khanate of Astrakhan and in Siberia. Apparently he was not tempted to draw parallels on the continuing Muscovite Eastern expansion as did the Kniga stepennaja or the Chronograph of 1617,90 for example. Instead, one finds in the text a considerable preoccupation with historical and political problems of the Belorussian and Ukrainian lands which formed a part of the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth ("second Kiev", Lutheran Rus', the invitation of Mixail Olel'kovió to Novgorod, the issue of Volhynia and Podolia). Should a linguistic analysis reveal a number of Belorussian/Ukrainian borrowings, a hypothesis could be advanced that the author, or editor, was an immigrant from the Belorussian, or the Ukrainian lands. If, however, no such borrowings can be attested, the interest in the Western Rus' probably has to be explained by the ideological repercussions of the Livonian war. Kazanskaja istorija was written with propagandistic intent. Since the dissemination of political propaganda was directed by the court and the ecclesiastical circles, it is highly improbable that a lesser government official would have made a decision to write or compile such a work; he could only have been its executor. Therefore, the work in question should be viewed as an official or at least a semi-official treatise. In its general interpretation of the historical significance of the Kazan conquest, the Kazanskaja istorija corroborated the evaluation of the official chronicles. The work stressed the Tsar's personal accomplishments in the same fashion as did the Carstvennaja kniga. It exalted his image as a The seventeenth-century Chronograph eulogized the deeds of Ivan IV in the following words: "Byst' ze i vo slovesnoj premudrosti ritor, estestvosloven, i smySleniem bystroumen, dobrozrafien ze i blagoserd v voinstvé, eS6e ze i zitie blagoiestivo imyj, i revnost'ju po Boie prisno prepojasasja, ize blagonadeznyja pobedy muzestvom okrestnyja mnogonarodnyja carstva prijat', Kazan' i Astraxan', i Sibirskuju zemlju" (A. Popov [ed.], Izbornik slavjanskix i russkix soiinenij i state), vnesennyx r xronografy russkoj redakcii [Prilozenie k Obzoru Xronografov russkoj redakcii] [Moscow, 1869], p. 183).

THE NATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONQUEST

135

ruler-conqueror and dedicated guardian of his country's well-being. The work linked the problem of internal and external peace with the relative position of Muscovy and other powers after the conquest of Kazan and with the subsequent expansion of the new empire. And there was during his [Ivan IV's] reign great tranquility in the whole Russian land, [and] all trouble, and disturbances, and great robbery, and rapacity and theft ceased, and they were not even mentioned, as it had been under his father. And the frequent barbarian invasions stopped; the pagan Tsars were frightened by his might, and the impious kings were afraid of his sword, and the Nogai military commanders, the mirzas, grieved over their shining lances and shields, and the Germans with the Grand Master became frightened and escaped from the industrious town of Ratibor. And he destroyed the aspirations of the warhappy Kazanians and the heads of the Cheremissians were bowed in humility. And the Russian borders, which had been shrunken by enemies, he expanded in all directions and extended to the shores of the sea, and populated [the land] with countless human settlements.'1 It was obvious to the circles responsible for the compilation of the Kazanskaja istorija that Kazan was finally defeated because it had to pay for the wars and bloody acts of its origins and history. Kazanskaja istorija regarded peace as an ideal condition. It denounced war as "a barbarian deed and trade". 92 There was, however, no doubt in the mind of its author or editor that peace could be achieved best under Muscovite auspices. Only after the Muscovite Tsardom was victorious and had achieved its political goals, would serenity and security prevail. Peace was also connected with the victory of Orthodox Christianity over alien beliefs and the establishment of the true faith in the conquered land. At the same time, the work advocated imperial growth and territorial expansion. A passage from the chapter "In Praise of the City of Kazan" reflects with unmistakable clarity its purposeful and apologetic character: And [he] who does not wonder, and who does not praise God for this [conquest of Kazan] is a heretic and [like] the unfaithful foreigners, who are the only ones who do not welcome Christian well-being, and [who have] a brooding evil in their hearts, as they are gnawed by envy when they see the Christian faith expanding and their faith disappearing in the face of Christian power, and the Russian land extending and expanding and the people of the nation multiplying.93

11

" "

KljM, pp. 175-176.

KljM, p. 176. KJ/M, p. 163.

PART THREE

Vili THE THEORY O F BULGAR-KAZAN CONTINUITY: T H E PROJECTION O F MUSCOVITE POLITICAL IDEAS INTO TURKIC A N D EAST EUROPEAN HISTORY

Muscovite historians/ideologists of the sixteenth century were not content with the projection of contemporary political issues into Russian history exclusively. In order to strengthen the "rights" of Russian rulers to the Kazan Khanate, they ventured into the history of its territory with the aim of substantiating these "rights" by means of the idea of Bulgar-Kazan continuity, an intriguing parallel to their Kiev-Muscovy translatio theory. Furthermore they projected contemporary Muscovite ideologicpolitical concerns into the history of the Turkic, as well as East European, peoples, and integrated them, together with the notion of Bulgar-Kazan continuity, into a new conception of their past (cf. Map 3 for the geographical aspects of Bulgar-Kazan continuity). These additional claims and assertions were formulated in the Nikon Chronicle, the relevant parts of which were compiled and edited during the second third of the sixteenth century,1 and in the Kazanskaja istorija. 1

Since the Nikon Chronicle provides certain claims to Bulgar-Tatar "continuity", as well as some other important ideological elements, a brief survey of the components and the sources of this famous work might be useful. While it has been established that the Letopisec naiala carstva is the chief source for the Nikon compilation for the years 1534-1553, the question of the sources prior to that period remains obscure. Saxmatov was the first to show that the Voskresensk Chronicle was the main source for the period 1521-1541, the date of the invasion by the Crimean Khan Sahip Girey — as most of the versions of the Nikon Chronicle coincide with the corresponding text of the Voskresensk Chronicle (Obozrenie letopisnyx svodov ..., pp. 68, 72. See also N. P. LixaCev, Paleografiieskoe znalenie bumainyx vodjanyx znakov [2 Parts, St. Petersburg, 1899], I, p. clxiv; D. S. Lixaiev, Russkie letopisi..., pp. 477-478). According to Saxmatov, the Voskresensk Chronicle was compiled in the 1530s or 1540s. He assumed the existence of three recensions of the latter (1534, 1537, 1541), of which only the last recension has been preserved (Obozrenie letopisnyx svodov ..., pp. 67, 84-86). The latest research has shown that the last recension of the Voskresensk Chronicle originates from the time between March 19, 1542 and October 8, 1544 (S. A. Levina, "O vremeni sostavlenija i sostavitele Voskresenskoj letopisi XVI veka", TODRL XI [1955], p. 376; "Voskresenskaja letopis' XVI v. [ee redakcii, istoíniki i znaóenie]", TGIAIX 11957], p. 402. V. V. Laptev dates the compilation of the third recension in 15421543 ["Voskresenskaja letopis'", Uéenye Zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogiceskogo instituía imeniA. /. Gercena CII {1955}, p. 186]. For additional com-

140

PART THREE

Important chapters and entire "Tales" of the Nikon Chronicle were modified to prove the continuity between the old Bulgar state and the Kazan Khanate. By inserting certain supplementary elements and by new adaptations of these chapters and "Tales", the editors of the Nikon Chronicle made a conscious effort to eradicate the memory of the old ments on the Voskresensk Chronicle, see S. A. Levina, "K izuieniju Voskresenskoj letopisi ...", TODRL XIII [1957], pp. 689-705). Another significant advance in the information about the Nikon Chronicle was the establishment by A. A. Saxmatov of the Ioasaf Chronicle as an important source for the period 1437-1520 ("Ioasafovskaja Ietopis'", ¿urnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveSlenija [cited hereafter as ÍMNP] CCCLIII:5 [1904], Sec. 2. p. 70). Acknowledging apparent differences between the texts of the Ioasaf and Nikon Chronicles for the time 1437-1453, Saxmatov observed that the Ioasaf version "was almost identical with the Nikon Chronicle" for the period 14531520 (ibid., pp. 70-73). On the basis of his analysis, he concluded that the earliest version of the Nikon Chronicle covered the period until 1520, and that it was compiled around 1529-1539 by Ioasaf, the Superior of the Troickij Monastery (ibid., pp. 78-79). A. E. Presnjakov modified Saxmatov's findings somewhat by showing that for the period 1437-March 1461, the Ioasaf Chronicle corresponded with the Voskresensk Chronicle in outline and in the order of events ("Ioasafovskaja Ietopis'", IZ VIII [1940], p. 242). He agreed that beginning with April 1461, the texts of the Ioasaf Chronicle and the Nikon Chronicle were almost identical. Presnjakov argued that it was not the Ioasaf Chronicle itself, but a compilation very closely related to this work, which was the direct source of the Nikon Chronicle for the period to 1520 (ibid., p. 247), a view accepted by Zimin who has published the text of the Ioasaf Chronicle (IL, p. 10). According to Zimin, this Chronicle must have been compiled in the Metropolitan's chancery because it contains a great deal of material concerning tranfers of church dignitaries. Since the Ioasaf Chronicle displays strong Josephan tendencies, Zimin speculates that it was compiled "in the chancery of the Metropolitan Daniil [1522-1539]" (ibid., p. 11). Another contribution by Saxmatov was the establishing of the Russian Chronograph as a major source of the Nikon compilation. He proved that the compilers of the Nikon Chronicle made extensive use of Byzantine, Serbian and Bulgarian materials contained in the Russian Chronograph (A. A. Saxmatov, "K voprosu o proisxozdenii Xronografa", SORJaS LXV1: 8 [1899], pp. 28-42). The Russian Chronograph constitutes an ideal entity, composed of a variety of Chronographs (the Russian Chronograph of 1512 was published in PSRL XXII [1911], Part I). The first important item to be adopted by the Nikon Chronicle from the Russian Chronograph dealt with the baptism of the Bulgarians (PSRL IX [1862/1965], p. 7). As Saxmatov pointed out, it is more difficult to establish which piece of information was the last to be taken from the Chronograph. The "Short Tale About the Latins" to be found in the Nikon Chronicle under the year 1443 (PSRL XII [1901/1965], pp. 54ff.) was also used by the editor of the Chronograph in connection with the discussion of the Council of Florence (Saxmatov, SORJaS LXVI:8 [1889], p. 29). Additional borrowings from the Chronograph can be found up to the year 1520 (ibid., p. 114). The compilers of the Nikon Chronicle not only adopted items pertaining to Balkan history from the Chronograph, but frequently used information about Russian affairs, as well as entire articles and brief histories (ibid., p. 54). On the basis of the analysis of the texts and the language of the Russian Chronograph, A. A. Saxmatov concluded that this work was compiled in 1442 by Paxomij the Serbian (Logophet) ("Paxomij Logofet i Xronograf", ¿MNP CCCXXI:1 [1899], Sec. 2, pp.

THE THEORY OF BULGAR-KAZAN CONTINUITY

141

Bulgars and to convince the reader that the Kazan Khanate had existed from "antiquity". This identification of the Bulgar state with Kazan was aimed at simplifying and streamlining ideological concepts and at clarifying the lines o f political continuity. A m o n g others, a drastic revision of the introductory passage of the 204,206). He substantiated his conclusion by arguing that Paxomij alone could have had such broad acquaintance with Serbian literature displayed in the Chronograph and that his authorship explains the recurring Serbianisms in the text (ibid., p. 204. D. S. Lixa&v maintains that the Russian Chronograph was permeated by the "idea of all-Slavic unity" [Russkie letopisi..., p. 455]). If one accepts Saxmatov's proposition that Paxomij Logophet was the principal compiler of the Russian Chronograph, its strong antiMuslim ideological overtones become easily explainable; a Serbian author would probably have been deeply concerned with the fate of the South Slavic peoples and would no doubt express a strong anti-Mohammedan bias. This prejudice is well displayed in the "Tale About the Blasphemous Saracen Faith" adopted from the Chronograph and inserted into the Nikon Chronicle under the year 990 (PSRLIX [1862/1965], pp. 59-63; Saxmatov, SORJaS LXV1: 8 [1899], p. 37). The problem of the Russian sources of the Nikon compilation up to 1520 (and particularly for the period before 1437) is quite complicated and has not been solved as yet. A. A. Saxmatov thought that the basis for this compilation was the Chronograph version of the Fifth Novgorod Chronicle which was supplemented by materials from various other chronicles (among them, the Primary Chronicle of the Laurentian recension) and various recensions of the Russian Chronograph (Obozrenie russkix letopisnyx svodov XIV-XVI vv. [Moscow-Leningrad, 1938], p. 370). It should be added that the editors of the Nikon Chronicle also made use of materials the origins of which can be traced to the chronicles of Southern Rus'. Furthermore the compilers of the Nikon Chronicle integrated into their work certain specially edited materials from the chronicles of other Great Russian principalities, such as Muscovy's chief contender for supremacy, the Grand Principality of Tver. The establishment of the sources of the Nikon Chronicle is, of course, closely connected with the problem of its dating. The solution of the latter greatly depends on the clarification of the relationship of the two most important copies of the Nikon compilation: the Patriarch's manuscript (P) and that of Obolenskij (O). A. Byikov, in his introductory article to the edition of the Nikon Chronicle in 1862, stated that copy P was the earlier of the two; it belonged to the middle of the sixteenth century, while copy O dated from the beginning of the seventeenth (PSRL IX [1862/1965], pp. vi-vii). Originally Saxmatov held a similar view, dating the Nikon compilation into the years 1553-1554 (Obozrenie letopisnyx svodov ..., pp. 72, 86). However, he modified his proposition in the course of the discussion concerning the dating of the copies P and O and suggested 1556 as the approximate year in which the first recension of the Nikon Chronicle was composed (Obozrenie ..., p. 370). N. P. LixaScv, in his paleographic work on the watermarks found in the chronicles' manuscripts, drew opposite conclusions (Paleografiieskoe znaienie ... I, pp. 322-323). In the first place he observed that copy O was the earlier version. In addition, he contended that Obolenskij's copy could easily be subdivided into four distinct parts, the first of which (sheets 1-939) cover the period up to 1519-1520. He was convinced that this part was compiled at the end of the 1530s or the beginning of the 1540s (ibid., p. 330). S. F. Platonov described the relationship between copies O and P more accurately by observing that copy O was taken from an unknown manuscript completely independent from copy P ("K voprosu o Nikonovskom svode", Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti [cited hereafter as

142

PART THREE

famous story concerning the test of religions by Vladimir I was undertaken in this compilation. The Primary Chronicle provides a very colorful and entertaining passage about the Bulgar proposition to Vladimir to accept the Muslim faith (entry 986) to which he listened with

IORJaS] VII [1903], Bk. 3, p. 32). N. P. Lixa&v's view that copy O was the earlier one seems to have convinced most historians. For instance, Lavrov accepted the proposition that the first part of copy O (to the years 1519-1520) was an earlier manuscript of the Nikon Chronicle, and he specified the years 1539-1542 as the date for copy O (LZAK, vyp. 1, [34] [1927], p. 71). Kuz'min has recently suggested that the text of the Nikon Chronicle for the years 1445-1520 (with the exception of the insertions from the Chronograph under the year 1453) was compiled in two stages. The first stage of compiling, undertaken in the early sixteenth century, covered the events until 1503, whereas the second stage fell into the period 1539-1542 (A. G. Kuz'min, "K voprosu o vremeni sozdanija i redakcijax Nikonovskoj letopisi", AE1962 [1963], pp. 114,116. Cf. also his Rjazanskoe letopisame [Moscow, 1965], pp. 20-32). An interesting hypothesis concerning the Nikon Chronicle, its dating, the identification of one of its compilers, and another of its sources was developed by S. P. Rozanov in his studies on the Chronograph of the West Russian (or Southwest Russian) recension in its relationship to the Nikon compilation ("Xronograf Zapadno-Russkoj redakcii", LZAKXXV [1913], pp. 1-20; "Nikonovskij letopisnyj svod i Ioasaf kak odin iz ego sostavitelej", lzvestija po russkomu jazyku i slovesnosti Akademii Nauk SSSR [cited hereafter as IRJaS] III [1930], Bk. 1, pp. 269-287. The West Russian Chronograph was published in PSRL XXII [1914], Part II). Rozanov suggested that the West Russian Chronograph was compiled around 1553 and that it constituted one of the major sources of the Nikon Chronicle. He arrived at this conclusion by showing that the compiler of the West Russian Chronograph used Kronika wszytkyego iwiata by Marcin Bielski published in 1551 (Rozanov, IRJaS III [1930], Bk. 1, p. 270; LZAK XXV [1913], p. 17). Rozanov discovered in the first part of copy O a recurrent tendency of the compiler of the Nikon Chronicle "to establish, wherever possible, a dynastic continuity of princely families" {LZAK XXV [1913], p. 13; IRJaS III [1930], Bk. 1, p. 272. For examples, see PSRL X [1885/1965], pp. 22, 50,64,66, 82,87,103,119,129130, 136-137, 139, 142-144, 153, 155, 159-160, 170, 172-174, 178-179, 187-190, 230). The very same device can be detected in the West Russian Chronograph (Rozanov, LZAK XXV [1913], p. 13; m / a S III [1930], Bk. 1, pp. 272-273). Since the compiler of the West Russian Chronograph eliminated most of the materials pertaining to Russian history, there is a smaller number of instances in which the whole genealogical line of a ruler is enumerated. However, the compiler still mentioned the dynastic line when speaking about Byzantine, South Slavic and even Turkish rulers (for examples, see PSRL XXII [1914], Part II, pp. 2, 165, 183, 192, 234). Rozanov also advanced the hypothesis that Metropolitan Ioasaf was the compiler of the West Russian Chronograph and of the major part of the Nikon Chronicle (IRJaS III [1930], Bk. 1, p. 282). This hypothesis is also based on an analysis of the materials of the Nikon Chronicle under the year 1443 which pertain to the activities of Metropolitan Isidor and the Council of Florence in 1438. Rozanov showed that the compiler inserted in the Nikon Chronicle the "Short Tale About the Latins" (PSRL XII [1901/1965], pp. 54ff.) with additional polemical writings which amount altogether to twenty printed pages (Rozanov, IRJaS III [1930], Bk. 1, p. 275). He pointed out that this was somewhat unusual and that the compiler must have had some personal interest in this matter. Rozanov attributed a manuscript of the Troickij Monastery, entitled the "Book Against

THE THEORY OF BULGAR-KAZAN CONTINUITY

143

pleasure because "he w a s f o n d o f w o m e n a n d indulgence...". 2 H e allege d l y rejected their overtures since he w a s in disagreement with the basic tenets o f the M u s l i m religion regarding circumcision a n d abstinence f r o m certain types of f o o d and beverages.

"Drinking", said Vladimir, ac-

cording to the Primary Chronicle, "is t h e j o y o f the Russ.

We cannot

exist w i t h o u t that pleasure". 3 T h e p i o u s editors o f the N i k o n Chronicle m u s t h a v e been displeased by these frivolous c o m m e n t s o f the illustrious Prince w h o converted Rus' t o Christianity a n d also by the p r o m i n e n c e given t o the Bulgars. T h e entry o f the N i k o n Chronicle under t h e year 9 8 6 reports in a dry a n d f o r m a l t o n e the f o l l o w i n g occurrence: " T h e Saracens o f t h e M o h a m m e d a n faith c a m e t o Vladimir and said: ' T h o u g h t h o u art a wise and prudent

the Papists ..." to Metropolitan Ioasaf and claimed that most of the polemical writings inserted in the Nikon Chronicle under the year 1443 were actually taken from the former (ibid., p. 283). On the basis of his studies of the adaptations from the West Russian Chronograph in the Nikon Chronicle, Rozanov became convinced that Iosaf edited copy O only up to the year 1454 (ibid., p. 275). The entry under the year 1445 contains the last genealogical line mentioned. The compiler may also have adopted the material concerning the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 from the West Russian Chronograph. From 1454 to 1520, the Nikon Chronicle coincides almost verbatim with the Ioasaf Chronicle. Rozanov explained this congruence with the interruption of editorial work when Ioasaf died in 1555 or 1556, and the subsequent mechanical addition of material in the Nikon compilation for the period between 1454 and 1520 (ibid., pp. 286-287). In other words, the Ioasaf Chronicle or a closely related text which had been the main source of the Nikon compilation until 1520, was no longer edited but was simply inserted. Rozanov maintained that the earliest final version of the Nikon Chronicle was compiled in the years 1553-1556. His outline of its major sources after 1520 coincided with Saxmatov's and Lavrov's views. For the period 1521-1534 the Voskresensk Chronicle was its main source; from 1534 to 1553 the Nikon Chronicle used the Letopisec naiala carslva, and after 1553, the "Draft copies" for the Chronicle of the "New Years" which has never been completed. So far, the Rozanov hypothesis concerning Ioasaf's role as the chief compiler of the Nikon Chronicle as well as its dating has been either completely or at least partially accepted by specialists on Muscovite chronicle writing (cf. A. A. Zimin, Russkie letopisi 1 xronografy konca XV-XVI vv. [Moscow, 1960], p. 20; A. N. Nasonov, Istorija russkogo letopisanija XI - naiala XVIII veka [Moscow, 1969], p. 408). In conclusion, it ought to be pointed out that the Nikon Chronicle, a monumental and highly complex work of Muscovite historiography of the sixteenth century, has not been adequately investigated and still poses many unresolved problems with regard t o its sources and the dating of its components, as well as the entire compilation. Recently scholars in the Soviet Union and in the West have resumed the research on the Nikon Chronicle, the results of which will hopefully be published in the near future and contribute to the solution of at least some of the many unknowns of this intriguing work 2 RPCh, p. 97. » RPCh, p. 97.

144

PART THREE

Prince, thou hast no religion. Adopt our faith, and revere Mohammed.' Vladimir inquired about their religion, and he did not like it".4 The compilers of the Nikon Chronicle apparently also felt that the Bulgars could not act as the representatives of one of the major religions tested by Vladimir, so they replaced the name "Bulgar" with the more common term "Saracen". The assessment in the Primary Chronicle speaks for the continuous significance of the Bulgars and their status in the tenth century. Of greater interest, however, is what the compilers did with the "Tale About the Origin of the [Veneration] of the True Cross on the First of August". An edited version of this literary work was included in the Nikon Chronicle under the year 1157,5 although the campaign against the Bulgars took place in 1164.® Its text represents an adaptation of the "Tale About the Victory Against the Bulgars in 1164 and the Feast of the Savior", which, in turn, is closely correlated with the "Tale About the Miracles of the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir", originating from the twelfth century.7 The "Tale About the Victory Against the Bulgars in 1164 and the Feast of the Savior" was first published as an integral part of the "Tale About the Miracles of the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir" from Miljutin's Cetii minei of the mid-seventeenth century.8 A full text of this very same "Tale" from a sixteenth-century "Prologue", a text which coincides with another version of the identical story to be found in a sixteenth-century Sbornik of the Jaroslav Museum, entitled "Tale About God's Grace by Grand Prince Andrej", 9 was made available by I. E. Zabelin.10 He advanced the hypothesis that Andrej Bogoljubskij was personally involved in the compilation of this "Tale".11 His view was based upon references 4

PSRL IX (1862/1965), p. 42. PSRL IX (1862/1965), p. 210. • PSRL I (1926-1928»/1962), pp. 352-353. For the historical background of the veneration of the True Cross, cf. Sergij, Polnyj mesjaceslov Vostoka (2 vols., Vladimir, 1901*), II, pp. 294-299. 7 For a recent discussion of the texts and the relevant literature on this subject, see D. B. Miller, "Legends of the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir: A Study of the Development of Muscovite National Consciousness", Speculum XLIII: 4 (1968), pp. 657-670. 8 V. O. Kljuievskij (ed.), "Skazanie o Sudesax Vladimirskoj ikony Boziej Materi", ObSiestvo ljubitelej drevnej pis'meimosti (cited hereafter as OLDP) XXX (1878), pp. 10, 21-26. * N. N. Voronin, "Skazanie o pobede nad Bolgarami 1164 g. i prazdnike Spasa", Problemy obSiestvenno-politiieskoj istorii Rossii i slavjanskix strcm, Sbornik states k 70-letiju akademika M. N. Tixomirova, ed. V. I. Sunkov (Moscow, 1963), p. 88. 10 I. E. Zabelin, "Sledy literaturnogo truda Andreja Bogoljubskogo", Arxeologileskie izvestija i zametki (cited hereafter as A1Z) 2-3 (1895), pp. 46-47. 11 Ibid., p. 45. 6

THE THEORY OF BULGAR-KAZAN CONTINUITY

145

such as "sinful and unworthy servant of thine, Andrej...", 12 or "Lord, grant repentance to me the sinner...", 13 references which could have originated with the Prince himself. Recently, Voronin has carried Zabelin's proposition much further by offering additional evidence for Andrej Bogoljubskij's personal participation in the writing of this literary document.14 The Zabelin-Voronin hypothesis is disputed by Sevcenko who quotes the statement by the author of the "Tale" ("I wrote by order of Emperor Manuel...") 16 and convincingly argues that "it is risky to look for Bogoljubskij's own prose in a text with as many anachronisms in prosopography and titulature as the Story of 1164".18 The "Tale" was one of several "publicistic works written under this prince's auspices to enhance the prestige of his own principality...".17 It is relatively safe to assume that the "Tale" was composed sometime between 1164 and 1174, the year of Bogoljubskij's death. The "Tale About the Victory Against the Bulgars in 1164 and the Feast of the Savior" embraces a variety of religious and ideological elements. The story combines two major religious themes; it deals with the miracle of the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir and is dedicated to the Feast of the Veneration of the True Cross on the First of August. Voronin attributes this double dedication to the existence of a twelfth-century icon with images on both sides: the obverse portrayed the Savior, and the reverse depicted a cross with angels bowing before it. He further claims that this particular icon was taken along during Andrej's campaign of 1164.18 Voronin's explanation is not sufficient, however, because the "Tale" reports quite clearly that "Prince Andrej had the custom, whenever he went to war, always [to take along] with pure soul the Icon of the Blessed Lady, the Mother of our God, the Virgin Mary, and the True Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ...". 19 Since the "Tale" is quite explicit on the nature of the religious objects taken along, it is possible that two objects were carried during the campaign — an icon of Our Lady and a cross, or an icon of Our Lady and another icon depicting the " Zabelin, AIZ 2-3 (1895), p. 47. " "Skazanie o Cudesax OLDP XXX (1878), p. 26. " Voronin, Problemy ..., pp. 91-92. " "Skazanie o Cudesax ...", OLDP XXX (1878), p. 26. " I. SevCenko, "Russo-Byzantine Relations after the Eleventh Century", Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, ed. J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, S. Runciman (London, 1967), p. 95, n. 2. " Ibid., p. 95. " Voronin, Problemy ..., p. 89. " "Skazanie o PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 229. u

264

PART FOUR

attended by Tsar Ivan IV, members of the imperial family, Metropolitan Makarij and by many boyars. 71 The new convert was provided with a residence in the capital and received the privileges of an appanage prince. 78 On November 5,1554, Yadigar Mehmet-Simeon was married to a daughter of a Muscovite dignitary, Andrej Kutuzov. 73 It deserves to be noted that Simeon participated in the ceremony of the investiture of Gurij as Archbishop of Kazan on February 3, 1555.74 Ironically enough, Yadigar Mehmet-Simeon, along with many other converted and Muslim Tatars, was sent on military campaigns against a Christian country, neighboring Poland-Lithuania. He is prominently mentioned in connection with the campaign which led to the conquest of Polock (1563).76 One reason for this campaign was the desire for the extirpation of "Lutheranism" in the Belorussian land. Having fulfilled his duties as a good Christian, Yadigar Mehmet-Simeon died on August 26, 1565.76 The frequent baptisms and intermarriages of Tatar princes signify that the Muscovite court was not prejudiced against converts. Once a Tatar accepted Orthodoxy he was regarded as an equal and could make as great a career as his Russian counterpart with like qualifications. Prominent Tatars were permitted to assimilate into Muscovite society by marrying into leading Russian families, including that of the Grand Prince or later the Tsar himself. They were allowed to become members of the ruling elite and to join the entourage of the ruler. After their death, they were accorded due honors and laid to rest in the most famous places of repose. For instance, Kuday Kul-Petr and 0term5 GireyAleksandr were buried in the Arxangel'skij Sobor, next to the most outstanding members of the Muscovite dynasty.77 The conversion of Tatar princes to Christianity was viewed by contemporary Muscovites as proof of the victorious advance of the Orthodox religion against Islam. Their thinking is best summarized in a special chapter (12), entitled "About the Baptism of Two Kazan Tsars and Many Other Tatars" incorporated into the "Tale" about the conquest of Kazan in the Kniga stepennaja: And at that time, as well as before and after, many pagans were baptized: men " PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 230. " PSRL Xni (1906/1965), Part II, p. 528. *» PSRL x m (1904/1965), Part I, p. 235. The Russian name Kutuzov is apparently derived from the Turkic word kuduz, meaning 'mad dog' or 'faricas'. " PSRL XIU (1904/1965), Part I, p. 250. " PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 303-305, 311-314. PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 347. " PSRL XHI (1904/1965), Part I, p. 8.

THE EXPANSION OF THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FAITH

265

and women, old and young, girls and people of all ages, and from the imperial gens and from princely rank, from the Crimea, Kazan and Astrakhan, and from the Nogai [Horde], and from the Mordvinian and Cheremissian and other Hordes.78 An analysis of the program and the policies promulgated by the Muscovite government in close cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church after the annexation of the Kazan Khanate with the aim of converting its population to Christianity actually lies outside the scope of this study. Nevertheless, a review of the major issues involved will contribute to a better understanding of the realization of the initial ideological goals. Russian authorities, immediately after the conquest of the city of Kazan, began to support the efforts of the Church in order to establish its presence in the newly acquired territory. Already in February of 1553, the Troice-Sergiev Monastery was granted three charters by Ivan IV; one of them entitled the Monastery to obtain land in the city of Kazan, while the other two extended custom privileges to this ecclesiastical institution in the Kazan area.79 However, the movement to convert the masses of the Kazanian population to Orthodoxy gained impetus as a result of the establishment of the Kazan archbishopric. The investiture of the new Archbishop of Kazan and Svijaisk was performed in a great state act on February 3, 1555.80 Tsar Ivan IV, Metropolitan Makarij and a host of seventy-six archbishops, bishops, archimandrites, abbots and deacons took part in the splendid ceremony. The Chronicles emphasize that, in addition, all the boyars and service princes, as well as many members of the nobility, were present. The Muscovite government invited Jurij Tyskevyd, the envoy of the Polish-Lithuanian ruler Zygmunt August, and the representatives of the Prince of Wallachia to participate in this major state occasion.81 This may well have been done to advertise Muscovy's efforts to expand the Christian faith at the expense of Islam. Such demonstrations would enhance Muscovy's image in the eyes of the anti-Turkish rulers. The new Kazan archbishopric occupied a very prominent place in the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church from the very beginning. " PSRL XXI (1913), Part U, p. 650. " For an analysis of the charters and the land policy of the Muscovite government in the 1550s, see the informative article by S. M. KaStanov, "Zemel'no-immunitetnaja politika russkogo pravitel'stva v Kazanskom krae v 50-x godax XVI v. (Po aktovomu materialu)", Uienye Zapiski Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogiieskogo instituta, vyp. 80, Iz istorii Tatarii, Sbornik IV (Kazan, 1970), pp. 164-203. 80 PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 250-251; PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 234-235. 91 PSRL Xffl (1904/1965), Part I, p. 250; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 235; SIRIO CIX (1887), p. 462.

266

PART FOUR

"The Tsar and Grand Prince and the Metropolitan with his entire Council granted to the Archbishop of Kazan and Svijaisk the rank below that of the Archbishop of Great Novgorod and Pskov and above that of the Archbishop of Rostov".82 This was an extraordinary distinction, if one considers the great and ancient tradition of the Rostov archbishopric and the fact that Kazan did not have to become a bishopric before having been elevated to the rank of an archbishopric. In the "History of the Narratives About the Bishoprics which are Subordinated and Obedient to the Metropolitan of Kiev and of All Rus'", compiled probably at the end of sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, the "Kazan and Bulgar Archbishopric" was assigned third place, having been superseded by the "Cernigov Archbishopric".83 Soon after the establishment of the Patriarchate in Muscovy (May 13,1589), Germogen, the new Archbishop of Kazan, was promoted to the status of a Metropolitan and received the second rank in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, following that of the Metropolitan of Novgorod and Pskov.84 The first Archbishop of Kazan, Gurij, was an exponent of the Josephan orientation in the Muscovite Church. Prior to his investiture, he had been an Abbot of the Volokalamsk and Selizerov Monasteries. He enjoyed the special confidence of Metropolitan Makarij, and, above all, of Tsar Ivan IV himself. One of the passages in the Tsar's letter of April 5, 1557, to Gurij 86 reads as follows: "O God! How happy would the Russian land be if all the bishops and elders were like Reverend Makarij, thou [Gurij] and Dionisij and would care for [spiritual matters] and not only for their own well-being and their riches, tranquility, and [indulgence] in entertainments and delicacies, not to speak of other things".86 Gurij left Moscow on May 26, 1555, to take over his duties as Archbishop of Kazan, 87 accompanied by Archimandrites German (the second Archbishop of Kazan) and Varsonofij.88 German was to organize a monastery 82 PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 250; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 235. For a general account of the beginnings of the Kazan archbishopric, see I. Pokrovskij, Russkie eparxii v XVI-XIX vv., ix otkritie, sostav i predeli (2 vols.; Kazan, 1897-1913), I, pp. 126-144; Kazanskij Arxierejskij dom, ego sredstva i Staty preimuSiestvenno do 1764 goda (Kazan, 1906), pp. 6-16, 25-30, 39-44, 77-80, 95-99, 272-285. " PSRL IX (1862/1965), p. xiii. 84 Kedrov, ¿izneopisanie Sv. Germogena ..., pp. 18-19. 86 PDRVV (1789), pp. 241-244. M PDRVW (1789), p. 242. 87 PSRL XIII (1904/1965), Part I, p. 259; PSRL XXIX (1965), p. 240. 88 Ljubarskij, Sbornik ...,pp. 17-18; Tvorenija Germogena ..., pp.41-42. Forasurvey of the lives and activities of the three ecclesiastics, see G. Z. Eliseev, ¿izneopisanie svjatitelej Gurija, Germana i Varsonofija, kazanskix i svijaiskix cudotvorcev (Kazan, 1847).

THE EXPANSION OF THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FAITH

267

in Svijazsk whereas Varsonofij received a more important assignment — the establishment of a new monastery in Kazan itself. The first Archbishop of Kazan served in this capacity for eight years and seven months; he died on December 4, 1563.89 German was appointed as Archbishop of Kazan on March 12, 1564,90 and retained this position with a brief interruption until his violent death in the course of the opriënina purges on November 6, 1568.91 The Tsar's orders regarding the duties of the Archbishop in the newlyacquired land and his specific instruction of May 1555, provide a detailed program for the conversion of the Kazan Tatars to Orthodox Christianity.92 Ivan IV admonished Gurij, as well as the Governor of Kazan, Prince Petr IvanoviC Sujskij, to cooperate closely with each other in all political and judicial matters "without resorting to slyness".93 The only exceptions were cases involving murder. As far as the problem of conversion was concerned, the Tsar's directive emphasized that the Archbishop should proceed cautiously and without application of force. He advised Gurij "to talk to them [the Tatars] gently and to convert them to Christian law, and to converse with them calmly and with tenderness, and to refrain from speaking to them in a cruel manner". 94 It was recommended to Gurij that he employ subtle measures to influence the prospective converts. Among others, he was expected to invite Tatars to his residence and to be hospitable to them; food and drinks of kvas and mead were thought to be an excellent means of convincing those who were considering conversion. "The newly baptized shall always be taught how to fear the Lord; they shall be trained, fed and treated to drink, and shown mercy, and cared for in every respect, so that other nonbelievers, seeing such piety and care, and mercy for the newly baptized, shall also embrace the true Christian law and shall be enlightened with the holy baptism...". 98 Most significant was the counsel with regard to those Tatars who would fall into conflict with law. In this respect the Tsar's instruction quite frankly stated that "a Tatar who becometh guilty [of a crime] and fleeth to him [the Archbishop] from punishment, and expresseth the desire to be baptized, shall under no circumstances be returned to the "» Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., p. 21 ; Tvorenija Germogena ..., p. 44; PSRLXXVK(1965), p. 325. » PSRL XIII (1906/1965), Part II, p. 382. " For a discussion of the dating of German's death and the relevant literature, see Zimin, Opricnina Ivana Groznogo, pp. 255-256, n. 8. •2 AAEI (1836), No. 241, pp. 257-261. M AAE I (1836), N o . 241, p. 259. " AAE I (1836), N o . 241, p. 260. •5 AAE I (1836), N o . 241, p. 259.

268

PART FOUR

voevody, but shall be baptized and kept [by the Archbishop] who [thereupon] shall hold council with the governors and the voevody".w In addition to the indirect encouragements of Christianization, such as pardoning those who committed crimes and granting economic favors to the newly baptized, the Muscovite government embarked upon an extensive colonization program in the territory of the former Kazan Khanate, in which the service nobility, merchants and peasants participated. After the insurrections of 1553-1556, the remaining Tatar population in the city of Kazan was deported beyond its boundaries and settled in a newly founded, adjoining Tatar town. In the years 1565-1568, Russian population outnumbered the local Tatars in the greater Kazan city area.97 Thus, the government used a combination of factors — material inducements and coercion (colonization) — to influence the Tatars and other nationalities to accept the new religion. It is, therefore, quite obvious that only the most strong-willed and dedicated Muslims could resist such pressures and continue to adhere to their own faith and customs. The ideological guidelines for the conversion of the local Tatar population to Christianity as reflected in the Tsar's instruction of May 1555, and his letter of April 1557, to Gurij, were augmented by immediate material aid extended by the secular authority to the Church in the annexed territory in the form of considerable financial support, 98 fishing rights and land grants.99 In fact, certain lands given to the Archbishopric of Kazan actually came from the property of the former khans.100 Furthermore the Tsar offered assistance in furnishing religious books and liturgical objects to the churches in the recently acquired territory. This particular involvement of the Russian ruler in the propagation of Orthodox Christianity is attested in the Epilogue of the famous Apostol, printed by Ivan Fedorov and Petr Mstislavec in Moscow in 1564.101 In the Epilogue, which offers a brief history of the origins of book printing in Muscovy, it is explicitly stated that "on account of the orders of the M

AAEI (1836), No. 241, p. 260. " A. N. Grigor'ev, "Xristianizacija nerusskix narodnostej, kak odin iz metodov nacional'no-kolonial'noj politiki carizma v Tatarii (S poloviny XVI v. do fevralja 1917 g.)", Materialy po istorii Tatarii, vyp. I (Kazan, 1948), pp. 227-228. - AAE I (1836), No. 241, p. 261. " For the text of the relevant charter granted to Gurij on August 13, 1555, cf. Al I (1841), No. 162, pp. 298-299. 100 For the text of the charter granted by Mixail FedoroviC to the Kazan Metropolitan Matvej on November 25, 1626, in which the reference to the tranfer of khan's land to Archbishop Gurij is made, see Pokrovskij, Kazanskij Arxierejskij dom,..., pp. vii-xviii. 101 For the facsimile reproduction of the Epilogue, see M. N. Tixomirov, A. A. Sidorova and A. N. Nazarova (eds.), U istokov russkogo knigopeiatanija (Moscow, 1959), pp. 217-219.

THE EXPANSION OF THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FAITH

269

pious Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviS, the Autocrat of All Great Russia, and with the blessing of the Most Reverend Makarij, the Metropolitan of all Rus', many churches were erected in the imperial city of Moscow and in the neighboring places and in all cities of his Tsardom, especially in the newly Christianized place, in the city of Kazan and its limits. And the pious Tsar adorned all these holy churches with venerable icons and holy books, and vessels, and chasubles and other ecclesiastical objects ...". 102 Since there was an urgent need for liturgical books the Tsar arranged extensive purchases of them. However, the majority of these books turned out to be of little value on account of the textual mistakes found in them, made by incompetent and ignorant copyists. It has been pointed out in scholarly literature that the decision to sponser book printing in Muscovy, reached by the Tsar in closest cooperation with Metropolitan Makarij, was motivated by the Kazanian problem103 and by the necessity for the unification of liturgical texts.104 The inclusion of the Kazan issue in a literary work such as the Apostol, which is regarded as one of the high achievements of sixteenth-century Muscovite culture and an example of the process of its modernization, along with the Tsar's readiness to employ new techniques in the dissemination of the Orthodox religion, testifies to the extent of the government's participation in the conversion program. All these economic, as well as organizational measures prove that Christianization and, in consequence, Russification were integral elements of official state policy from the very beginning. An evaluation of the Russian proselytizing activities of Gurij and his subordinates in the conquered Kazanian territory was undertaken at the end of the sixteenth century. Germogen, the first Metropolitan of Kazan and Astrakhan, and later a Patriarch of all Russia, wrote a "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij" very soon after the discovery of the latter's relics (October 4, 1595), probably in 1596 or 1597.108 Germogen (ca. 1530-February 17, 1612) had risen to ecclesiastical prominence during his service in 102

U istokov russkogo knigopedatanija, p. 217. The existence of printed books in the Kazanian area (Svijaisk) is confirmed by the Cadaster Books of Svijafck from the years 1565-1567. Cf. Spisok s piscovoj i mezevoj knigi goroda Svijazska i uezda (Kazan, 1909), p. 27. 10 ' Golubinskij was convinced that the establishment of the Kazan archbishopric served as the most immediate reason for the introduction of book printing in Muscovy (Istorija russkoj cerkvi, n , Part I, p. 801). 104 M. N. Tixomirov, "Naialo knigopeiatanija v Rossii", in: U istokov russkogo knigopeiatanija, p. 21. m For the text of this "Life", cf. Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., pp. 7-32; Tvorenija Germogena ..., pp. 35-51. For its dating, see Klju£evskij, Drevnerusskija iitija svjatyx ..., p. 305; Kedrov, ¿izneopisame Sv. Germogena ..., pp. 13-31.

270

PART FOUR

Kazan. The first reference to his endeavors can be found in connection with the alleged discovery of the miraculous Icon of Our Lady of Kazan in 1579, at which time he was a priest in Kazan. It is quite possible that he entered a monastic order in 1587. Shortly after that, he seems to have been appointed as Abbot, and later as Archimandrite, of the Spaso-Preobraienskij Monastery in Kazan. After the establishment of the Patriarchate in 1589, Germogen became the Metropolitan of Kazan with jurisdiction over the area of the former Astrakhan Khanate. The latter was organized as a separate bishopric in 1602. Germogen was also engaged in proselytizing the local Tatar population. Particularly in the early 1590s, he distinguished himself in missionary work among the newly converted Tatars who continued to cling to their old religious and national customs. He remained a Metropolitan of Kazan for approximately seventeen years; he became Patriarch of All Russia, most probably in July 1606.106 Germogen's "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij" does not abound with detailed information, as has already been observed by Kljudevskij.107 Although Gurij and Varsonofij had just recently died, and Germogen must have been intimately familiar with their activities, his work was restricted to a general survey of the formers' contributions only. The "Life" of Gurij relates the well-known facts about Gurij's investiture and arrival in Kazan and emphasizes his religious virtues. Germogen concludes that Gurij "taught the nonbelievers and instructed them to recognize God as Creator of everything" and that "he converted many nonbelievers to the Faith and baptized a multitude of them, including their wives and children".108 This remark suggests that the program of Christianization was quite extensive. Gurij was also responsible for the reconversion of many former Orthodox who had become Muslims.109 More interesting, however, is Germogen's "Life" of Varsonofij on account of its revealing references to the latter's conversion achievements. According to the "Life", Varsonofij was a son of a Russian clergyman named Vasilij; his Christian name was likewise Vasilij. He was born and educated in Serpuxov. In his youth he allegedly was captured by the Crimean Tatars and spent three years in servitude. He was released upon payment of a necessary ransom by his father and "return ed] to the Russian land, having completely mastered the Muslim language and Saracen read1OT

For a factual account of Germogen's activities in Kazan, see Kedrov, Sv. Germogena ..., pp. 13-31. 10 ' Kljucevskij, Drevnerusskija iitija svjatyx ..., p. 305. 108 Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., p. 19; Tvorenija Germogena ..., p. 42. 10 ' Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., p. 19; Tvorenija Germogena ..., p. 43.

¿izneopisanie

THE EXPANSION OF THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FAITH

271

ing and writing, for he had a profound mind".110 After his return from captivity, Varsonofij took the monastic vows in the Andronikov Monastery in Moscow. He held the position of an Abbot of the NikoloPesnoSskij Monastery in the years 1545-1555.111 His experiences in the Crimea and his acquaintance with Tatar language and customs may have influenced the government's decision to assign him to the new Archbishop's mission. Varsonofij founded the Spaso-Preobrazenskij Monastery in Kazan shortly after his arrival in 1555 and became its first Archimandrite. He served as a Bishop of Tver from 1567 to 1570, but in his old age returned to the monastery, where he spent the last years of his life (1571-April 11, 1576).112 Varsonofij seems to have been a very ardent and determined proselytizer. It may be that his contributions overshadowed those of Gurij since Germogen's account of his missionary activities among the Tatars is presented far more vividly and in greater detail. Germogen reports that Varsonofij "converted the nonbelievers to the Christian faith, since ... he had mastered the Saracen script and was well versed in Mohammed's unclean teachings to the Saracens, and he knew how to speak many languages, and he argued with the unbelievers, condemning and attacking them, and he induced them to accept baptism, and taught and instructed them how to believe in the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost". 113 The passage indicates that Varsonofij acted as an expert on Mohammedan religion and developed certain skills as an official debater with Muslim opponents. From Germogen's warm praise for his theological confrontations with the adherents of Islam, it may be concluded that Varsonofij had risen to the position of the chief ideologue of the Orthodox cause in Kazan. Both Gurij and Varsonofij were rewarded for their missionary deeds with the greatest posthumous awards the Russian Orthodox Church had to offer. From the time of the discovery of their relics in 1595, they were celebrated (and, it appears, canonized) as miracle workers and saints of their Church.114 The same honors were seemingly accorded to German, the second Archbishop of Kazan, whose glorification in literature was to come approximately one century later. His "Life" was composed by an anonymous author upon the inspiration of Lavrentij, the Metropolitan of 110 1,1 112 1,8 114

Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., p. 24; Tvorenija Germogena ..., p. 46. KaStanov, Iz istorii Tatarii, Sbornik IV, p. 175. Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., p. 28, Tvorenija Germogena ..., p. 49. Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., p. 26; Tvorenija Germogena ..., p. 47. Golubinskij, COIDR (1903), Bk. 1, pp. 118-119.

272

PART FOUR

Kazan, who served in this capacity between 1657 and 1673.115 In spite of the zealous efforts of the saintly missionaries, Islam could not be easily eradicated in the newly acquired land. Many Muslims resisted the strenuous attempts to Christianize their country and stubbornly opposed the conquerors. Muscovite administrators and propagandists needed concrete evidence of Divine revelation in support of Russian Orthodoxy in its confrontation with the forces of Islam. Apparently, some serious setbacks in the ideological battle between Orthodoxy and Islam provided the inspiration for the appearance of the miraculous Icon of Our Lady of Kazan in 1579, and the legend attached to it. Germogen, the Metropolitan of Kazan, should be considered the chief author and, certainly, the editor of the "Tale About the Appearance of the Miraculous Icon of Our Lady, the Virgin Mary",116 which originated the famous legend. The final editing of the "Tale" was undertaken by Germogen in late 1594 or early 1595.117 According to legend, a fire occurred in Kazan on June 23, 1579, which brought forth a miraculous appearance of the icon of the Virgin Mary. In the wording of the "Tale", the Muslims interpreted the outbreak of the fire as God's punishment of the Christians, who were committing idolatrous acts by venerating icons and other images. The Orthodox, on the other hand, were in need of evidence of Divine assistance in their spiritual battle with the Muslims. The subsequent Providential interference was described in the "Tale" as follows: 11S

Barsukov, Istodniki russkoj agiografii, pp. 129-130; Golubinskij, COIDR (1903), Bk. l , p . 119. The text of the "Tale" is published in: Tvorenija Germogena ...,pp. 1-16. 117 A. I. Sobolevskij showed that the 36-page manuscript of the "Tale" was written by several people. One part of the manuscript (pp. 26-36) undoubtedly came from the pen of the Metropolitan, according to Sobolevskij. Another part of the manuscript (pp. 1-25) represents a copy from an earlier draft which may have been composed by several authors, including Germogen. It is obvious that the latter edited the entire text, since it contains many of his remarks and additions, and for this reason he can be considered the chief author of the "Tale". For an analysis of the components and the dating of the text, see Sobolevskij's foreword to Skazanie o iudotvornoj kazanskoj ikone Presvjatoj Bogorodicy (Rukopis' SvjatejSago Patriarxa Germogena) (Moscow, 1912), pp. 3-8. On page 21 of the manuscript of the "Tale", Sobolevskij discovered a significant gloss referring to Tsareviches Ivan Ivanovii and Fedor Ivanovii and a comment in Germogen's handwriting that Fedor was "now" Sovereign and Tsar. From this, he drew the conclusion that the manuscript had been partially compiled during Ivan IV's lifetime: the latter died on March 18, 1584. The last date which appears in the manuscript is October 27, 1594. Therefore, Sobolevskij dated it between 1584 and 1595. Since, however, Tsar Ivan's son Ivan Ivanovii is mentioned in the manuscript as, apparently, a living person, it would be more correct to speak of November 1581 as the earliest possible date for the composition of one fragment of the "Tale".

THE EXPANSION OF THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FAITH

273

There were still many pagan peoples in the city, and they adhered to many religions. The true Orthodox faith represented to them foolishness and profanation and there was no healing relic in the city at that time. The foreigners, their hearts possessed by disbelief, humiliated us, not knowing God's mercy and power ... God, loving mankind and seeing the sufferings of His people and their faith, and their profanation and abuse by the surrounding nonbelievers, could not bear the defamation and the desecration of the holy icons ... and so that their lips which spoke falsehood should be closed, and that the Jewish and Muslim obstinacy and false defamation be ended and disappear, and that the pernicious heretical teaching be uprooted, and that the true Orthodox faith of the Greek creed be asserted and glorified ... God revealed upon earth the most illustrious icon ... of Our Lady, the Virgin Mary .. ,118 Although neither Judaism nor Christian "heretical teachings" were part of the religious struggle in Kazan, the author of the "Tale" used the attack against them to magnify the dangers which beset Orthodoxy and to show God's infinite mercy toward the true believers. The Icon of Our Lady of Kazan, or to be more precise its early copy, was employed in the struggle against the intervening Polish forces during the Time of Troubles (smuta) in 1612. A special tale, entitled "About the Advance of the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan Towards Moscow", relating the miracles and the support extended by the icon to Russian troops, was included into the official historical work Novyj Letopisec [The New Chronicle],119 composed in the early 1630s. Thus, the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan was utilized in the contest between Russian Orthodoxy and Islam, as well as between Russian Orthodoxy and Latinism. The Icon of Our Lady of Kazan became one of the most famous objects of religious veneration in Russian history and assumed the second place in the hierarchy of the native icons of the Virgin Mary, immediately following the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir.120 Whereas the miracles and legends of the Kniga stepennaja and the Carstvennaja kniga were reserved for the edification of the elite, the cult of the icon was meant to appeal to the masses, who were more easily impressed by a concrete and visible symbol. As late as 1912, the conservative historian Kedrov remarked that "from the time of its appearance until the present, this icon has symbolized the triumph not only of Christian Kazan, but of all Orthodox Russia over alien religions".121 The appearance of the miraculous icon in Kazan apparently did not 118

Trorenija Germogena ..., pp. 4-5. "» PSRL XIV (1910/1965), pp. 132-133. 1.0 J. H. Billington maintains, for unknown reasons, that the icons, Our Lady of Vladimir and Our Lady of Kazan are one and the same icon (The Icon and the Axe, An Interpretative History of Russian Culture [New York, 1966], p. 32). 1.1 Kedrov, ¿izneopisanie Sv. Germogena ..., p. 16.

274

PART FOUR

bring complete victory to the Christian religion in that land. After forty years of Muscovite rule, Muslims in Kazan still continued to adhere to their faith and many of the newly converted were falling back into their old beliefs. Tsar Fedor IvanoviS's Decree of July 18, 1593, issued in response to Metropolitan Germogen's queries (dating probably from 1592), testifies to the variety of problems which confronted the Muscovite imperial administration and the church hierarchy in Kazan.122 This official document, addressed to the Russian governors of Kazan, Prince Ivan Mixajloviò Vorotinskij and Prince Afanasij Ivanoviò Vjazemskij, criticized the latters' conduct in Kazan, particularly their "carelessness and negligence" in allowing the revival of Muslim religious activities in the Tatar settlement outside the city of Kazan. The central Muscovite authorities were informed by Metropolitan Germogen about the Tatars building Muslim mosques in their settlement located in the closest proximity to Kazan, only "as far as the arrow from the bow flieth". The Tsar's Decree recalled that from the time of the conquest of Kazan no mosques were to be built in the country as it had been specifically prohibited by the Decrees of Ivan IV and those of his own.123 The governors were severely reprimanded for their ineptitude and ordered to destroy all Tatar mosques, and not to allow the erection of new mosques.124 More significant, however, were Germogen's reports admitting the virtual failure of the Russian conversion program in Kazan. The Metropolitan notified the central government that the newly converted continued to live with the Chuvash, Cheremissians and Votiaks, who had not accepted the Christian faith. They ate and drank from the same vessels with the "pagans". The converted did not attend Christian churches and failed to wear crosses and to put up icons and holy images in their homes. They did not send for the priest at births, did not baptize their children, and buried their dead in Tatar cemeteries. In addition, they continued to adhere to their ancient marriage customs, and even if they were wed in a Christian church, they were later remarried in a Tatar nuptial ceremony. Furthermore they did not observe the obligations of fasting and lived simultaneously with several women besides their legal wife. In this case the Metropolitan was not referring to concubines, but to the four wives to whom a Muslim husband was entitled, in accordance with Mohammedan religious teachings. The converts refrained from 122 123 124

The text of the Decree was printed in: AAEI (1836), No. 358, pp. 436-439. AAE I (1836), No. 358, p. 438. AAE I (1836), No. 358, p. 438.

THE EXPANSION OF THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FAITH

275

baptizing the infants from their other marriages, but allowed them to live together with the baptized children. In reaction to this, the government ordered the registration of all converts and their immediate segregation from the rest of the Tatar population. A separate settlement was to be built for them which would provide a church and the necessary clergy. The Decree directed that the converts should live in the close vicinity of the Russian population and be allowed to marry Orthodox Russians or other converts only. They were to adhere strictly to the teachings of the Orthodox Church and to obey the requests of local church authorities. All those who resisted the government's instructions were to be "subdued, imprisoned, beaten and put into chains and irons".126 Those converts who lived in remote places from Kazan were to be resettled near the city. The government promulgated a land exchange program, viz. lands of Muslim Tatars residing near Kazan were to be given to the converts from distant areas, in exchange for their lands. If necessity arose, they could also be granted government land, in order to enable them to live in the proximity of the new settlement. The contents of the Tsar's Decree reveal the existence of Tatars who, although officially Christianized, adhered to their former religious rites and national customs. This phenomenon offers an interesting parallel to the Moriscos in the Spanish Empire during the sixteenth century. It is obvious that Muscovite missionaries failed to convince the Kazan Tatars of the superiority of Orthodoxy over Islam. The program for the conversion of the inhabitants of the conquered Khanate was in great difficulties by the end of the sixteenth century. The realities of colonization were refuting Muscovite visions of a peaceful and glorious triumph of Orthodoxy in the Kazan land.

m

AAEI

(1836), No. 358, p. 438.

XIII THE MARTYROLOGY O F THE KAZAN CONQUEST

Martyrology constitutes an integral part of the religious jus ification of conquests. Martyrs are indispensable to any program aimed at the conversion of "infidels". In the case of Kazan, the Russian Orthodox Church was in need of Russian as well as native Tatar martyrs, whose lives and sacrifices would prove the inevitable defeat of Islam. However, the existing number of ideological texts relating the activities of the Kazan martyrs in the service of the Christian faith is rather scarce. The references to martyrs in Muscovite sources are restricted to three instances altogether (one Russian, two Tatar converts); their glorification in literature came after the conquest of Kazan and the stories describing their deeds should be scrutinized with care since they had been treated in Russian historical writing primarily from a devotional point of view. 1 The first such text ("Tale"), dedicated to Kazan martyrology and specifically dealing with the sufferings and the heroic death of the martyr Ivan (Ioann) appears in the Velikie minei cetii of Metropolitan Makarij. The original version of the "Tale", which has remained unpublished until the present day and which stands among the very few Russian sources relating to Kazanian affairs which were left practically unexploited in scholarship, reads as follows: The Martyrdom of the Saintly Ivan [Which Occurred] on January 24, 1529. In the city of Kazan there lived a certain captive in [the service of] the Tsar's uncle, Alijukur. This Christian by faith, Ivan by name, from the city of Niznij Novgorod was being compelled by the Tatars to renounce Christ and to accept their [Muslim] faith. He, however, did not renounce Christ, but [instead] cursed their Mohammed. They [the Tatars] threatened him with numerous tortures and [beguiled him] with flattery. He, however, stood fast in his

1 For an example of such a treatment, see, ¿itija svjatyx zemli Kazanskoj. Sv. muieniki: Avraamij Bolgarskij, Ioann, Stefan i Petr. Arsenija, arxiepiskopa Kazanskogo i Svija2skogo (Kazan, 1900).

THE MARTYROLOGY OF THE KAZAN CONQUEST

277

faith [cf. 1 Corinthians 16:13] like a hard adamant, spitting into their faces and condemning their faith. They [the Tatars] did not tolerate the martyr's condemnation for long, but having firmly tied his hands in the back with a coarse strap, led him up the hill for beheading. And again they flattered him with promises of valuable gifts and honors [and tried to convince him] that he be circumcised. And he cursed them by calling them infidels and named himself a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Prince ordered that he be beheaded, and his head was cut off with a sword. He fell down, face up, and his head remained attached to the right side [of his neck] [affixed] by tiny veins only. And his throat and the neck were cut to the bone. And all his body was cut up and his abdomen was pierced just below his heart. He died and lay there from the first hour of the day and unto the night. And on that day there was a bitter frost and [the ice] melted under him and all around him for an ell. And in the final hour of the day his hands became untied. He took and straightened up his head with one hand and covered up his private parts with the other. And he rose and went to the boyar-children of the Grand Prince. And on the very same night he requested the priest to celebrate a Daily Mass and a Communion Mass, while he himself sat [there] and wisely granted forgiveness to all. And he received the Holy Communion, the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ, our God, and he remained sleepless all night. At sunrise he delivered his soul into the hands of our Lord, for he had suffered for Him. And to the wonder of all, the house in which he died, became filled with fragrance. And his body was laid to rest in Kazan, in a secluded place in the forest, at the old Russian cemetery.8 ' Gosudarstvennyj istoriieskij muzej, Otdel rukopisej, Sinodal'noe sobranie, No. 990, mesjac janvar, p. 764. The original text reads as follows: " V lete 7037 [1529], mesjaca genvarja 24, muienie svjatogo Ivana. V gradS Kazani, bS nekyj polonjanik u djadki careva, u Alijukurja knjazja. Xristianin syj vSroju, imenem Ivan, rodom Niznjago Novogoroda i nudjaSiim tatarom nuieju itoby otvreglesja Xrista i byl by v ix v£rS. On ze nikako ze ne otverzesja Xrista no i Maxmeta ix proklja. Oni ze laskaniem i mukami mnogymi preSiaxu emu. On Ze jako tverdyj adamant stojaSe v v&r6 utverzen i zapIevaSe lica ix i vSru ix proklinaSe. Oni ze na dolzS netrepjaSie ot strastoterpca proklinaemi, vyvedoSa ego nagoru, ruc£ ego opakosu [su]rovym remenem svjazavSi kripcS postaviSa ego na useCenie. ESie tverdo veliky dary i Sesti ob£$£evaju§£e laskaxu ego, ¿toby obrSzalsja. On ie proklinaja ix, i bezverniki naricaja, a sam imenuja sebe raba Gospodu naSemu Isusu Xristu, sinu Boziju. Knjaz' ie povete glavu emu usS56i i usSkoSa glavu ego meiem. On ze pade voznak. Toliko drezaSesja glava malymi iilami s desnyja strany. A gorla oboja i sostavi pokosten presSieny. I eSie vse tSlo ego iss&Seno i utrobu ego na skvoz' proizoSa, i protivu serdca. On ze umre i le2a§e so pervago Casa dni i do no5£i. A dni togo mraz velik i otaja pod nim i okolo ego na vse strany po loktiju. I v poslidnij £as dni razvjazast&ja ruce ego. On ze edinoju rukoju glavu svoju vzem, postavi prjamo id£z£ bi podobno, a drugoju rukoju tajnyja udy zakryv. I vstav s mSsta, ide k d&tem bojarskym velikogo knjazja. I noSCi toe povele svjaSCenniku vsjadnevnaja i priSaSCal'naja ispraviti sebe, a sam sidjaSe i proSienie vsem veleumno otdavaja. I pridastivsja boiestvennix tajn Xrista Boga naSego preiistomu t61u, i krovi, i vsju noS£ bez sna prebyst'. Na utrija ie vosxodja56u solncu, predast' duSu svoju v ruce Gospodni. Za neie i postrada. Byst' ie ves' dom, v nem ie prestavisja, ispolnen blagojuxanija jako vsem divitisja. I polozeno byst' t61o ego v Kazani, v m£st£ sokroveni na l£s£, na starom kladbi§£i russkom."

278

PART FOUR

The "Tale" about martyr Ivan in the Velikie minei ietii apparently represents its earliest version. It must have been composed before the final editing of this work, i.e., at the end of 1552 or the beginning of 1553. Another available sixteenth-century text of the "Tale" is to be found in a Manuscript Codex attributed to Nifont, the Archimandrite of the Novospasskij Monastery, who became Bishop of the Sarskaja and Podonskaja Bishopric in 1554.® The latter version reveals itself to be an almost verbal copy of the text of the Velikie minei ietii with the introduction of a few minor stylistic improvements. The story about martyr Ivan is suspect for a variety of reasons. It is presented in the setting of 1529, the year being mentioned in the title itself. However, not a single reference to Ivan is to be encountered in the contemporary Muscovite chronicles in the entries for the years 1528-1531 which would corroborate the narrative of the Velikie minei ietii.* Neither the Voskresensk nor the Nikon or L'vov Chronicles speak of Ivan's deeds and his agonizing death. Even an ideological work, such as the Kniga stepennaja, which abounds with tales about miraculous events refrains from providing any circumstantial information about martyr Ivan. The "Tale" reappears once more in the later recensions of the Kazanskaja ' "O svjatem muienice Ivane, He za Xrista muien vo grade Kazani. V leto 7037 [1529], genvarja v 20 den' v grade Kazani u djadki u careva u Alijukurja knjazja, sluza nekij xristianskogo rodu plennik imenem Ivan, rodom Niinego Novograda. I naleiaSiia radi nuzi ot tatar ¿toby otvregsja ot Xrista i byl by v ix vere. On ie nikako ze ne otvriesja no i Magmeta ix proklja. Oni z laskaniem i mukami mnogkm preSfiaSe, on ze jako tverdyj adamant zapleva lice ix i veru ix proklja. Oni ze vyveSe ego naga, ruce emu opakosu [su]rovym remenem zavjazany krepce i postavja ego na useienie. E5ie tverdo velikimi darmi i iest'mi laskaSe emu £toby obrezalsja. On ze proklinaja ix i bezvemiki naricaja, a sam imenuja sebe raba Isusa Xrista sina Bozia. Oni ze povele glavu emu useSCi. I usekoSa glavu emu meCem. On ie pade voznak. I toliko deriaSesja glava malymi zilami s desnyja strany, a gorla oboja i sostavi po kostem pereseCeny. I eSfie vse telo ego izseie i utrobu na vskroz pronize protivu serdca. On ie umre i leiaSe s pervago Casa dni i do no36i. A dni togo mraz velik i otaja pod nim okolo ego na vse strany po loktju. I v poslednij £as dni razvezastasja ruce ego. On ze edinoju rukoju glavu svoju vzem, postavi prjamo jakofe podobno, a drugoju rukoju tajnyja udy zakryv. I vstav s mesta i ide k detem bojarskim velikogo knjazja. I noSii toe povele svjaSienniku vsjadnevnaja i pri£a$£al'naja otpraviti sebe a sam sedjaSe i proSCenie ko vsem veleumno otdavaja i sebe greSna naricaja, i pricastivsja bozestvennix tajn. I vsju noS£ bez sna prebyvaja. Na utrija ze vosxodjaSCu solncu predast' duSu svoju v ruce Gospodni. Za ne ie i postrada, ispolnen blagouxanija jako vsem divitisja. I polozeno telo ego v Kazani v meste sokrovene na lese, na starom kladi&e russkom" (Gosudarstvennaja publiinaja biblioteka im. M. E. Saltykova-Siedrina, Rukopisnyj otdel, Sobranie F. A. Tolstova, Otd. II, No. 68, pp. 254r-254v.). 4

KunceviC pointed out that the name of the Tatar aristocrat, Alijukur, mentioned in the "Tale", and the name of the Tatar Prince, Ali son of §ukur, who was killed in Kazan in connection with the overthrow of Khan Sefa Girey in 1532, are identical (Istorija ..., pp. 522-523).

THE MARTYROLOGY OF THE KAZAN CONQUEST

279

istorija compiled in the 1590s.s Its insertion in the latter was presumably undertaken in conjunction with the efforts of Metropolitan Germogen to commemorate the Kazan martyrs by means of ecclesiastical services.' It is, therefore, safe to assume that the "Tale" in which the martyrdom of Ivan is so imaginatively described was non-existent in 1529, but was artificially constructed at a much later date, i.e., 1552-1553. Metropolitan Makarij would certainly have utilized its contents during the Church Councils of 1547 and 1549 had they been available at that time, and, in all probability, would have elevated Ivan to the status of a saint or a martyr for the Orthodox faith on that occasion. The conspicuous silence of the more reliable sources on martyr Ivan and the vacillations of the Church authorities with regard to his official commemoration justify the hypothesis that he was an invented personality whose deeds and martyrdom were the products of the literary activities of the Makarij circle. The second "Tale" devoted to a Kazan martyr, entitled "About a Tatar Who Was Baptized and Suffered for Christ", emerges in the seventeenth Degree (Title 28) of the Kniga stepennaja.7 The hero of the "Tale" is a Tatar who came to the city of Kazan from the Arsk land and converted to the Orthodox faith after a solemn vow to do so if his ailing feet were healed. Moreover, he was impressed by the conquest of Kazan, the introduction of the Orthodox religion in that city and by the Providential assistance rendered to Russians during the final siege of the Tatar capital.8 The "Tale" stresses that the Tatar convert accepted his new faith after having been properly advised by Timofej, the Archpriest of the Mixail Arxangel Sobor in Moscow. Timofej had participated in the last Kazan campaign (1552) as a field chaplain;9 he, therefore, may be the probable source who provided inspiration, most likely to Andrej-Afanasij, for the writing of this story in the early 1560s. After the baptism, the Tatar convert, whose Christian name was Stefan, returned home. He was fiercely attacked by his compatriots for having become a Christian. The Tatars attempted to persuade him to abandon Orthodoxy, but the zealous and virtuous Stefan rejected their proposition and became a * According to Kuncevii, the second reconstrued recension (or recension IV-Vm) of the Kazanskaja istorija contains the "Tale" about Ivan's martyrdom (Istorija ..., pp. 167, 185, 520-524. Cf. PSRL XIX [1903], pp. 261-263.) * Kuncevii, Istorija ..., p. 520. ' PSRL XXt (1913), Part II, pp. 649-650. • PSRL XXI (1913), Part II, p. 649. • PSRL XXIX (1965), pp. 75, 86; PSRL x m (1904/1965), Part I, pp. 180,192.

280

PART FOUR

fervent missionary among his people. He was allegedly killed by the "infidels", having "suffered for Christ's sake". As in the case of Ivan, the contemporary Muscovite chronicles offer no information about Stefan. The "Tale" describing his baptism and sufferings was neither included in the Minei Setii of Metropolitan Makarij nor incorporated in those from the seventeenth century. Like Ivan, he appears to be an invented figure differing from the former in one respect only, i.e., that he was of Tatar origin and a convert. The literary treatment of the deeds of Petr, the second Tatar convert martyred for the Orthodox cause, comes from the pen of Metropolitan Germogen who allegedly recorded them on the basis of "tales heard from reliable people". The earliest version of the "Tale" about martyr Petr is attested in the Gramota of January 9,1592, sent by Germogen to Patriarch Iov in which the request to hold memorial services in the Kazan area for Russian military men killed in the Kazan campaigns, as well as for the local martyrs Ivan, Stefan and Petr, was made. It was also suggested in the Gramota that the names of the above should be entered into the death rolls (sinodiki).10 According to the "Tale", Petr had been baptized before the final conquest of Kazan. He was said to have come to the Tatar capital in the Russian entourage of Khan §ah Ali in August of 1551. When the latter left Kazan on March 6, 1552, Petr, like some other Russians and Kasimov Tatars, failed to depart in time. He was recognized by the Kazanians, but was not immediately executed, thanks to his family's intervention. Petr heroically resisted the attempts of his relatives to reconvert him and condemned the Muslim "evil faith and the false Mohammed". The Tatars then killed this staunch defender of Christianity. The story about Petr came into existence much later than the stories about the martyrs Ivan and Stefan and it is, therefore, not to be found in the contemporary Muscovite sources either of a secular or ecclesiastical nature. It is included in the later recensions of the Kazanskaja istorija compiled in the 1590s,11 the date perfectly in keeping with the time of the "Tale's" origin. Germogen was quite obviously relying upon the literary model of the "Tale" about Stefan when he applied three stages in the de10

For the best edition of the "Gramota Germogena, Mitropolita Kazanskogo i Astraxanskogo, svjatejSemu Iovu, Patriarxu vseja Rossii, o dozvolenii soverSat' v predelax kazanskoj mitropolii pamjat' o xristianskix voinax, pogibSix v borbe s tatarami, i o kazanskix muienikax, postradavSix za veru, Ioanne Novom, Stefane i Petre. 1592 g. Genvarja 9-go.", see, Tvorenija Germogena ..., pp. 58-62. For the text of the "Tale" about martyr Petr, cf. ibid., pp. 61-62. 11 PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 372-373.

THE MARTYROLOGY OF THE KAZAN CONQUEST

281

velopment of the martyr — conversion, temptation, heroic death — while composing his "Tale" about Petr. There is no doubt whatsoever that Petr, like his two predecessors, was a fictional personality. Metropolitan Germogen was chiefly responsible for the enhancement of the cult of local Kazan martyrs. His Gramota to Patriarch Iov consisted of the three "Tales" about Ivan, Stefan and Petr and was prefaced by a general statement discussing the Russian sacrifices during the Kazanian wars, particularly during the final confrontation which led to the conquest of the Khanate. Germogen was apparently preparing the way for the future religious veneration and immortalization of the three martyrs and of the Russian soldiers and commanders who died in the struggle against Kazan.12 In his Gramota of February 25, 1592,18 sent to Germogen in response to the latter's request (Gramota of January 9, 1592), Patriarch Iov granted his permission to hold memorial services for the fallen Russian soldiers and to enter the names of the martyrs and the deceased into the death rolls. It is worth noting that in the seventeenth century attempts had been made to elevate Ermak and his cossacks, who died in action against Siberian Tatars, to the ranks of religious heroes deserving cultist adoration. However, the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the three martyrs remained rather ambivalent. The Russian Orthodox Church as a rule did not follow the Greek tradition of recognizing a martyr for faith ipso facto as a saint. In its view, the saint-to-be was expected to be endowed with a supernatural power to perform miracles.14 Since the three martyrs were devoid of miraculous attributes, the official canonization with which the more typical Russian saints were usually rewarded was withheld from them. In spite of their martyrdom, Ivan, Stefan and Petr became marginal figures in the hierarchy of Russian saints. It may also be that the reluctance on the part of the Russian Church to bestow the highest ecclesiastical distinction upon the three martyrs was partially caused by the doubts surrounding the credibility of the latter from the very beginning.

11 The analysis of the commemoration of the military and its ideological ramifications lies chronologically outside the scope of this study. u For the text of the Gramota, see Ljubarskij, Sbornik ..., pp. 73-74; PSRL XIX (1903), pp. 493-496. " Golubinskij, COIDR (1903), Bk. 1, pp. 26, 269.

XIV CONCLUSION

The principal aim of this study has been to obtain a model of an emerging imperial ideology by establishing the relationship between the politics of conquest and the structure of ideological claims and justifications formulated in Muscovite Russia in conjunction with her transformation from a predominantly national centralized state into a multinational empire, a phenomenon almost completely neglected in historical scholarship. For this reason, the discussion of basic political and military events has been limited to one major chapter and the emphasis has been placed on the ideologic-intellectual superstructure and on those problems and questions which have not been treated in scholarly literature or which remain a matter of intellectual controversy.1 In other words, a conscious attempt has been made to avoid repetition of subjects regarding which a general consensus in scholarship exists, particularly as far as the factual developments are concerned. The primary goal of genuine scholarship is, after all, the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge and the attainment of new insights based upon qualified understanding of the issues involved and the verifiable methodology applied. One aspect of the Muscovite ideological structure erected in connection with the annexation of the Kazan Khanate, i.e., the glorification of the conquest in art, has been consciously omitted from this study. The * After the completion of the writing of this study the author received the monograph by F. Kämpfer, "Die Eroberung von Kazan 1552 als Gegenstand der zeitgenössischen russischen Historiographie", Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, Historische Veröffentlichungen (cited hereafter as FOG) XIV (1969), pp. 7-161. The results of Kämpfer's study do not, in any way, influence the analysis and the conclusions of this work. It should be pointed out that in his third chapter "Begründung der Eroberung Kazans in den Quellen", Kämpfer closely followed the source evaluation and the arguments of my article "Muscovite Imperial Claims to the Kazan Khanate", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 559-576 (c/ FOG XIV [1969], pp. 113, n. 588; 123, n. 642) which have been more extensively discussed in my dissertation "Muscovite Imperial Claims to the Kazan Khanate: A Case Study in the Emergence of Imperial Ideology", defended in 1967.

284

CONCLUSION

exclusion has been mandatory due to the existence of a vast amount of diversified and complex source material, ranging from church architecture to iconography and miniature illuminations, both from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. From among the numerous examples epitomizing the Kazanian problem in the history of Russian art, the following deserve to be mentioned: the Cathedral of Vasilij the Blessed, especially the history of its foundation and stylistic development, the wall paintings of the imperial chambers in the Kreml which have not been preserved, but which are known from the descriptions of Simeon Usakov from 1672,2 the intriguing icon VoinstvujuSCaja cerkov (ecclesia militans) which poses unresolved problems, both for historians of Russian art and scholars of intjilectual history,3 the iconography of Our Lady of Kazan, and, last but not least, the extraordinary number of miniatures pertaining to the Russo-Kazanian struggle to be found in the Carstvennaja kniga and the seventeenth-century copies of the Kazanskaja istorija. The inclusion of a thorough discussion of the artistic aspect would have impaired the framework and upset the organizational balance of this study. All these considerations have prompted the author's decision to present the results of his research dealing with the art issue in a separate supplementary volume in the near future. An attempt has been made to trace the formation of Muscovite ideological claims to Kazan and the justifications for its conquest in their historically successive stages of development. The earliest major claim formulated to define Muscovite-Kazanian legal relations has received partial treatment in historical literature and has, until recently, been marred by preconceived national ideas particularly as reflected in Russian scholarship. After examining the available evidence, the author felt compelled to reject the theory, advanced by nineteenth-century Russian imperial historiography and later reasserted by Soviet historians, that a Muscovite protectorate was established over Kazan beginning from 1487, and that, from that time on, the Khan was a vassal of the Grand Prince of Muscovy by reason of the fact that he was invested with the Khanate by the Muscovite ruler. While it is true that the sovereignty of the Khanate * Cf. I. E. Zabelin, Materialy dlja istorii, arxeologii i statistiki goroda Moskvy, Part I (Moscow, 1884), pp. 1238-1271. " For a general description of the icon, as well as the literature relating to the subject, see V. I. Antonova and N. E. Mneva, Katalog drevnerusskoj iivopisi, (Gosudarstvennaja Tret'jakovskaja Gallereja) (2 vols.; Moscow, 1963), II, pp. 128-134. In his brief chapter on the icon, Kämpfer limits himself to overall observations and avoids the discussion of most essential problems such as dating, possible sources of inspiration, etc. (FOG XIV [1969], pp. 136-140).

CONCLUSION

285

was limited for brief periods of time after 1487 (the intervals between 1487-1505, 1516-1519, 1532-1535, 1546), Kazan never lost its status as a separate country until its final subjugation. One is, however, justified in speaking of the establishment between 1516 and 1519 of a Muscovite protectorate over the Kazan Khanate which lasted until 1521. It was during this time that Kazan did indeed become a vassal state of Muscovy, but for a limited time only. The same reservation applies to the brief reign of Can Ali in the years 1532-1535, when the new Khan was installed in Kazan under conditions similar to those of the investiture of §ah Ali in 1519. In spite of the fact that the Khanate of Kazan was a virtually independent country in the years 1505-1516, 1521-1532 and 1535-1551 (excepting one month in 1546), when the khans ruled without Muscovy's consent or even in direct opposition to her will, the Russian court continuously adhered to the notion of an alleged investiture prerogative. The theory concerning the establishment of an uninterrupted vassal relationship between Muscovy and Kazan after the events of 1487 was based upon a fundamental misconception. Russian and non-Russian historians, who promoted and adhered to this line of reasoning, accepted legal claims formulated in Muscovite sources as factual evidence. Their misunderstanding of the legal aspect of Russo-Kazanian relations evolved from an uncritical disposition toward the Muscovite chronicles and diplomatic records. Moreover, the historians in question neglected to apply a polycultural and pluralistic approach in their analysis of the legal problems, by failing to compare the Muscovite diplomatic records pertaining to relations with the Habsburg Empire, Poland-Lithuania and the Muslim countries. This failure is difficult to explain, for the documents in question have been available in published form since the nineteenth century. The interchangeable use of the term votcina or otcina by the Russian court beginning with the 1520s to denote a legal relationship between the Muscovite Grand Principality and the Kazan Khanate was prompted by a number of factors. One of them may have been the lack of developed judicial concepts, which can be explained by the relative retardation of the contemporary Muscovite legal system. Another factor could have been a conscious determination on the part of the Russian government to belittle the status of the Kazan Khanate by reminding foreigners, as well as its own elite, that the Khanate was only one of many "patrimonies —lands" which Grand Prince Vasilij III, and later Ivan IV, had rightfully inherited from their respective fathers on the grounds of traditional patrimonial princely law. Had the Muscovite rulers continued to

286

CONCLUSION

exercise the right to invest the Kazanian khans with their Khanate without interruption, it may well be that the patrimonial law, which embraced a great variety of rights and prerogatives, could have been stretched to cover the principle of legal relationship between the Muscovite rulers and the Tatar state. This, however, was not the case. The relationship between the two countries, with the exception of the years 1516-1521 and 1532-1535, was not bound by feudal patrimonial law. The proposition that the Kazan Khanate was a patrimony iyurt) of the Muscovite rulers should be viewed as an ideological claim only, not as a legal condition. This is best evidenced by the fact that the Kazan Khanate was not included in the title of the Muscovite sovereigns prior to its final subjugation, i.e., before 1552, nor was it mentioned as being a possession of the Muscovite ruler either in the Testament of the Muscovite Grand Prince Ivan III of 1503-15044 or in the Testamentary Writ of Grand Prince Yasilij III of 1523.5 It is only in the Testament of Ivan IV, composed after the final annexation,8 that the Kazan Khanate appears prominently recorded. Finally, the fact that the Kazan khans never paid tribute to the Russian sovereigns contradicts any endeavor at substantiating the material aspect of the votcina claim. On the contrary, the Testament of Ivan III specifies quite clearly that a special Tatar tribute (vyxod) was to be paid by the Muscovite ruler to the Kazan "Horde", as well as to other khanates.7 • For the text of the Testament of Ivan HI, see, Duxovnye i dogovornye gramoty ..., pp. 353-364. For the dating, cf. L. V. Cerepnin, Russkie feodal'nye arxivy, XIV-XVvv. (2 vols.; Moscow-Leningrad, 1948-1951), I, pp. 220-221. • For the text of the Testamentary Writ of Vasilij III, cf., Duxovnye i dogovornye gramoty ..., p. 415. • Duxovnye i dogovornye gramoty ..., p. 539. For a reproduction of the Russian texts of the Testaments, as well as their English translation with an introductory survey, see R. C. Howes (ed. and tr.), The Testaments of the Grand Princes of Moscow (Ithaca, New York, 1967). In his analysis of the Testament of Ivan IV, Veselovskij came to the conclusion that this Testament was composed between early June and August 6, 1572 (Issledovanija ..., pp. 304-306). R. H. Skrynnikov dates the beginning of the writing of the Testament in 1564 and maintains that it was reedited in 1566, 1569 and 1572, without having been completed ("Duxovnoe zave&anie carja Ivana Groznogo", Novonajdennye i neopublikovannye proizvedenija drevnerusskoj literatury, TODRL XXI [1965], pp. 314-315, 318). 7 "And my children, Jurij and his brethren, shall give to my son Vasilij, from their appanage principalities, as tribute [vyxod] to the Hordes, [namely] to the Crimea, and to Astrakhan, and to Kazan, and to Kasimov [carevicev gorodok], and to the other tsars and tsars' sons, who shall be [in service] in the land of my son Vasilij, and the Tatar envoys who come to Moscow, and [to the Tatar envoys who come] to Tver, and to Niinij Novgorod, and to Jaroslavl', and to Torusa, and to Staraja Rjazan', and to Perenck, [namely] the share of Prince Fedor of Rjazan', and for all the expenses of the Tatars, one thousand rubles" (Duxovnye i dogovornye gramoty ..., p. 362). The ana-

CONCLUSION

287

It has been established that the Muscovite court applied in the case of Kazan a theory based upon the right of conquest. This theory was probably first enunciated in early 1534. Its aim was twofold, i.e., to buttress historical claims, such as the alleged military conquest of 1487, and to justify the annexation of the territory of the Right-bank Cheremissians from the Kazan Khanate in 1551. The sources clearly indicate that the argument "by the sword" (sableju) was primarily utilized in the intercourse with Muslim rulers and princes. The law of conquest was not restricted to the Russian historical experience alone; its employment by other Christian, as well as non-Christian, states and rulers can be traced back to antiquity. The Russian government made a conscious use of the law of conquest for its own purposes, and its official application in the case of Kazan certainly refutes abstract assumptions that Russian expansion into the territories of the Kazan Khanate was peaceful or accidental. Making almost no distinction between internal and external political relationships, the Muscovite court adapted legal terms and institutional concepts of an internal character in its dealings with foreign countries. For this reason, Muscovite legal claims to the Kazan Khanate were, from the point of view of political theory, medieval and feudal in nature. By following the traditional political theory, the Muscovite court interpreted Russo-Kazanian relations in terms of interstate feudalism. Russian political thought of the 1550s and 1560s went beyond relatively simple legalistic claims in order to establish more ancient and durable historical justifications for the Kazan conquest. The historical claim rested on the assertion that Russian rulers were entitled to the territory of the Kazan Khanate, since it had been a possession of the Rurikides "from antiquity". It has been proposed by the author that the major sources for this claim were selected passages from the description of the East Slavic tribes and their neighbors, and from the narrative discussing the activities of Rurik, the alleged founder of the Kievan dynasty, in the lysis of different forms and types of vyxod paid to the Golden Horde, as well as to the various Tatar khanates, lies beyond the scope of this study. For a recent attempt to calculate the Mongol tribute and to deal with the problem of its periodicity, see M. Roublev, "Le Tribut aux Mongols d'après les Testaments et Accords des Princes Russes", Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique VII : 4 (1966), pp. 487-530 (for an English version of the article, cf. "The Mongol Tribute According to the Wills and Agreements of the Russian Princes", in: M. Chemiavsky [ed.], The Structure of Russian History [New York, 1970], pp. 29-64); "The Periodicity of the Mongol Tribute as Paid by the Russian Princes during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries", FOG XV (1970), pp. 7-13. The question of the payment of vyxod to the successor khanates of the Golden Horde has been alluded to, but has not been analyzed by Roublev.

288

CONCLUSION

Povesf vremennyx let. These selected passages came to be modified, adapted and amalgamated to substantiate Muscovite imperial ambitions. Concerning the question of authorship, it has been suggested that this historical justification originated either with Metropolitan Makarij himself, or within his immediate circle. The dynastic claim, which represents an extension of the KievanMuscovite theory of continuity, was based on the contention that the Bulgar land on the Volga River had been conquered by Vladimir I, and, as a result of this, had become a patrimony of the Russian sovereigns. This, in turn, led to the proposition that Ivan IV was simply reasserting his rightful authority over the Bulgar-Kazan territories. Evidence has been introduced to support the thesis that Metropolitan Makarij had also been instrumental in promoting this idea. Of all the secular justifications of the Kazan conquest, the national argument was the most modern. It was derived from old assumptions, advanced in connection with "gathering" of Russian lands, and in conjunction with numerous confrontations with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Moreover, it was founded on a variety of notions which were formulated beginning with the reign of Ivan III, a reign which witnessed a decisive phase of the formation of the Great Russian national centralized state. Ivan III maintained that all Russian lands were his exclusive patrimony. His claim to "all Russia" reflected the national aims of the Muscovite dynasty, which were upheld and articulated by the Muscovite Church in its attempts to acquire ecclesiastical supremacy over the territories of old Rus', comprising a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. These patrimonial claims, together with organizationalecclesiastical pretensions and the old notion of the "Russian land", were fused into a modern concept of the national unity of all Russian lands. The latter concept, combined with the contention of exclusive dynastic succession of the Rurikides from Vladimir I to the Muscovite grand princes, became the cornerstone of modern Russian national consciousness which found its manifestation in the voluminous chronicles, and in the Kniga stepennaja in particular. In the latter, a theory of the unitary character of old Rus' was developed, which served as a basis for the view that the territories of Kazan, as well as those of Astrakhan, constituted integral parts of the Kievan state. The application of the concept of "Russian land" to Kazan and Astrakhan speaks for the growing national awareness of Muscovite bookmen. This national justification was an obvious historical misrepresentation. However, it is a matter of general knowledge that a great many national

CONCLUSION

289

claims originated from misconstructed and even falsified history; they usually became purely distortional elements of ideological systems. The most outspoken national arguments found their definition in the Kazanskaja istorija. Its editor or compiler, in addition to utilizing the term "Russian land" for Kazan, introduced the claim that the latter had been inhabited by "autochthonous Russians" (Rus'-tozemca) in antiquity. Furthermore he delineated the national characteristics of Russians and Tatars on the grounds of historical and religious differences: the former are depicted as peaceful and humble, whereas the latter are portrayed as bellicose and aggressive. It has been proven that the Skazanie o knjazjax Vladimirskix was adapted and modified by the author of the Kazanskaja istorija to bolster the image of the Russian national dynasty. A conscious omission of the Augustus legend and the elimination of Rurik, together with the fervent Russian patriotism pervading this work, allow the suggestion that the editor/compiler of Kazanskaja istorija may have been the first attested "anti-Normanist" in Russian historic-political thought. The elevation of Moscow to the status of a "second Kiev" is another important contribution of the author of Kazanskaja istorija. Circumstantial evidence has been provided to show that the idea "Moscow — the second Kiev" arose during the Livonian war, probably in connection with the Muscovite anti-Protestant campaign. As far as the question of authorship is concerned, a hypothesis has been offered that this treatise was composed with the materials from various establishmentarian institutions serving as its sources, and with the approval of the political authorities. For this reason, the Kazanskaja istorija should be regarded as a semi-official, if not an official work. The medieval-feudal legal claims and the more modern historicnational justifications represented a closely integrated system of ideas in which verifiable and objective elements existed side by side with halftruths and outright distortions of history. It goes without saying that Muscovite authors, editors and compilers possessed an intimate knowledge and keen understanding of the history of old Rus' and were equipped with fine feeling for the Russian chronicles. Nevertheless, in their preoccupation with history, they consciously tended to subordinate the autonomous quest for "truth" to the necessities of Muscovite imperial politics. Special attention has been drawn to one specific problem of Muscovite historic-political thought pertaining to the Russo-Kazanian relations, i.e., the theory of Bulgar-Kazan continuity. This theory evolved in

290

CONCLUSION

conjunction with secular justifications and as a parallel to the KievMuscovy translatio theory, and was designed to strengthen the argument for Russian pretensions to the Kazan territory. Following these general assumptions, the compilers of the Nikon Chronicle edited historical materials in an effort to identify the Kazanian Tatars with the ancient Bulgars. These compilers set about eliminating the term "Bulgar" and substituting the word "Kazan", undaunted by the fact that earlier Muscovite chronicles such as the Codex of 1479 and the Voskresensk Chronicle used the original names. While they may also have been interested in modernizing their terminology, there is ample evidence to show that their primary concern was political. This is most apparent from an analysis of "The Tale About the Battle on the Vorskla River" which serves as an intriguing example of a major rewriting of East European and Russian history. It has been demonstrated that the "Tale" does not necessarily qualify as a historical source relevant to the understanding of Grand Prince Vitovt's Eastern policies, but reflects ideological projection of Muscovite imperial plans and goals in the middle of the sixteenth century. The conclusions which can be drawn from the "Tale" may as easily be applied to the Nikon Chronicle which represents an impressive and ambitious compilation of a variety of works and some otherwise lost sources. The latter's credibility as a historical source has been questioned by few a historians. Most, however, have quoted it indiscriminately, ignoring the simple fact that much of its historical material had been edited to correspond to the political requirements of the time. There exists a definite need for a critical comprehensive study of the Nikon Chronicle. Whereas the compilers of the Nikon Chronicle relied upon relatively simple methods in their efforts to establish the continuity between the ancient Bulgars and the contemporary Kazanians, the editor/compiler of the Kazanskaja istorija succeeded in presenting a more complex and sophisticated interpretation of this problem by skillfully introducing the intermediary link, i.e., the Golden Horde, between the Bulgar state and the Kazan Khanate (Bulgar - Golden Horde - Kazan) and by placing in a broader historical perspective — of course, from the Russian point of view exclusively — the emergence of various political organizations on the Bulgar-Kazan territory, their relations with Russia and their final decline. It appears that most modern scholarly theories on the ethnic origins of the Kazanian Tatars tend to rely selectively or completely on the Bulgar-Tatar continuity theory.8 The four decisive factors which make • For the most recent summation of the various theories, see ¡5. F. Muxamed'jarov,

CONCLUSION

291

this theory persuasive are: the territorial continuity of the old Bulgar, Qypcaq Turkic and the Kazan Tatar peoples; their common agricultural tradition; the similarity of their sociopolitical institutions; and the remarkable perpetuation of the linguistic-cultural heritage in the history of these peoples' region. In spite of the fact that Muscovite historians/ ideologists may have had different aims in mind when they formulated the Bulgar-Kazan continuity theory, that theory turned out to be one of those scientifically verifiable categories which sometimes serve as integral components of ideological systems. The religious arguments in favor of the Kazan conquest represented a logical outgrowth of the Providential interpretation of Russian history to be encountered in all Muscovite historical and ecclesiastical works of the second half of the sixteenth century. Muscovite bookmen regarded the Russian advance against the Kazan Khanate as one phase in the protracted conflict of two antagonistic worlds in human history: Orthodox Christianity and Islam. The most determined and virulent exhortations to wage a relentless struggle against "heathenism" and its "lair", Kazan, came from the leading representatives of the Muscovite clergy, particularly those of Josephan orientation. Metropolitan Makarij has been characterized as the chief ideologue of the crusade against the Kazan Tatars and Islam. Makarij, Sil'vestr and, somewhat later, Germogen openly advocated the destruction of Islam in Kazan and the introduction of Christianity into the newly-conquered land. Emphasis on the religious explanation of the struggle was not restricted to ecclesiatics alone. Laymen of divergent backgrounds, such as Ivan Peresvetov and Prince A. M. Kurbskij, also utilized religious motives. More important, however, is the fact that the official court historiography adhered to the providential interpretation of history, especially as it could be applied to the Russo-Tatar conflict. The Letopisec nacala carstva and the Carstvennaja kniga provided three major reasons to buttress the struggle against Kazan: the notorious wickedness and perjury of the Kazan Tatars, the wrongs committed by Muslims against the Russian Christians, and the superiority of Christianity over Islam. Muscovite bookmen made extensive use of prophecies and miracles, which constituted a traditional part of Christian religious literature, to instill a belief in the inevitability of the final victory over "pagan" Kazan and of the anticipated expansion of the Christian empire into its territoOsnovnye etapy proisxoidenija i etniceskoj istorii tatarskoj ltarodnosti, VIII Mezdunarodnyj Kongress etnografiÈeskix i antropologiieskix nauk (Tokyo, 1968).

292

CONCLUSION

ries. It has been pointed out that the prophecies and omens of the Kniga stepennaja were adapted by the Carstvermaja kniga and, on account of this, they became integral elements of Muscovite state ideology. Their absence from the Letopisec nacala carstva, and their extensive employment in the Carstvermaja Kniga are indicative of the growing significance of the religious aspect in the theoretical explication of Russian foreign policy in the 1560s. With a few minor exceptions, the proposition that the Kazan wars were fought to liberate Orthodox Russians from Tatar enslavement appears rather late in official Muscovite pronouncements. Only when the struggle reached its final stages, did the problem of captives come to be included in the ideological program. The Letopisec naSala carstva and the Kniga stepennaja consistently stressed that concern for prisoners was a determining factor in Muscovy's struggle against the Tatar Khanate. However, a comparative analysis of Russian materials and Islamic legal sources revealed that the figures offered by Muscovite authors were exaggerated with the aim of magnifying the hardships imposed and sufferings inflicted upon the Orthodox Russians. It has been shown that the Muscovite ruling elite, before the conquest of Kazan, was rather ambivalent on the subject of how to deal with the issue of captives. This is best exemplified by the decision of the Council of Hundred Chapters (Stoglav) of early 1551 which went on record as including Kazan among other Tatar states from which release of Russian captives by ransom was to be obtained. This decision was a reflection of the uncertainty on the part of the official Muscovite circles as to the possibility of success for their expansionist plans against the Kazan Khanate. The victory over Kazan was viewed by contemporary Muscovites as a triumph of Orthodoxy.' Kazan was to be enlightened by their version ' This attitude is well summarized in the unpublished text "In Praise of Ivan IV and His Host for the Victory Against the Kazan Tatars", written by ecclesiastical authors in the early 1560s: "Prijde gosudarju radost' i gosudarju zdorov'e. A gosudar' blagoCestivyj car* i velikij kqjaz' Ivan Vasil'eviC vseja Rusi samoder'&c, daj Bog ty gosudar' zdrav byl, s otcem svoim Makariem mitropolitom vsej Rusi, i s naSeju gosudarineju svojeju cariceju velikoju knjagineju Anastasijeju i svoimi bogodarovannymi 5ady, blagovernym careviiem i knjazem Ivanom Ivanoviiem i blagovernom careviCem Feodorom, i svojeju bratieju, i z boljary, i so vsem xristoljubivom voinstvom i so vsemi pravoslavnymi krestijany, na svoej otCine na Kazani, iliko emu gosudarju Bog poruiil i na vsem na svoem pravoslavnom rusijskora carstvij na mnoga leta. Porevnoval esi gosudar' preZnim svjatym i ravno apostolom carem Konstantinu i Vladimeru, jakoZ ubo oni idoly popraSa i blagoiestie utverdiSa. Tako i ty gosudar', bogoveniannyj carju, bofieju pomoSiiju, bezboznyx agarjan potrebi i pravoslavnyx krestijan ot raboty i plenenija svobodi. My le gosudar' ni5£ee tvoi gosudarevy bogomol'cy miloserdomu Bogu i PreCistoj Bogorodicy i velikim Cjudotvorcom xvalu i blagodarenie prinosim. A

CONCLUSION

293

of Orthodox Christianity; conversion came to be looked upon as one of the major tasks which God bestowed upon the Muscovite Empire. The conquest of Kazan was also hailed by Muscovite bookmen as a tremendous national success for Russia. It served as a focus for the formulation of Muscovite Russia's mission in the world. Filofej of Pskov had earlier asserted that Russia was the only sanctuary of true Orthodoxy and the defender of pure faith chosen by God. Some thirty years later, Makarij, Sil'vestr and the compilers of the official chronicles were proclaiming that it was Muscovy's duty throughout the entire world to spread Orthodoxy among the "barbaric nations". Makarij had prayed during the coronation ceremonies of 1547 for their subjugation; the conquest of Kazan proved the efficacy of his prayers. Whereas Makarij's design was limited to the dominion over the barbaric nations, Sil'vestr defined a more ambitious goal for Russia. Having combined a new interpretation of the desolation of the Golden Horde with the relevant passages from the Psalms, Sil'vestr expounded the most farreaching claim for Muscovy — the claim to the universal empire. Speaking of ideologic-religious pretensions, one is confronted with the question of whether they had been implemented as an official policy of the government. It is well to remember that, before the conquest, the Muscovite court maintained that it had no intention whatsoever of introducing Christianity into Kazan or of attacking the Muslim religion in any way.10 Evidence, both in the sources and in official pronouncements, suggests, however, that the imperial government very soon after the conquest, deliberately embarked upon a program to convert the various nationalities of the former Kazan Khanate. The contention that the Muscovite government encouraged the conversion of Tatar population by providing funds, land grants and religious objects of veneration (holy books and icons) to the church is corroborated by the establishment of the Archbishopric of Kazan in 1555, which was assigned a distinguished place in the structure of Russian church organization and which later tebe gosudarju ielom biem i dolznyi Boga moliti i PreCistuju Bogorodicu i velikix ijudotvorcov o tvoem carskom zdravie i o tvoej caricy velikoj knjagine Anastasie i o tvoix bogodarovannyx iadex, blagovernom careviie Ivane, i careviie Feodore i Ctoby Gospod' Bog soxranil samoderiavnoe tvoe carstvo mirno i zdravo na mnogie leta. Amin'" (Biblioteka AkademiiNauk SSSR, Rukopisnyj otdel, Sbornik Arxang., D . 193, pp. 356ob-357ob. Cf. A. I. Kopanev, M. V. Kukuäkina, V. F. Pokrovskaja, Istoriieskie Sborniki XV-XVII vv. [Opisanie Rukopisnogo otdela Biblioteki Akademii Nauk SSSR], vol. ffl, vyp. 2 [Moscow, 1965], p. 129). 10 In 1521, the Muscovite government vigorously protested against Crimean criticism of its alleged anti-Muslim activities in Kazan (cf. supra, Chapter m , p. 70).

294

CONCLUSION

became elevated to the status of a metropolis, and by Ivan's instructions to Gurij of May 1555 and April 1557, and by the prominent inclusion of the Kazanian issue in the Epilogue of the Apostol of 1564, attesting to the Tsar's involvement in the application of modern techniques in the dissemination of Orthodox religious doctrine. In short, Christianization and subsequently Russification were supported by the secular authorities in the newly-conquered territory. Contemporary sources did not fail to interpret the Christianization of Kazan as a spiritual revival and rejuvenation. 11 Acceptance of Orthodoxy, which in the case of Tatars amounted to becoming Russians, benefited the converts from a purely personal point of view. Conversion to Orthodoxy was the only requirement made of a Tatar in order for him to enter Muscovite society on an equal basis. It speaks for extraordinary political acumen on the part of the Muscovite elite that it was able so successfully to assimilate the upper class proselytes of the conquered peoples without any obvious prejudice. Baptized Tatar nobles could marry into the leading Muscovite families and attain high social standing, as exemplified by the marriage of Prince Kuday Kul-Petr to the sister of Vasilij III. In similar fashion the alleged Tsarevich Petr, a baptized Mongol Prince, achieved the highest ecclesiastical distinction and was even elevated to the status of a saint of the Russian Church. It has been maintained, however, that the "Tale" about his life and conversion to Christianity was composed in connection with the mass canonization of Russian saints and probably in the context of the anticipated campaigns against Kazan. Furthermore doubts have been raised as to the historicity of this famous personage. It should be mentioned that the Muscovite government also aided the efforts of the Church to Christianize the members of the lower social strata by granting various kinds of privileges, such as temporary tax 11

A good example of such a viewpoint is to be found in the Kazanskaja istorija, Chapter 90, entitled "In Praise of the City of Kazan": "O gracious and beautiful city of Kazan, blessed by God, rejoice mightily and jubilate above all the Russian cities, for the whole Russian land and its cities have been enlightened through the grace of the Holy Ghost since antiquity, but thou art now newly enlightened by Orthodoxy, and renovated by God's churches and rejuvenated. Thou hast left behind the vanity of the dark faith, and cast off all disgrace, and completely destroyed the pagan Mohammedan faith and emerged like a beautiful sun from behind the dark clouds, illuminating the whole land with the rays of the true faith and [overcoming] temptation. And do not lose heart because of this, but triumph all the more, and celebrate radiantly and in splendor; for God hath turned away all injustices from thee which encumbered thine origins, and delivered thee from the barbarian rule and from sacrifices made to the unclean Mohammed" (KI/M, p. 163).

CONCLUSION

295

exemption, allotment of land and pardon of crime. Nevertheless, in spite of harsh measures against those who refused to accept Orthodoxy, the official conversion program met with strong resistance from a considerable number of Muslim Tatars. The writings of Germogen, the first Metropolitan of Kazan and Astrakhan, and later the Patriarch of Russia, composed in the 1590s, and particularly Tsar Fedor Ivanovo's Decree of 1593, reveal that by the end of the sixteenth century the Christianization of the territories of the former Kazan Khanate had been only partially successful. It is against the background of this continuous struggle between Orthodoxy and Islam that one has to understand the attention devoted to the Kazanian proselytizing activities of the first three Russian ecclesiastics Gurij, Varsonofij and German and their subsequent glorification as saints of the Russian Church. In similar vein, one ought to evaluate the unique role ascribed to the miraculous icon of Our Lady of Kazan and the legend attributed to it. Aside from its immediate relevance, the icon was employed for a variety of ideological purposes. Among others, it was utilized as a spiritual weapon against Latinism during the Time of Troubles (smuta) in 1612 and served as a model for the legend of Our Lady of Tobol'sk (Siberia). The fact that the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan became the second most popular native icon of the Virgin Mary in Russia, attests to its ideologic-religious significance in the country's history. The importance attributed to it, as well as the glamor of its mystery, contributed to its perpetual appeal to the Russian religious mind. The history of the lives and deeds of the three martyrs (the Russian Ivan and the Tatar converts Stefan and Petr), who died for the faith in Kazan, had been treated in literature almost exclusively from a devotional point of view. After a thorough scrutiny of unpublished sources pertaining to the life and sacrifices of Ivan, and after a careful investigation of all the available material involving Stefan and Petr, the author had no choice but to conclude that the three martyrs were invented personalities whose martyrdom and subsequent glorification must be classified as another distortional component of the Muscovite ideological system. The results of the study of the religious justifications for Muscovite imperial policies toward Kazan have broader implications for an understanding of the overall trends of Russian political thought in the second half of the sixteenth century. They show that during that particular time the general tenor of Russian ideology became more ecclesiastical and, at the same time, more hostile to all non-Orthodox peoples, whereas practical political considerations retreated into the background. This tendency is

296

CONCLUSION

discernible in the writings of the period in question where the ideal is emphasized at the expense of the real. Muscovite diplomacy exploited religious explanations for the Kazan conquest in its contacts with Western countries, the representatives of which were susceptible to reminders of their common Christian tradition. Religious arguments were likewise applied to substantiate Russian claims in the Livonian war. In the latter case, the Lutheran "heresy" served as one of the major justifications for Muscovy's advance against Livonia and the old Rus' lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.12 If one also adds the claim that these lands were ancient Russian patrimonies to be "gathered" by the Muscovite sovereign, a certain pattern of reasoning becomes evident. It seems unnecessary to determine the extent of the sincerity of these religious motives. They played a considerable role in sixteenth-century Muscovy, where the Orthodox version of Christianity was a living faith. It would be a mistake to speak of the erosion of religious ideology during this period. To study Muscovite politics and thought of this particular epoch without regard for the religious element would be like investigating the Age of the French Revolution without taking the Enlightenment into account, or analyzing Russian history since the late nineteenth century without referring to the phenomenon of Marxism. The majority of sources examined in this work reflects the thinking of the Muscovite ruling elite, both secular and ecclesiastical; they, after all, had a monopoly on ideology and on the intellectual resources for articulating their views. It should be stated that the ideas of the elite, as expressed by the court members of the central administrative institutions and the church hierarchy, have been the most essential for the purpose of this study. It appears from the review of the ideological justifications for the Kazan conquest that the leading representatives of the Muscovite clergy exerted special influence on their formulation. From this, however, it does not necessarily follow that the Church artificially injected its ideological notions into official Muscovite statements, or that the political ideas of prominent laymen were overshadowed by the considerations of the clergy. Personalities like Makarij, Sil'vestr and Germogen were not churchmen only; they occupied an exceptional position in Muscovite " Vassijan Rylo's Epistle to Ivan III provided a model for the anti-Muslim exhortations of Makarij, as well as for the anti-Lutheran Epistle of Pimm addressed to Ivan IV. This indicates the relatively limited intellectual resources of the leading Muscovite ecclesiastics and, at the same time, points to their preference for operating with a Standard set of arguments which they apparently found both appealing and effective.

CONCLUSION

297

politics and should be regarded as members of the ruling elite. Particularly in the case of the Eastern expansion, it would be misleading to segregate the attitudes and the aims of the ecclesiastical hierarchy from those of the court and distinguished laymen outside court circles, or to opine that there existed two distinct political establishments in Muscovy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The widespread participation of ecclesiastical dignitaries in the political affairs of the Muscovite Grand Principality (Tsardom after 1547) and the personal involvement of the grand princes (later tsars) in matters pertaining to the Russian Orthodox Church do not suggest a developing diarchy of the metropolitan and the secular ruler, but, on the contrary, indicate the then existing symbiosis of church and state. After the transfer of the residence of the metropolitan of "Kiev and all Rus'" to Moscow, his office became gradually absorbed into the Muscovite political establishment under the auspices of the grand prince. The mutual dependence of the two centers precluded the formation of separate power structures and independent elite groups, the very emergence of which would have led to a balance of political forces and imperiled the strength of an autocratic system. In like manner, the victory of the Josephan orientation, made possible by the direct support of the grand prince whose autocratic prerogatives were in turn justified by Iosif Volockij and his ideological followers, contributed to the internal consolidation of the Muscovite ruling elite. The successful integration of the secular and ecclesiastical powers into one cohesive group proved advantageous to both partners, at different times, for diverse reasons. The Church needed the support of the sovereign to preserve and extend its social and economic sphere of influence and to suppress internal dissenters. The grand prince, on the other hand, required the services of the Church in conflicts with political opponents and in the process of "gathering" Russian lands. Moreover, the dynasty depended on the organizational apparatus and the ideological pressures the Church could bring to bear in conducting government operations and in enhancing the image of the ruler. It sometimes happened that the Russian metropolitan was merely a tool in the hands of the grand prince. At other times, the opposite was the case and the metropolitan's policies were implemented as official government policies. In a great many instances, however, the activities of the grand prince and the metropolitan were complementary. This close association between the ecclesiastical and secular domains assured old Muscovy's internal stability and facilitated her extraordinary successes, both in the struggle for supremacy in the ethnic Great Russian territory and in her expansionist drive.

298

CONCLUSION

It should be made clear that most documents and works cited in this study were reserved for the educated members of the elite exclusively, serving the purpose of their indoctrination. A limited number of copies of historic-ideological treatises, such as the Kniga stepennaja and the Kazanskaja istorija were made available to a restricted group of people, the great majority of whom were ecclesiastics, i.e., the intellectuals of Muscovy of that particular time, and to a relatively small number of laymen who possessed the ability to read and write in connection with their work in the governmental bureaucracy. This is not surprising, since the formulation of ideologies and sociopolitical doctrines has usually been confined to elitist groups or pretenders to such groups. The written propaganda hardly reached the masses of common people, in whose case illiteracy served as a natural barrier. However, one can deduce that an ordinary man was exposed to ideological exhortations by means of oral expressions and visual symbols, such as prayers before battles, exclamations of slogans and the use of objects of religious veneration. The immediate political, as well as ideological, consequence of the Kazan conquest was, of course, the assumption by the Muscovite ruler of the title of "Tsar of Kazan", just as, somewhat later, he took the title of "Tsar of Astrakhan". This decision was not a mere formality. The additions to the title of the Russian ruler reflected a change in the character of the Muscovite state. Until 1552, it had primarily existed as a Great Russian state, the ruler of which maintained in his service Tatar aristocrats and their followers (the Khan of Kasimov, to give one example), but who was not recognized as a sovereign over Tatar countries. By acquiring the titles "Tsar of Kazan" and "Tsar of Astrakhan", Ivan IV acknowledged his succession to the thrones of the successor states of the Golden Horde. Subsequently, Russia ceased to be regarded as a single homogeneous country and began to be viewed as an empire (state of states) composed of a diversity of tsardoms, lands and cities. This new attitude is best characterized by Ivan IV's Testament in which he bequeathed the Tsardoms of Kazan and Astrakhan to his son Ivan, and left an elaborate description of the nationalities and territories of the Kazan carstvo.13 In this Testament, the Tsar insisted that the obligations and taxes of various peoples of the former Khanate were to remain in effect according to the established customs of the Tatar khans. The

13 Duxovnye i dogovornye gramoty ..., p. 439. Cf. also Howes (ed.), The Testaments of the Grand Princes of Moscow, pp. 344-345.

CONCLUSION

299

businesslike tone of this document contrasts vividly with the exalted and aggressive tenor of other Muscovite sources. Ivan's assumption of the titles "Tsar of Kazan" and "Tsar of Astrakhan" extended the Muscovite ruler's internal authority in a quantitative, but not a qualitative sense. The employment of the term "sovereign" or "autocrat" did not originate in conjunction with the absorption of the two Tatar Khanates.14 Ivan IV had been crowned the first "Tsar" five years prior to the conquest of Kazan. While the Russian subjects of the tsar remained practically unaffected by this extension of his sovereignty, the Tatars theoretically retained a legal basis and a symbol for their continuous existence as a separate society within the empire. The question to what degree the image of the Russian ruler was influenced by his succession to the thrones of the Tatar Khanates cannot be answered satisfactorily. It has been observed "that, for Russians of the sixteenth century, the title of 'tsar' was firmly connected with the image of khan ; more so than with that of the basileus".15 However, the evidence in support of this proposition is limited to formal titulature, documents designated for external use alone, and to some publicistic remarks. All other sources (chronicles and writings addressed to Russian subjects) stress that the Muscovite sovereign is a Christian tsar, ruling by the will of God and in accordance with Divine laws. Certain seventeenth-century publicists associated the foundation of the Muscovite Tsardom with the conquest of Kazan and of other Muslim khanates.18 Nevertheless, the M Cf H. Neubauer, Car und Selbstherrscher (= Veröffentlichungen des OsteuropaInstitutes München, Vol. XXII) (Wiesbaden, 1964), pp. 38-39. 16 M. Cherniavsky, "Khan or Basileus: An Aspect of Russian Mediaeval Political Theory", Journal of the History of Ideas XX: 4 (1959), p. 473. " In his Povest', the writing of which had been completed before July 28,1626, Prince Ivan Mixajloviö Katyrev-Rostovskij stated that Ivan IV "dostize soveräena muzeska vozrastu, i naia vladetelno deriati skifetro Rosijskogo gosudarstva, i rati vozdvig, i mnogie okrestnye gosudarstva velikie pod svoju deriavu, vysokuju ruku, poruCil': carstvo Kazanskoe i inye mnogie busurmanskija gosudarstva. I potom car Rosijskogo gosudarstva prozvasja, i vozveliii ego Bog paöe srodnik svoix, pervonaöalstvujuäCix carej i velikix knjazej v prevelikoj imenitoj Moskve, i razSirisja deriavstvo ego prostranstvom veliim" (RIB XQI [St. Petersburg, 1909'], p. 561). G. Kotoäixin was more explicit on this point and remarked: "Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviò of Moscow, the Proud, with many of his princes and boyars, went to war against the Tsardoms of Kazan and Astrakhan and Siberia; and with God's will he captured the tsars of these Tsardoms, together with their states and lands, and settled in these states and lands many Christian people to consolidate [his power]. And from this time on, he became Grand Prince over the Muscovite state, and over the conquered Tsardoms and over former principalities, [he became] Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviò of all Russia; and in this way did tsardom originate in the Russian kind ..." (O Rossii v carstvovanie Alekseja Mixajloviia [St. Petersburg, 1906'], p. 1).

CONCLUSION

300

official sources reserved for internal purposes exclusively e m p h a s i z e d the e x p a n s i o n o f the Russian Christian Empire a n d t h e enslavement o f the M u s l i m enemies. T h e military t a k e o v e r o f K a z a n in 1552 did n o t result in the c o m p l e t e disappearance o f t h e n o t i o n o f the K a z a n T s a r d o m . territorial Kazanskogo

It endured as a

administrative unit under t h e jurisdiction

o f the

dvorca f o r m o r e than a century after. T h e Prikaz

Prikaz

represented

a central administrative department in charge o f t h e territories o f t h e f o r m e r K a z a n K h a n a t e , Astrakhan, t h e N o g a i H o r d e and, until 1637, o f Siberia. 1 7 T h e a n n e x a t i o n o f t h e t w o Tatar K h a n a t e s a n d the subsequent a s s u m p tion o f the titles "Tsar o f Kazan" and "Tsar o f Astrakhan" by the Russian ruler were applied t o exalt his p o s i t i o n vis-à-vis other sovereigns.

They

were utilized in d i p l o m a t i c negotiations aimed at o b t a i n i n g the recognition o f the Tsar's imperial title by other powers. 1 8 I n like m a n n e r I v a n I V exploited t h e c o n q u e s t s in his request for the confirmation o f t h e Tsar's title b y t h e Patriarch of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . 1 9

T h e request

was

granted in 1561. T h e Patriarch's confirmation w a s based u p o n a reference t o Ivan's imperial ancestry in the person o f Anna, the wife o f Vladimir t h e Great, and u p o n Vladimir M o n o m a x ' s alleged acquisition o f the imperial 17

The Kazan Palace (Kazanskaja izba) was established soon after the conquest of the Khanate. A Kazanskij dvoreckij by the name of Daniil Romanovii Jur'ev is attested already in 1553. M. I. Voronoj-Volynskij was mentioned as being in charge of the Kazan Palace in 1557. The Kazan Palace is referred to for the first time in official sources in 1565. Siberian affairs were transferred from the jurisdiction of the Posol'skij prikaz to the Kazan Palace in 1599. The latter was abolished as an independent administrative unit in 1680, and incorporated as a Kazan desk or Department in the system of the Razrjad (F. T. Epstein [ed.], Heinrich von Staaden, Aufzeichnungen ûber den Moskauer Staat [= Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Auslandskunde, Vol. XXXIV] [Hamburg, 1964a], Appendix 2, pp. 235-236; Nolde, La formation ..., p. 43; Zimin, Reformy ..., p. 460; N. V. Ustjugov, "Evoljucija prikaznogo stroja russkogo gosudarstva v XVII v.", in: Absoljutizm v Rossii [ X V H - X V l f l v v . ] , Sbornik statej k semidesjatiletiju so dnja rozdenija i sorokapjatiletiju naucnoj i pedagogiieskoj dejatel'nosti B. B. Kafengauza [Moscow, 1964], pp. 139, 152). 18

SIRIO LIX (1887), pp. 437, 452. Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix, p. 144. " M. Obolenskij (ed.), Sobornaja gramola duxovenstva pravoslavnoj vostoénoj cerkvi, utveridajuSiaja san carja za velikim knjazem Ioannom IV Vasil'eviëem, 1561 g. (Moscow, 1850), p. 33. The relevant passage in the letter of January 1557, reads as follows: "i kolikim miloserdiem i neizreiennoju milostiju preblagago Gospoda Boga i Spasa naìSego Isusa Xrista vzjali esmja carstvo Kazanskoe i carstvo Astoroxanskoe so vsemi ix podlezaSôimi, i kak naëal'niki tex carstv, bogoxulnye cari, so vsemi ix voinstvy gnevom Boziim, jako ognem, naSeju sableju potrebiSas', inii z v naSix rukax prosvetiSasja baneju svjatogo kre&enija i obSóe s nami Bogu xvalu vozdajut', xristijanskix ze duS premnogoe mnozestve tex carstv razorenii izbavil Bog ot bezboinyx tomitel'stva; jakoz vosxote Bog, sie i sotvori".

CONCLUSION

301

regalia from Constantinople.20 He, however, ignored Ivan's allusion to the Tatar Khanates, although the ability to subjugate them would seem a first-rate qualification for a Christian emperorship. The Patriarch must have regarded the mention of the Muslim states as inappropriate and inopportune because he was exercising his authority under the sovereignty of the Sultan. Russia's relationship with the Tatar Khanates and the problem of their subjugation were evaluated by the Muscovite ruling elite in the context of their country's interaction with the rest of her neighbors. This was certainly an egocentric viewpoint, since the Muscovite state, with a few minor exceptions, represented for the elite the center of Russian lands, surrounded by a variety of states and societies basically hostile to Orthodoxy and to the Russian people. Although they were relatively well acquainted with their neighbors, a great many members of the elite virtually displayed no interest in a deeper understanding of their neighbors and exhibited little appreciation for the peoples, cultures and religions in the midst of which they happened to live and with whose rulers and representatives from the various social strata (diplomats, merchants, etc.) they entertained lively contacts. If they revealed any perception for states and societies such as Kazan, Astrakhan and the Nogais, it was usually for practical and material considerations. The roughly two hundred years of experience in the state system of the Golden Horde and more than a century of relations with the Kazan Khanate had, however, taught Moscow the modes of thought of the Mongol-Tatars. This enabled the Russians to gear their terminology to their adversary, raise claims which the latter would comprehend, and to successfully apply the ad hominem argument. Thus, Muscovy had the advantage of being able to profit from Mongol-Tatar political pragmatism and, at the same time, to rely upon an exclusive and emotional ideology of expansion and conversion. A number of instances disclose that fundamental differences of opinion existed between the distinguished members of the Russian and Tatar elites with regard to their respective attitudes toward Christianity and Islam and the question of reciprocal religious tolerance. The Muslim princes (Tatars, as well as Nogais) were inclined to look upon Islam and Christianity as the religions "of the Book"; they were not averse to quoting statements from the Koran and the Christian Gospel to support 10 Sobornajagramota..., p. 23. N. F. Kapterev maintained that, on account of this confirmation, Ivan IV regarded himself a successor of the Byzantine emperors and was recognized by the Patriarch as a sovereign of all the Orthodox (Xarakter otnoSenij Rosii k pravoslavnomu vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletijax [Sergiev Posad, 1914'], pp. 26-31).

302

CONCLUSION

their contentions. Similarly, the famous gift of Nur Sultan to Ivan III, i.e., the horse on which she had made pilgrimage to Mecca,81 was a gesture which betrays a detached disposition toward religious differences. It would, however, be difficult, if not impossible, to trace in the sources corresponding Muscovite parallels, i.e., a Muscovite ruler making equally respectful references to the Koran, or a Russian grand princess presenting a gift of sentimental religious significance to a prominent Muslim contemporary. Unfortunately, the published diplomatic papers and the chronicles provide no material to sustain the proposition of mutual recognition of religious and cultural values. On the basis of the existing evidence, one can surmise that relative religious tolerance was rather a Muslim virtue. It should also be added that the Ottoman Empire showed a certain religious flexibility towards its Christian subjects, a policy which had no parallel vis-à-vis Muslim counterparts in Orthodox Muscovy or in Catholic Spain. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that Muslim tolerance was confined to second-rate citizens or ignorant foreigners. The Muslims, according to their religious teachings, considered themselves the peak and the nucleus of the universe, a position which permitted them to display religious tolerance and magnanimity toward slaves, Jews, Christians, etc. The attitudes of the leadership of the Russian Church with respect to Muslim rulers and peoples underwent considerable change during the long period, lasting more than a century, of Muscovite-Kazanian relations. The following example will suflice to illustrate this evolution. Although at the beginning of the second half of the fifteenth century Metropolitan Iona spoke most respectfully of the "state of the sovereign Tsar Mahmut" 22 and conceded that the latter "ruled his state by the power of Almighty God" 23 and, by doing so, acknowledged the concept that all sovereigns, regardless of religion, were in possession of the highest mandate and ruled by God's will, a century later Metropolitan Makarij had nothing but scorn for Tatar rulers and their Muslim subjects. He based his comparative judgment of Orthodox Russians and Muslim Tatars on the rudimentary principle of binary oppositions : u " The Crimean embassy to the Muscovite court of August 1498 forwarded a letter to the Russian ruler with the following concluding statement: "Suxoj by poklon ne byl', molvja, k' Mjakke na kotorom inoxodcë, sama ëzdila, s' Axójuroju esmi k' tebë poslala" (SIRIO XLI [1884], 272], M AI I (1841), No. 266, p. 497. 28 All (1841), No. 67, p. 119. " Structural analysis, as applied in anthropology by C. Lévi-Strauss, reduces the mental processes of the members of "primitive" societies to their basic elements. Lévi-

303

CONCLUSION

Russians believers religious Christians pious pure peaceful good

Tatars nonbelievers godless pagans impious unclean warlike bad

One ought to remember, however, that these elitist dispositions toward the Tatars were not necessarily shared by all segments of Muscovite society. Feodosij Kosoj may have expressed a view held by others when he said that "all people are equal before God — the Tatars, the Germans, and other nations" (vsi ljudie edino sut' u Boga, i tatarove, i nemcy, i procii jazyci).2B These words were attributed to him only after his defection to Poland-Lithuania (probably in 1555), where he apparently felt free to voice such radical opinions. 26 It is difficult to measure the extent to which such opinions were held in Muscovy in the second half of the sixteenth century. One should be aware of the intentional suppression of "heretical" and "reforming" views by the clergy and Muscovite bureaucracy, and, at the same time, bear in mind that a great many people of different social background profited from the conquest of the Kazan Khanate: the men in service, by Strauss is also convinced that binary oppositions are intrinsic to the process of human thought in "civilized" societies (his theories on the processes of thought and on the social relations in the "primitive" world, have been primarily developed in the following works: Tristes Tropiques [Paris, 1955]; Anthropologic structural, [Paris, 1958]; Le totémisme aujourd'hui [Paris, 1962]; La Pensée sauvage [Paris, 1962]). New insights may also be obtained from the study of the principle of binary oppositions encountered in ideological and religious systems of thought. E. Leach has employed the structural methodology and the modern information theory in his evaluation of the Old Testament ("Genesis as Myth", Discovery XXIII: 5 [1962], pp. 30-35; "The Legitimacy of Solomon; Some Structural Aspects of Old Testament History", Archives Européennes des Sociologie VII: 1 [1966], pp. 58-101). Anthropological structuralism does not represent an isolated phenomenon in the realm of science and scholarship. The structural method has been applied by linguists, particularly by R. Jakobson, already in the inter-war period (for a discussion of the two aspects of language and the two types of aphasic disturbances, see his Fundamentals of Language [The Hague, 1971s]). The structural-functional analysis has recently been utilized by Gabriel Almond in the study of comparative politics. " A. Popov (ed.), Poslanie mnogoslovnoe. Soiinenie inoka Zinovija, COIDR (1880), Bk. 2, pp. xv, 143. " Ibid., Introduction, p. i. For an analysis of such "heretical" or "reforming" views with regard to other nations and religions, see A. I. Klibanov, Reformacyotmye dviíenija v Rossii v XIV- pervojpolovine XVI vv. (Moscow, 1960), pp. 367-383.

304

CONCLUSION

acquiring the newly distributed lands; the Church, by obtaining land grants and a new field for missionary activities; and finally, the peasants, who moved into the territory of the former Kazan Khanate, by receiving land and enjoying the somewhat less restricted conditions of life that were typical of the border regions. Muscovite diplomacy and historiography made use of the annexations of Kazan and Astrakhan to enhance the image of their state, which was allegedly breaking out of an imagined encirclement of hostile adversaries, as a powerful and influential empire in international affairs.27 The conquests also provided Muscovite theorists with an opportunity to define Russia's role in history, and they thereby contributed to a growing awareness of this role in Russian political thought. Having made due allowances for the exaggerated enthusiasm and patriotic pomposity which usually accompany glorifications of national achievements, one cannot fail to observe that contemporary Muscovites sensed the beginning of a new age in the destiny of their country. The conquests helped to make territorial expansion and annexation of populations recognized national virtues and political goals, aims common to most centralized national states finding themselves in the process of transformation into multinational empires. Muscovy's imperial claims to Kazan and Astrakhan and her justifications for their conquests were not of the most sophisticated sort. But the value of an ideology is not always determined by its level of sophistication. Muscovite bookmen may not have reached high intellectual standards from the theoretical point of view, but they certainly knew what they wanted, and this, after all, is one of the fundamental elements of success, both in ideology and in politics.

" The best evidence in support of this proposition is provided by a passage from an interpolation in the Carstvennaja kniga: "... i xristijanskoe Rosijskoe carstvo v'zveliôaSesja i besermenskaja zili5£a izsprainjaxusja, Kazan i Azstaraxan, i bezvernyja jazycy, Krym i Litva i Nemcy, straxova[sus]xusja, i ne be lukavomu terpeti, jako Xristovo imja proslavljaemo i veliCaemo, a skvernaja ego ziliSia razarjaemy, ...". (PSRL XIII [1906/1965], Part II, p. 522). For an earlier parallel of similar attitudes confer the "Praise" (A Fragment from an Epistle to Vasilij III), and specifically the statement: "Est' bo po vsem morem i ostrovem groznaja tvoja i krestnaja xerugvi. Ix ie bojatsa latynstii jazyci — litva, ljaxi, nemci — i vsjako besermenskoe plemja" (TODRL XXI [1965], 191). According to its editor, the "Praise" was composed approximately between 1517 and 1521 (A. S. Demin, "Otryvki iz neizvestnyx poslanij i pisem XVI-XVII w . ' \ [ibid., p. 188]).

ILLUSTRATIONS

306

Sapping of the City Wall, the Attack and the Conquest of the City of Kazan by the Russian Armies. Miniature from the Kuzanskaja istorija. Early 17th Century.

307

Ivan IV. Portrait. Later part of 16th Century. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.

308

Cathedral of Vasilij the Blessed. F o u n d e d 1555-1560, Moscow.

309

The Demon Causing Disturbances Among the People Living in a Small Town on the Kama River and the Prayer of the Seyit. Miniature from the Kazanskaja istorija. Early 17th Century.

LL< IHAiAJtHe h ^ h a Am

. CVJM H a r i r i

Tig

AntAOM*

a * r£'**L

n*j(tt

•

y j n AmAf

u x f i Vti tMH

}jrntj{*Mtiu>rtiftmn* ytttteo > rt

« m

H>\

#yt

ntJ\K0ronAt^Aj^ptctitmATTXA^mtittti

7miAtikM(*jrofKtn*Aoti¥.

.

M t f u t r t f t t m n *

a c r ^ A ^ t m ^ H K O M H u t f H t t m a c ^ t f H f U i i f

Liberation of Christian Captives and the Slaying of Pagan Kazanians by the Russian Armies in the City of Kazan. Miniature from the Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow.

A

""

rx

TThityEoaAiioivtmHMrttmotte m a o

H

y tmoMo

ay h m f k h

n t u t A k e j r o - i m t i a u H y p t

n ' t r

/v

fg(*Ht(tH/{tM> /

n

H

.

e / t n y ^ A ^ f t i i ^ K r k a o ^

Hint. L "> / / i i / r o b n t t m A a t i . u l / « , xctJ?Hif0\(i v x ^ ' T t m v nt, AM hiSUi\jrmi ret*n4yAfiA . n nam* - ifptfMHl , vtuiA^Atik iUtHi^AfhdymiMniiik rtift^ 4 r t a T t f i t flrigAA&Ati/ffrtHnf*

^ . A t a n A ^ r n g j i t r n n t H & g / f a M

Consecration of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in the City of Kazan on October 6, 1552. Miniature from the Carstvennaja kniga. Later part of 16th Century. Historical State Museum, Moscow.

316

Our Lady of K a z a n .

Icon. Mid-17th Century.

Russian Stale Museum, Leningrad.

317

O u r Lady of Kazan.

Icon. Late 17th Century. Russian State Museum, Leningrad.

318

Our Lady of Kazan. Icon by Simeon Usakov. 17th Century. Russian State Museum, Leningrad.

319

„«Bis.-.«*

®

O u r Lady of Kazan. Icon. 17th Century. F r o m the a u t h o r ' s collection

APPENDIX I

NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

The transliteration employed for the Cyrillic (East Slavic languages) is basically that of The Slavic and East European Journal (see Vol. VI: 1, p. 98), except for certain commonly used terms and geographical names, in which case the contemporary Anglicized forms and the English transliteration have been retained (tsar, tsardom, khan, khanate, Moscow, Astrakhan, Chuvash, Bashkir, etc.). For the purpose of transliteration of Tatar and Turkic words from Russian sources, where possible the guide to Turkish spelling (lmla kilavuzu [Ankara, 1962']) has been followed.

APPENDIX II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAE AE AI AIZ Analecta Annals AW BSE COIDR DAI FD FOG HSS IA IL IOAIE IORJaS IRJaS IZ JfGOE KljM LZAK MPI TASSR

Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekax i arxivax Rossijskoj imperii Arxeografiieskoju ekspedicieju Akademii Nauk Arxeograficeskij ezegodnik Akty istoriceskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arxeografiieskoju Kommissieju Arxeologiceskie izvestija i zametki Analecta Orientalia memoriae Alexandri Csoma de Körös dicata (= Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, V) The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States Ateneum Wilenskie Bol'Saja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija Ctenija v Obscestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom tmiversitete Dopolnenija k Aktam istoriceskim Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakültesi Dergisi Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte Harvard Slavic Studies Istoriceskij Arxiv A. A. Zimin (ed.), Ioasafovskaja letopis' Izvestija ObScestva arxeologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom gosudarstvennom universitete Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Izvestija po russkomu jazyku i slovesnosti AN SSSR IstoriSeskie Zapiski Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas G. N. Moiseeva (ed.), Kazanskaja istorija Letopis' zanjatij Arxeograficeskoj Kommissii Materialy po istorii Tatarskoj ASSR. Trudy istoriko-

323

OLDP PDPI PDRV PDS PI PS PSRL PVL RIB RPCh SGGD SIRIO SORJaS SR TGIAI TGIM TODRL ULS UZ VNOT ÍMNP

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

arxeograficeskogo instituía AN SSSR. Materialypo istorii narodov SSSR. Vyp 2. Obscestvo Ijubitelej drevnej pis'mennosti Pamjatniki drevnej pis'mennosti i iskusstva Prodolzenie Drevnej Rossijskoj Vivliofiki Pamjatniki diplomaticeskix snoSenij drevnej Rossii s derzavami inostrannymi Problemy istocnikovedenija Pravoslavnyj sobesednik Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej D. S. Lixacev (ed.), Povest' vremennyx let Russkaja Istoriéeskaja Biblioteka S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (eds. and trs.), Russian Primary Chronicle Sobranie gosudarstvennyx gramot i dogovorov Sbornik imperatorskogo russkogo istoriceskogo obSCestva Sbomik Otdelenija russkogo jazika i slovesnosti Slavic Review Trudy Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo istoriko-arxivnogo instituía Trudy Gosudarsivennogo isíoriéeskogo muzeja Trudy Oídela drevnerusskoj liíeraíury K. N. Serbina (ed.), Ustjuiskij letopisnyj svod Uienye zapiski Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. V. I. Ul'janova-Lenina Vestnik Naucnogo obscesíva íaíarovedenija ¿urnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveSSenija

APPENDIX HI

NOTE ON IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSLITERATION O F TATAR AND TURKIC NAMES

Turkish is the only Turkic language today using the Latin alphabet. For the purpose of identification of Tatar and Turkic names in the Russian sources, as well as their transliteration, where possible Turkish spelling has been applied. Name as it appears in this study, transliterated according to Turkish spelling

Name as it appears in Russian sources

Abdullah Abduliatif Abdulmumin

Avdul; Abdulla Abdyl-Letif Avdul-Mamon; Abdul-Mumin; Abdul-Mamun Abdyl-Roxman; Abdul-Raxman; Abdyl-Raxman Agalak Agys; Agis Axmat; Axmut Axmyl; Axmil Ak-Magmet Alikej Narykov Ali Bek; Alim Bek Ali Akram Alisukur Amonak Apaj Asan; Osan Axpolbej Azi Alem-Erdin

Abdurrahman Agalak Agi§ Ahmet Ahmil Akmagmet* Aleykum Nank AliBek Ali Ekrem Alijukur Amonak* Apay Asan Axpolbej* Azi Alem-Erdin*

* Name used as it appears in Russian sources; not identified, therefore not transliterated according to Turkish spelling.

NOTE ON IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSLITERATION

325

Name as it appears in this study, transliterated according to Turkish spelling

Name as it appears in Russian sources

Azyj* Bak§anda Baubek* Begis Berke Betej* Beybars Rast Bozuk Bulat Burnuz Buyurgan Can Ali Canibek Qapkin £ora Cora Nank Dana* Devlet Girey Edigu Fatima Gazi Gevher $at

Azyj Baksanda Baubek Begi£ Berke Betej Bibars Rastov Bozjuk; Bazjuka; Buzjuk Bulat Burnas Bejurgan Janalej; Analej Zjanibek Capkun Cura Cura Narykov Dana Devlet Girej; Devlet KirSj Edigej Fatima Kazyj Kovgorsad; Gorsedna; Gorsadna; Kogorsed

Halil Hosrev Ibrahim tlham ipek tslam Ismail JapanCa* Kasim Kati$ Kel Ahmet Kopek Ko$9ak

Kostrov Abreim; Obreim; Ibragim Alegam Ibak;Ivak Islam Ismail JapanCa Hasim; Kasim Kadys Kalimet Kebek KosCak

326

NOTE ON IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSLITERATION

Name as it appears in this study, transliterated according to Turkish spelling

Name as it appears in Russian sources

Küsük Ali Kuday Kul

Kaöig-Alej Kudajkul; Kudajgul; Kudagul; Kudugul Kulaj Kul-Derbyä Kulserif Kuluä Libej; Libgj Magmut; Maxmut; Mamutek; Mamutjak Mamaj Mamuk Mamys-Berdej Maxmet; Maxmat Maxmet-Amin; Maxmet-Emin; Magmed-Amin Magmet-Girej; Magmet-Kiröj Mengli-Girej Muralej Nur-Sultan Urak Utemys-Girej Sadyr Saip-Girej; Saip-KirSj; Sapkiröj Saidat-Girej; Saidet-Kiräj Safa-Girej; Safa-KirSj Said Ahmet Sjujun-Bike Sigalej; Six-Alej Sax-Gussejn; Sansejn Sax-Jusup; Sajsup Saptjak Sabas Samov Tabaj Temir-Kutluj Tereul

Kul Ali Kul Der vi 5 Kul Serif Kulus* Libej* Mahmut Mamay Mamuk Mamys-Berdej* Mehmet Mehmet Emin Mehmet Girey Mengli Girey Nur Ali Nur Sultan Orak ötemi? Girey Sadir Sahip Girey Saadet Girey Sefa Girey Seyit Ahmet Süyün Bike §ah Ali Sah Hüseyn Sah Yusuf Saptiak Savas Sam Täbi Temir Kutlu Tereul*

NOTE ON IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSLITERATION

327

Name as it appears in this study, transliterated according to Turkish spelling

Name as it appears in Russian sources

Tevkil Tohtami§ Ulu Mehmet Uraiko* Yadigar Mehmet

Tevkelo; Tevekel' Taxtamys; Toxtamys; Toktamyg Ulu-Maxmet; Ulug-Maxmet Uraöko rdiger-Megmet; Ideger-Megmet; Ediger-Magmet Jamguröej Jakub Jaglyc Jusuf

Yagmurci Yakup Yah? Yusuf

APPENDIX IV

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF KIEVAN RULERS TO THE MONGOL CONQUEST OF KIEV IN 12401

Name Rurik (Rjurik) (?) Oleg Igor (I) Olga (Regent) Svjatoslav (I) Jaropolk (I) Vladimir (I) Svjatopolk (I) Jaroslav (I) Izjaslav (I)

Vseslav of Polock Svjatoslav (II) of Cernigov Vsevolod (I) of Perejaslavl' Svjatopolk (II) Vladimir (II) Monomax Mstislav (I) Harald Jaropolk (II) Vjaöeslav Vjaöeslav and Izjaslav (II) Vsevolod (EE) of Cernigov Igor (II) of Cernigov Izjaslav (II)

Dates of rule

|912 or 913 913-945 945-964 964-972 972-978 978-1015 1015-1019 1019-1054 1054-1068 1069-1073 1077-1078 1068-1069 1073-1076 1076-1077 1078-1093 1093-1113 1113-1125 1125-1132 1132-1139 1139, 1150 1150-1154 1139-1146 1146 1146-1149, 1150

1 The term Kievan rulers has been applied to those rulers who exercised authority either over the entire state of the Kievan Rus', the Kievan land or the city of Kiev depending on the political situation and the respective power relations.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF KIEVAN RULERS

329

Name

Dates of rule

Izjaslav (II) and Vjaòeslav Jurij Dolgorukij (also of Suzdal')

1149-1150, 1150, 1154

Izjaslav (III) of Cernigov

1154-1155

1150-1154 1155-1157 1157-1158, 1161

Rostislav (I)

1154 1159-1161 1161-1167

Mstislav (II) Gleb of Suzdal' Vladimir (III) Roman

1167-1169 1169-1171 1171 1171 1175-1176

Mixail (I) of Suzdal' Rurik

1172 1173 1180-1181 1194-1200 (?), 1203 1205-1206, 1206 1207-1210

Jaroslav (II) Svjatoslav (III) of Cernigov Ingvar Rostislav (II) Vsevolod (III) of Cernigov

1174 1176-1180 1181-1194 1200 (?)-1202, 1212 1204-1205 1206, 1207 1210-1212

Mstislav (III) Vladimir (IV) Izjaslav (IV) Jaroslav (III) of Suzdal' Mixail (II) of Cernigov Rostislav (III) Danylo (I) of Halyó

1212-1223 1223-1234, 1236 1235 1236-1238 1238-1239 1239 1240

APPENDIX V

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST O F RULERS O F THE (SUZDAL*) - VLADIMIR GRAND PRINCIPALITY TO ITS FINAL MERGING WITH THE MUSCOVITE GRAND PRINCIPALITY Name

Dates of rule

Jurij Dolgorukij Andrej Bogoljubskij Mixail Vsevolod (III) Jur'eviC Jurij (II) Vsevolodovic

1125-1157 1157-1174 1175-1176 1176-1212 1212-1216 1218-1238 1216-1218 1238-1246 1246-1248 1248 1248-1252 1252-1263 1263-1271 1272-1276 1276-1281 1283-1294 1281-1283 1294-1304 1304-1318 1318-1322 1322-1326 1326-1327 1328-1341 1341-1353 1353-1359 1359-1363 1363-1389

Konstantin VsevolodoviC Jaroslav Vsevolodovic Svjatoslav Vsevolodovic Mixail JaroslaviC of Moscow Andrej Jaroslavic Aleksandr Jaroslavid Nevskij Jaroslav Jaroslavid of Tver Vasilij Jaroslavic of Kostroma Dmitrij AleksandroviC of Perejaslavl' Andrej AleksandroviS of Gorodec Mixail of Tver Jurij Danilovid of Moscow Dmitrij Mixajlovie of Tver Aleksandr MixajloviS of Tver Ivan (I) Kalita of Moscow Semen of Moscow Ivan (II) of Moscow Dmitrij Konstantinovii of Suzdal' Dmitrij Donskoj

APPENDIX VI

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RULERS OF MUSCOVITE RUSSIA TO THE EXTINCTION OF THE "RURIKIDE" DYNASTY

Name

Dates of rule

Daniil Aleksandrovii Jurij DaniloviC Ivan (I) Kalita Semen Ivan (II) Dmitrij Donskoj Vasilij (I) Vasilij (II) Ivan OH) Vasilij (III) Ivan (IV) Fedor IvanoviC

1282/3-1303 1303-1325 1325-1341 1341-1353 1353-1359 1359-1389 1389-1425 1425-1462 1462-1505 1505-1533 1533-1584 1584-1598

APPENDIX VH

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST O F METROPOLITANS OF MOSCOW

Name

Dates of tenure

Iona Feodosij Filipp (I) Gerontij Zosima Simeon Varlaam Daniil Ioasaf Makarij Afanasij German Filipp (II) Kirill Antonij Dionisij Iov (as a Patriarch)

1448-1461 1461-1464 1464-1473 1473-1489 1490-1494 1495-1511 1511-1521 1522-1539 1539-1542 1542-1563 1564-1566 1566 1566-1568 1568-1572 1572-1581 1581-1587 1587-1589 1589-1605

APPENDIX VIII CHRONOLOGICAL LIST O F KHANS O F THE KAZAN KHANATE

Name

Dates of rule1

Dates of rule2

Ulu Mehmet Mahmut Halil Ibrahim llham

1437-1445 1445-1462 1462-1467 1467-1479 1479-1484 1485-1487 1484-1485 1487-1495 1502-1518

1438-1446 1446-14663 1466-14674 1467-1479 1479-1485 1486-1487 1485-1486 1487-1496 1502-1518 1496-1497 1497-1502 1518-1521 1546 1551-1552 1521-1524/5 1525-1532 1535-1546 1546-1549

Mehmet Emin

Mamuk Abdiillâtif §ah Ali

Sahip Girey Sefa Girey

1

1495-1496 1496-1502 1518-1521 1546 1551-1552 1521-1524/5 1525-1532 1533-1546 1546-1549

Dates of rule, according to R. R. Arat, "Kazan", Islam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1955), VI, p. 514. * Dates of rule, as proposed by the author. * It has been traditionally assumed that Khan Mahmut lived and ruled until 1461 or 1462 (cf. the dates proposed by R. R. Arat). However, a discovery by Halasi-Kun of a diplomatic yarlik of Khan Mahmut, addressed to the Turkish Sultan Mehmet II, dated April 10,1466 (cf. supra, Chapter I, p. 14, n. 7) reveals that on this date Khan Mahmut was active as a ruler and therefore, the date of his reign should be extended to at least April 1466. * The conventional dating for Khan Halil's reign has been 1461 or 1462-1467. Due to the revision in Khan Mahmut's date of rule in connection with the discovery of his yarlik (cf. supra, n. 3), an adjustment in Khan Halil's tenure to the years 1466-1467 has been mandatory.

334

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF KHANS

Name

Dates of rule8

Can Ali Otemi§ Girey (Regency of Suyun Bike) Yadigàr Mehmet Ali Ekrem

1531-1533 1549-1551

1532-1535 1549-1551

1552 1556

1552 1556 (?)

' Cf. supra, n. 1. • Cf. supra, n. 2.

Dates of rule6

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdul'manova, A. K., "Leksika, svjazannaja s ponjatiem gospodstva v 'Kazanskom letopisce'Uienye Zapiski Kiienevskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta LXXXIV (1967), pp. 17-24. , "Ob3£estvenno-politi&eskaja i voennaja leksika 'Kazanskogo letopisca"', unpublished Candidate's dissertation, KujbiSev State Pedagogical Institute, 1966. Absoljutizm v Rossii (XV1I-XV111 vvj. Sbornik stalej k semidesjatiletiju so dnja rozdenija i sorokapjatiletiju nauinoj i pedagogiieskoj dejateVnosti B. B. Kafengauza. Ed. by N. M. Druzinin, N. I. Pavlenko and L. V. Cerepnin (Moscow, 1964). Adrianova-Peretc, V. P. (ed.), Voinskie povestidrevnej Rusi (Moscow-Leningrad, 1949). Akty istoriieskie i juridiieskie, i drevnija carskija gramoty Kazanskoj i drugix sosedstvennyx gubernij, sobrannye Stepanom Mel'nikovym. 1 vol. (Kazan, 1859). Akty istoriieskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arxeograficeskoju Kommissieju. 5 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1841-1842). Akty, otnosjaSciesja k istorii Zapadnoj Rossii. 5 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1846-1853). Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekax i arxivax Rossijskoj imperii Arxeograficeskoju ekspedicieju Akademii Nauk. 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1836-1838). Alföldi, A., "A tarchan m61tösägn6v eredete", Magyar Nyelv XXVIII (1932), pp. 205220. Al'SSic, D. N., "Car Groznyj ili d'jak Ivan Viskovatyj", TODRL XVI (1960), pp. 617625. , "Istoiniki i xarakter redakcionnoj raboty Ivana Groznogo nad istoriej svoego carstvovanija", Trudy Gosudarstvennoj Pubtiinoj Biblioteki im. M. E. SaltykovaSiedrina I (IV), (1957), pp. 119-146. , Ivan Groznyj i pripiski k licevym svodam ego vremeni", IZ XXIII (1947), pp. 251-289. , "Proisxozdenie i osobennosti isto&iikov, povestvujuäiix o bojarskom mjateze 1553 g.", IZ XXV (1948), pp. 266-292. , "Razrjadnaja kniga moskovskix gosudarej ", PI VI (1958), pp. 130-151. Andreyev, N., "Interpolations in the 16th Century Muscovite Chronicles", The Slavonic and East European Review XXXV: 84 (1956), pp. 95-115. , "Ob avtore pripisok v licevyx svodax Groznogo", TODRL XVIII (1962), pp. 117-148. Antonova, V. I. and Mneva, N. E., Katalog drevnerusskoj iivopisi (Gosudarstvennaja Tret'jakovskaja Gallereja). 2 vols. (Moscow, 1963). Arat, R. R., "Kazan", Islam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. VI (Istanbul, 1955). Arcixovskij, A. V., Drevnerusskie miniatjury kak istoriieskij istoinik (Moscow, 1944). Arxeografiieskij ezegodnik. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie istorii, Arxeografiieskaja komissija (Moscow, 1957-1970). Avtokratov, V. N., Review of "Kazanskaja istorija". Ed. by G. N. Moiseeva. 1A VI (1955), pp. 219-222.

336

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

BarbaSev, A., Vitovt i ego politika do GrjunvaTdsko] bitvy ( 1410 g.) (St. Petersburg, 1885). Barsov, E. V., "Drevnerusskie pamjatniki svjaäöennogo venianìja carej na carstvo", COIDR (1883), Bk. 1. Barsukov, N., Istoéniki russkoj agiografi! (St. Petersburg, 1882). Bartol'd, V. V., Soiinenija. 6 vols. (Moscow, 1963-1968). Battal, A., "Kazan yurdunda bulunmu? tarihi bir vesika. Sahip Girey Han yarhgi", Tûrkiyat Mecmuasi II (1925-1926), pp. 75-101. BazileviC, K. V., VneSnjaja politika russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva (Vtoraja polovina XV veka) (Moscow, 1952). Becker, S., Russia's Protectorates in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865-1924 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968). Begunov, Ju. K., Pamjatnik russkoj literatury XIII veka (Moscow, 1965). Benningsen, A., and Lemercier-Quelquejay, C., "Musulmans et missions orthodoxe en Russie orientale avant 1917 : Essai de bibliographie critique", Cahiers du monde russe etsovietique XIII: 1 (1972), pp. 57-113. Bielski, M., Kronikapolska. 9 vols, in 4 (Warsaw, 1829-1833) (Zbiàrpisarzówpolskich, Vols. 11-19). Billington, J. H., The Icon and the Axe, An Interpretative History of Russian Culture (New York, 1966). Bloch, M., Feudal Society. Tr. by L. A. Manyon, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1961). Brockelmann, C., History of the Islamic Peoples (New York, 1960). Brunner, O., "'Feudalismus' — Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte", Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10 (1958), pp. 591-627. , Land und Herrschaft (Vienna, 19594). Budovnic, I. U., ObScestvenno-politiceskaja mysl' drevnej Rusi (Moscow, 1960). , Russkaja publicistika XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1947). , Slovak russkoj, ukrainskoj i belorusskoj pis'mennosti i literatury do XVIII veka (Moscow, 1962). Buganov, V. I., Razrjadnyeknigiposlednoj tetvertiXV-naéala XVIIIv. (Moscow, 1962). Buganov, V. I. (ed.), Razrjadnaja kniga 1475-1598 gg. (Moscow, 1966). Byökov, A. F., Opisanie cerkovno-slavjanskix i russkix rukopisnyx sbornikov Publiênoj biblioteki (St. Petersburg, 1882), Part I. Cherniavsky, M., "Khan or Basileus: An Aspect of Russian Mediaeval Political Theory", Journal of the History of Ideas XX : 4 (1959), pp. 459-476. , Tsar and People (New Haven and London, 1961). Cross, S. H., and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, O. P., (eds. and trs.) The Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text) (Cambridge, Mass., 1953). Caev, N. S., " 'Moskva — tretij Rim' v politiieskoj praktike Moskovskogo pravitel'stva XVI veka", IZ XVII (1945), pp. 3-23. Cerepnin, L. V., Obrazovanie russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV-XV vekax (Moscow, 1960). , Russkaja istoriografija do XIX veka (Moscow, 1957). , Russkie feodal'nye arxivy, XIV-XV vv. 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1948-1951). Cerepnin, L. V. (ed.), Duxovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikix i udel'nyx knjazej XIVXVI vv. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950). CernySov, E. I., "Tatarskaja derevnja vtoroj poloviny XVI i XVII v.", Eiegodnik po agrarnoj istorii vostoinoj Evropy 1961 g. (Riga, 1963), pp. 174-183. Ctenija v Obiiestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom universitete. 264 vols. (Moscow, 1846-1918). Demin, A. S., "Otryvki iz neizvestnyx poslanij i pisem XVI-XVII w . " , Novonajdennye i neopublikovannye proizvedenija drevnerusskoj literatury, TODRL XXI (1965), pp. 188-193.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

Deräavina, O. A. (ed.), Skazame Avraamija Palicyrta (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955). Destutt de Tracy, A. L. C , Éléments d'idéologie. 4 vols. (Paris, 1817-1818"). Dewey, H. W. (ed. and tr.), Muscovite Judicial Texts, 1488-1556 (= Michigan Slavic Materials, No. 7) (Ann Arbor, 1966). Djakonov, M., Oéerki obiiestvennogo i gosudarstvennogo stroja drevnej Rusi (MoscowLeningrad, 19264). , Vlast' moskovskix gosudarej {St. Petersburg, 1889). Dhigosz, J., Opera omnia. Ed. by A. Przezdziecki, 14 vols. (Cracow, 1863-1887). Dmitrieva, R. P., Bibliografija russkogo letopisanija (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962). Dmitrieva, R. P. (ed.), Skazame o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955). Donnelly, A. S., The Russian Conquest of Bashkiria, 1552-1740 (New Haven, 1968). Dopolnenija k Aktam istorideskim. Vols. I, II, V-XII (St. Petersburg, 1846-1872). Drevnjaja Rossijskaja Vivliofika. 20 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1788-1791"). Droblenkova, N. F. (ed.), Novaja Povest' o Preslavnom Rosijskom Carstve (MoscowLeningrad, 1960). Dunaev, B. I., Pr. Maksim Grek igreieskaja ideja na Rusi v XVI veke (Moscow, 1916). Eliseev, G. Z., 2izneopisanie svjatitelej Gurija, Germana i Varsonofija, kazanskix i svijaiskix ¿udotvorcev (Kazan, 1847). Epstein, F. T. (ed.), Heinrich von Staaden. Aufzeichnungen über den Moskauer Staat {= Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Auslandskunde, Vol. XXXIV), (Hamburg, 1964»). Fedotov, G . P., Svjatye drevnej Rusi (X-XVlIst.) (New York, 1959). Fennell, J. L. I., Ivan the Great of Moscow (London, 1961). Fennell, J. L. I. (ed. and tr.), Prince A. M. Kurbsky's History of Ivan IV (Cambridge, 1965). , The Correspondence between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia* 1564-1579 (Cambridge, 1963). Fexner, V., Torgovlia russkogo gosudarstva so stranami Vostoka v XVI veke (Moscow, 1956'). Filaret., Obzor russkoj duxovnoj literatury (Kharkov, 1859). Firsov, N. N., Inorodleskoe naselenie preznjago Kazanskogo carstva v novoj Rossii do 1762 goda i kolonizacija zakamskix zemel' v eto vremja (Kazan, 1869). , Kolonizacija Volzsko-Kamskogo kraja i svjazannaja s nim politika (Kazan, 1930). , ProSloe Tatarii (Kazan, 1926). Fisher, A. W., The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772-1783 (Cambridge, 1970). Fleischhacker, H., Die stoats- und völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der moskauischen Aussenpolitik (14.-17. Jahrhunderts) (= JfGOE, Beiheft 1) (Breslau, 1938). Frye, R. N., "Tarxün-Türxün and Central Asia History", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies XIV: 1-2 (1951), pp. 105-129. Ganshof, F. L., Feudalism. Tr. by P. Grierson (London, 1952). Gening, V. F., and Xalikov, A. X., Ramie Bolgary na Volge (Moscow, 1964). Goloxvastov, D. P., and Leonid, "BlagoveSöenskij ierej Sil'vestr i ego pisanija", COIDR (1874), Bk. 1, Sec. 1, pp. 1-110. Golubinskij, E. E., "Istorija kanonizacii svjatyx v russkoj cerkvi", COIDR (1903), Bk. 1. , Istorija russkoj cerkvi. 2 vols. (Moscow, 19001). Gosmanov, M., Muxamed'jarov, 5., and Stepanov, R., "Jana Jarlyk", Kazan utlary 8 (1965), pp. 146-150. Grekov, B. D., "Vol&kie bolgary v IX-X vekax", 1Z XIV (1945), pp. 3-37. Grekov, B. D. (ed.), Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov (Preparation of texts: R. B. Mjuller and L. V. Cerepnin; Commentaries: A. I. Kopanev, B. A. Romanov and L. V. Cerepnin) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1952). Grekov, B. D., and Jakubovskij, A. Ju., Zolotaja Orda ieepadenie(Moscow-Leningrad, 1950).

338

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grekov, I. B., Olerkipo istorii meidunarodnyx otnoienij vostoinoj Evropy XIV-XVI vv. (Moscow, 1963). Grigor'ev, A. N. t "Xristianizacija nerusskix narodnostej, kak odin iz metodov nacional'no-kolonial'noj politiki carizma v Tatarii (S poloviny XVI v. do fevralja 1917 g.)", Materialy po istorii Tatarii. Vyp. I (Kazan, 1948), pp. 226-285. Gudzij, N. K., Istorija drevnej russkoj literatury (Moscow, 19667)HaJasi-Kun, T., "Phiiologica III. Kazan Türkcesine ait dil yadigärlan", Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakültesi Dergisi VII: 4 (1949), pp. 603-644. , "Monuments de la langue tatare de Kazan", Analecta OrientaUa memoriae Alexandri Csoma de Koros dicata (= Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, V). Vol, I (1942), pp. 138-155. Herberstein, S. von, Notes upon Russia (= Hakluyt Society Works, Series I, Vols. X, XH, Parts I-II) (London, 1851-1852). , Zapiski o mosfcovitskix delax. Ed. and tr. by A. I. Malein (St. Petersburg, 1908). Hintze, O., Staat und Verfassung (Göttingen, 1962s). Howes, R. C. (ed. and tr.), The Testaments of the Grand Princes of Moscow (Ithaca, New York, 1967). Hruäevs'kyj, M., Istorija Ukrajiny-Rusy. 10 vols., offset rep. ed. (New York, 19541958). Ikonnikov, V. S., Opyt russkoj istoriografii. 2 vols. (Kiev, 1891-1908). Issledovanija i materialy po drevnerusskoj literature (Moscow, 1961). Istorideskie Zapiski. Institut istorii AN SSSR. Vols. I-LXXXVI (Moscow, 1937-1970). Istoriceskij Arxiv. Institut istorii AN SSSR. 10 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1936-1954). Istorija russkoj literatury. 10 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1941-1954). Istorija russkoj literatury. 3 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1958-1964). Istorija Tatarii v dokumentax i materialax (Moscow, 1937). Istorija Tatarskoj ASSR. Vol. I (Kazan, 1955). Istorija Tatarskoj ASSR (Kazan, 1968). Istorija Tatarskoj ASSR (s drevnejSix vremen do naiix dnej), Ukazatel' sovetskoj literatury (1917-1959). Ed. by S. I. Daiäev (Kazan, 1960). Istorija Tatarskoj ASSR (s drevnejSix vremen do naiix dnejJ, Ukazatel' sovetskoj literatury (1960-1967). Ed. by S. I. Daiäev (Kazan, 1970). Ivanov, A. I., Literaturnoe nasledie Maksima Greka (Xarakteristika, atribucii, bibliografija) (Leningrad, 1969). Izvestija ObSiestva arxeologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom gosudarstvennom universitete. 34 vols. (Kazan, 1878-1929). Jakobson, R., Fundamentals of Language (The Hague, 1971s). Jakovleva, O. A. (ed.), "Piskarevskij Letopisec", Materialy po istorii SSSR. Vol. II (Moscow, 1955), pp. 5-144. Jasinskij, A. N., Soiinenija knjazja Kurbskogo kak istoriieskij istoinik (Kiev, 1899). Kalajdovi£, K., and Stroev, P. (eds.), Obstojatel'noe opisanie slavjano-rossijskix rukopisej, xranjaSiixsja v Moskve v biblioteke grafa Fedora Andreeviia Tolstova. Parts I-III (Moscow, 1825). Kämpfer, F., "Die Eroberung von Kazan 1552 als Gegenstand der zeitgenössischen russischen Historiographie", FOG XTV (1969), pp. 7-161. Kämpfer, F. (ed. and tr.), Historie vom Zartum Kazan (= Slavische Geschichtsschreiber, Vol. VII) (Graz-Vienna- Cologne, 1969). Kapterev, N. F., Xarakter otnoienij Rossii k pravoslavnomu vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletijax (Sergiev Posad, 19142). Karamzin, N. M., Istorija gosudarstva rossijskogo. Ed. by P. Ejnerling, 12 vols, in 3 (St. Petersburg, 1842-1843"). KaStanov, S. M., "O spiskax dvux neopublikovannyx letopisnyx svodov (1493 i 1495 gg.)", PI V i n (1959), pp. 445-465.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

, "Zemel'no-immunitetnaja politika russkogo pravitel'stva v Kazanskom krae v 50-x godax XVI v. (Po aktovomu materialu)", Ulenye Zapiski Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogiieskogo instituta. Vyp. 80, Iz istorii Tatarii, Sbornik IV (Kazan, 1970), pp. 164-203. Katanov, N. F., and Pokrovskij, I. M., "Otryvok iz odnoj tatarskoj letopisi o Kazani i kazanskom xanstve", IOAIEXXI (1905), Vyp. 4, pp. 303-348. Kazakova, N. A., Oierki po istorii russkoj obSiestvennoj mysli (pervaja tret' XVI veka) (Leningrad, 1970). Kedrov, S., ¿izneopisanie sv. Germogena patriarxa Moskovskogo i vseja Rossii (Moscow, 1912). Keenan, E. L., "Coming to Grips with the Kazanskaya Istoriya: Some Observations on Old Answers and New Questions", Annals XI: 1-2 (31-32) (1964-1968), pp. 143-183. , "Muscovy and Kazan' 1445-1552: A Study in Steppe Politics", unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1965. , "Muscovy and Kazan: Some Introductory Remarks on the Patterns of Steppe Diplomacy", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), 548-558. Klibanov, A. I., Reformacyonnye dviienija v Rossii v XIV-pervoj polovine XVI vv. (Moscow, 1960). Kljudevskij, V. O., Drevnerusskie zitija svjatyx kak istoriieskij istolnik (Moscow, 1871). , Soiinenija. 8 vols. (Moscow, 1956-1959). Kljufevskij, V. O. (ed.), "Skazanie o iudesax Vladimirskoj ikony Boiiej Materi", OLDP XXX (1878). Koch, H., Kleine Schriften zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte Osteuropas (= Veröffentlichungen des Osteuropa-Institutes München, Vol. XVII) (Munich, 1962). Kokorina, S. I., "K voprosu o sostave i plane avtorskogo teksta 'Kazanskoj istorii"' TODRL XII (1956), pp. 576-585. Kopanev, A. I., Kukuäkina, M. V., and Pokrovskaja, V. F., Istoriieskie Sborniki XVXVII vv. (Opisanie Rukopisnogo otdela Biblioteki Akademii Nauk SSSR). Vol. III, Vyp. 2 (Moscow, 1965). KotoSixin, G., O Rossii v carstvovanie Alekseja Mixajlovica (St. Petersburg, 19064). Kräder, L., "Principles and Structures in the Organization of the Asiatic SteppePastoralists", Southwestern Journal of Anthropology XI: 2 (1955), pp. 67-92. KravCenko, A. G., "Moskovskij letopisnyj svod 1493-1494 godov po Beljaevskomu spisku", TODRL XII (1956), pp. 379-386. Kudrjavcev, I. M., "'Poslanie na Ugru' Vassijana Rylo kak pamjatnik publicistiki XV v.", TODRL VIII (1951), pp. 158-186. , "'UgorSöina' v pamjatnikax drevnerusskoj literatury", Issledovanija i materialy po drevnerusskoj literature (Moscow, 1961), pp. 23-67. Kuncevii, G. Z., "Dva rasskaza o poxodax carja Ivana Vasil'eviCa Groznogo na Kazan' v 1550 i 1552 godax", "OtCeti o zasedanijax Obäiestva ljubitelej drevnej pis'mennosti v 1897-1898 gg.", PDPICXXX (1898), Prilozenie, pp. 23-35. , Istorija o Kazanskom carstve ili Kazanskij letopisec (St. Petersburg, 1905). , "Maloizvestnyja zapiski o Kazanskix poxodax 1550 i 1552 goda", 2MNP CCCXVIII (1898), pp. 135-145. Kurat, A. N., Kazan hanltgim kuran Ulug Muhammet hamn yarhgi (Istanbul, 1937). , Topkapi Sarayt Müzesi Arfivindeki Ahm Ordu, Kirim ve Tiirkistan hanlarina ait yarhk ve bitikler (Istanbul, 1940). Kuz'min, A. G., "K voprosu o vremeni sozdanija i redakcijax Nikonovskoj letopisi", AE1962 (1963), pp. 111-120. , Rjazanskoe letopisanie (Moscow, 1965). Lantzeff, G., Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of Colonial Administration (Berkeley, 1943).

340

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Laptev, V. V., "Voskresenskaja letopis'", Ucenye Zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvermogo pedagogiéeskogo instituía imeni A. I. Gercena CII (1955), pp. 165-239. Lavrov, N. F., "Zametki o Nikonovskoj letopisi", LZAK vyp. 1 (34) (Leningrad, 1927), pp. 55-90. Leach, E., "Genesis as Myth", Discovery XXIII: 5 (1962), pp. 30-35. , "The Legitimacy of Solomon; Some Structural Aspects of Old Testament History", Archives Européennes des Sociologie VII: 1 (1966), pp. 58-101. Lebedev, A. N. (ed.), "Letopisec russkij", COIDR (1895), Bk. 3, Sec. 1, pp. 1-189. Leonid, Arximandrit, Sistematiieskoe opisanie slavjanorossijskix rukopisej sobrannija grafa A. S. Uvarova. Parts I-IV (Moscow, 1893-1894). Letopis' po Ipatskomu spisku (Izd. Arxeografiéeskoj Komissii) (St. Petersburg, 1871). Letopis' zanjatij Arxeografiéeskoj komissii. 35 vols. (St. Petersburg-Leningrad, 18621929). Lettenbauer, W., Moskau das dritte Rome (1961). Lévi-Strauss, C., Anthropologie structurale (Paris, 1958). , La Pensée sauvage (Paris, 1962). , Le totémisme aujourd'hui (Paris, 1962). , Tristes tropiques (Paris, 1955). Levina, S. A., "K izuieniju Voskresenskoj letopisi ...", TODRL XIII (1957), pp. 689705. ——, " O vremeni sostavlenija i sostavitele Voskresenskoj letopisi XVI veka", TODRL XI (1955), pp. 375-379. , "'Voskresenskaja letopis' XVI v. (ee redakcii, istoíniki i znacenie)", TGJAI X (1957), pp. 402-403. Lixaòev, D. S., Celovek v literature drevnej Rusi (Moscow, 19702). , Nacional'noe samosoznanie drevnej Rusi (Moscow-Leningrad, 1945). , Poetika drevnerusskoj literatury (Leningrad, 1967). , Russkie letopisi i ix kul'turno-istoriéeskoe znacenie (Moscow, 19702). Lixaíev, D. S. (ed.), Povest' vremennyx let. 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950). LixaCev, D. S., and Lur'e, Jas. S. (eds.), Poslanija Ivana Groznogo (Moscow-Leningrad, 1951). LixaCev, N. P., "Basma zolotoordynskix xanov", in: Sbornik statej v cest' grafini P. S. Uvarovoj (Moscow, 1916), pp. 70-86. • , " 'Gosudarev rodoslovec' i rod Adaäevyx", LZAK XI (1903), pp. 44-135. • , Palegrafiíeskoe znacenie bumainyx vodjanyx znakov. Parts I-II (St. Petersburg, 1899). Ljaskoronskij, V. G., "K voprosu o bitve kn. Vitovta s tatarami na r. Vorskle v 1399-m godu", ¿MNP, Part XVI (1908), pp. 70-77. , "Russkie poxody v stepi v udel'noveCevoe vremja i poxod kn. Vitovta na tatar v 1399-m godu", ¿MNP, Part VIII (1907), pp. 1-37, 273-312; Part IX (1907), pp. 1-45. Ljubarskij, P. (ed.), Sbornik drevnostej Kazanskoj eparxii (Kazan, 1868). Loparev, X. M., "Slovo o pogibeli ruskyja zemli", PDPIXXXIV (1892). Ludat, H., "Farbenbezeichnungen in Völkernamen", Saeculum IV (1953), pp. 138-155. Lur'e, Ja. S., "Bor'ba cerkvi s velikoknjaieskoj vlast'ju v konce 70-x-pervoj polovine 80-x godov XV v.", TODRL XIV (1958), pp. 219-228. , Ideologiceskaja bor'ba v russkojpublicistike konca XV-naâala XVI veka (MoscowLeningrad, 1960). , "Iz istorii politiieskoj bor'by pri Ivane III", Uíenye Zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, No. 80, Serija istoriieskix nauk, Vyp. 10 (1941), pp. 75-92. , "Iz istorii russkogo letopisanija konca XV veka", TODRL XI (1955), pp. 156-186. , " O neizdannoj Xolmogorskoj letopisi-", in: Issledovanija po oteêestvennomu

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

istoénikovedeniju.- (Sbornik statej, posvjaSlermix 85-letiju professora S. N. Valka), Trudy Leningradskogo otdelenija Instituía istorii, Vyp. 7 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1964), pp. 449-455. , "Xolmogorskaja letopis'", Pamjatniki russkoj literatury X-XVII vv., TODRL XXV (1970), pp. 135-149. Lur'e, Ja. S., and Mjuller, R. B. (eds.), PuteSestvija russkix poslov XVI-XVII vv. (Statejnye spiski) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1954). Malinin, V. N., Starec Eleazarova Monastyrja Filofej i ego poslanija (Kiev, 1901). Malinovskij, A., "Istoriíeskoe i diplomatiíeskoe sobranie del, proisxodivSix mezdu rossijskimi velikimi knjaz'jami i byvsimi v Kryme tatarskimi carjami s 1462 po 1533 g.", Zapiski Odesskogo obSiestva istorii i drevnostej V (1863). Malov, S. E., Pamjatniki drernetjurkskoj pis'mennosti Mongolii i Kirgizii (MoscowLeningrad, 1959). MalySev, V. I., "2itie Aleksandra Nevskogo (po rukopisi serediny XVI v. GrebenSiikovskoj staroobrjadCeskoj obSíiny v g. Rige)", TODRL V (1947), pp. 185-193. Mannheim, K., Ideology and Utopia (New York, 1954). Mardzani, S., Oterk istorii Bulgarskogo i Kazanskogo xanstva. Trudy IV Arxeologiieskogo s'ezda. Vol. I (Kazan, 1878). Maslennikova, N. N., "Ideologiieskaja bor'ba v pskovskoj literature v period obrazovanija Russkogo centralizovannogo gosudarstva", TODRL VIII (1951), pp. 187217. , Prisoedinenie Pskova k Russkomu centralizovannomu gosudarstvu (Leningrad, 1955). Materialy istoriéeskie i juridiceskie rajona byvíago Prikaza Kazanskogo dvorca. Arxiv knjazja V. I. BajuSeva. Vol. I ed. by N. P. Zagoskin (Kazan, 1882); Vol. II ed. by V. Golivanov and V. Krasovskij (Simbirsk, 1898). Materialy po istorii Tatarii. Vyp. 1 (Kazan, 1948). Materialy po istorii Tatarskoj ASSR. Trudy istoriko-arxeografiíeskogo instituía AN SSSR. Materialy po istorii narodov SSSR. Vyp. 2 (Leningrad, 1932). Menges, K. H., The Oriental Elements in ihe Vocabulary of the Oldesl Russian Epos, the Igor Tale, Supplement to Word VII, Monograph No. 1 (New York, 1951). , The Turkic Languages and Peoples (Wiesbaden, 1968). Miljukov, P. N., Glavnye íeíenija russkoj isforiéeskoj mysli (Moscow, 1913'). Miljukov, P. N. (ed.), DrevnejSaja razrjadnaja kniga official'noj redakcii (po 1565 g.) (Moscow, 1901). Miller, D. B., "Legends of the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir: A Study of the Development of Muscovite National Consciousness", Speculum XLIII: 4 (1968), pp. 657-670. , "The Coronation of Ivan IV of Moscow", JfGOE XV: 4 (1967), pp. 559-574. , "The Literary Activities of Metropolitan Macarius: A Study of Muscovite Political Ideology in the Time of Ivan IV", unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967. Minorsky, V., "A Soyürghal of Qásim b. Jahangir Aq-qoyunlu (903/1498)", Bulletin of ihe School ofOrienial and African Sfudies IX (1939), pp. 927-960. Mitteis, H., Lehnrechl und Slaalsgewalt (Darmstadt, 1958a). Moiseeva, G. N., "Avtor 'Kazanskoj istorii'", TODRL IX (1953), pp. 266-288. , "Kazanskaja carica Sjujun Bike i Sumbeka 'Kazanskoj istorii'", TODRL XII (1956), pp. 174-187. , "O nekotoryx isto&iikax 'Kazanskoj istorii'", TODRL XI (1955), pp. 187-197. Moiseeva, G. N. (ed.), Kazanskaja istorija (Moscow-Leningrad, 1954). Mozarovskij, A. F., "Izloienie xoda missionerskogo dela po prosveSieniju kazanskix inorodcev, s 1552 po 1867 god", COIDR (1880), Bk. 1, pp. 1-261. Muxamed'jarov, S, F., "K istorii zemledelija v srednem Povolz'e v XV-XVI vekax",

342

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Materialy po istorii sel'skogo xozjajstva i krestjanstva SSSR, Sbornik 3 (Moscow, 1959), pp. 89-122. , "K voprosu o polozenii krest'janstva v Kazanskom xanstve", Iz istorii klassovoj bor'by i obSlestvennoj mysii v Povoli'e i Priural'e. Sbornik statej, UZ CXXII: 2 (1962), pp. 143-161. , "K voprosu o sisteme zemledelija v Srednem Povolz'e nakanune prisoedinenija k Rossii", UZ CXVII: 9 (1957), pp. 43-46. , "Maloizvestnaja piscovaja kniga Kazanskogo uezda 1602-1603 gg.", Izvestija KazanskogofittalaAkademii Nauk SSSR, Serija gumanitarnyx nauk (1957), No. 2, pp. 191-196. , "Nekotorye voprosy istoönikovedenija istorii Kazanskogo xanstva", in : Itogovaja nauinaja konferencija Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni V. I. Ul'janova - Lenina za 1960 god (Kazan, 1961), pp. 46-48. , Osnovnye etapy proisxoidenija i etniieskoj istorii tatarskoj narodnosti. VIII Mezdunarodnyj Kongress etnografifieskix i antropologiieskix nauk (Tokyo, 1968). , "Osobennosti obäcestvenno-politiüeskogo stroja tatarskogo naroda do prisoedinenija k Rossii", in: Meivuzovskoe nauinoe soveSianie. Voprosy istorii gosudarstva i prava (Charkov, 1968), pp. 53-56. , "Social'no-ekonomiòeskij i gosudarstvennyj stroj Kazanskogo xanstva (XV pervaja pol. XVI v.)", unpublished Candidate's dissertation, Institute of History, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 1950. , "Tarxannyj jarlyk kazanskogo xana Saxib-Gireja 1523 g.", Novoe o proSlom naiej strany {Pamjati akademika M. N. Tixomirova) (Moscow, 1967), pp. 104-109. , Zemel'nye pravootnoSenija v Kazanskom xanstve (Kazan, 1958). Nasonov, A. N., Istorija russkogo letopisanija XI - natala XVIII veka (Moscow, 1969). , "Letopisnye pamjatniki xraniliSC Moskvy (novye materialy)", PI IV (1955), pp. 243-284. , "Materialy i issledovanija po istorii russkogo letopisanija", PI VI (1958), pp. 235-274. , "Novye istoiniki po istorii Kazanskogo 'vzjatija' ", AE1960 (1962), pp. 3-26. Neubauer, H., Car und Selbstherrscher. (= Veröffentlichungen des Osteuropa-Institutes München, Vol. XXII) (Wiesbaden, 1964). Nolde, B., La formation de l'Empire russe. 2 vols. (Paris, 1952-1953). Narretranders, B., The Shaping of Czardom under Ivan Grozny/ (Copenhagen, 1964). Novosel'skij, A. A.,Sor'baMoskovskogogosudarstvastataramivpervojpolovine XVII veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1948). Obolenskij, M. (ed.), Sobornaja gramola duxovenstva pravoslavnoj vostocnoj cerkvi, utveridajuScaja, san carja za velikim knjazem Ioannom IV Vasil'eviéem, 1561 g. (Moscow, 1850). O'Brien, C. B., Muscovy and the Ukraine: From the Pereiaslavl Agreement to the Truce ofAndrusovo (Berkeley, 1963). Olerki istorii SSSR., Akademija Nauk, Institut istorii. Period feodalizma IX-XV w . Part II (Moscow, 1953); Period feodalizma konec XV v. - nacalo XVII v. (Moscow, 1955); Period feodalizma XVII v. (Moscow, 1955). Orlov, A. S., Geroiieskie temy drevnej russkoj literatury (Moscow-Leningrad, 1945). , "Geroiöeskie temy drevnej russkoj literatury. Obzor stilja 'voinskix' povestej XI-XVI vv.", Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie literatury i jazyka IV (1945), Vyp. 2, pp. 69-85. , "O nekotorix osobennostjax stilja velikorusskoj istoriCeskoj belletristiki XVIXVII w.", lORJaS XIII (1909), Bk. 4, pp. 344-379 (and a separate reprint). , "Xronograf i 'Povest' o Kazanskom carstve", SORJaS CI: 3 (1928) (Sbornik state} v lest' akademika Alekseja Ivanoviia Sobolevskogo), pp. 188-193.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

Pakahn, M. Z„ "Ganimet", in: Osmanh tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözliigü. Vol. I (Istanbul, 1946). Pamjatniki diplomatileskix snoienij drevnej Rossii s deriavami inostrannymi. 10 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1851-1871). Pelenski, J., "Muscovite Imperial Claims to the Kazan Khanate", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 559-576. Peretjatkoviö, G. I., Povoli'e v XV i XVI vekax (Moscow, 1877). Petruäevskij, I. P., "K istorii instituta sojurgala", Sovetskoe vostokovedenie VI (1949), pp. 227-246. , Zemledelie i agrarnye otnoSemja v lrane XUl-XVl vekov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960). Pfitzner, J., Grossfürst Witold von Litauen als Staatsmann (= Schriften der Philosophischen Fakultät der Deutschen Universität in Prague, Vol. VI) (Prague, 1930). Philipp, W., Ivan Peresvetov und seine Schriften zur Erneuerung des russischen Reiches (= Osteuropäische Forschungen, Neue Folge, Vol. XX) (Königsberg-Berlin, 1935). Pierce, R. A., Russian Central Asia, 1867-1917: A Study in Colonial Rule (Berkeley, 1960). Platonov, S. F., "K voprosu o Nikonovskom svode", IORJaS VII (1903), Bk. 3, pp. 24-33. Podobedova, O. I., Miniatjury russkix istoriceskix rukopisej (Moscow, 1965). Pokrovskij, I. M., "Germogen — mitropolit Kazanskij i Astraxanskij, v posledstvii patriarx Vserossijskij, pervyj mestnyj pisatel' — istorik i ego zaslugi dlja Kazani", IOAIE XXIII (1907), Vyp. 3, pp. 137-162. , Kazanskij Arxierejskij dorn, ego sredstva i Staty preimuscestvenno do 1764 goda (Kazan, 1906). , Russkie eparxii v XVI-XIX vv., ix otkrytie, sostav ipredely. 2 vols. (Kazan, 18971913). Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej. Vols. I-XXXI (1841-1968). Popov, A., Istoriko-literaturnyj obzor drevnerusskixpolemiieskix socinenij protiv latinjan (Moscow, 1875). , Obzor xronografov russkoj redakcii. Vyp. 1-2 (Moscow, 1866-1869). Popov, A. (ed.), Izbornik slavjanskix i russkix soiinenij i statej, vnesennyxv xronografy russkoj redakcii (Prilozenie k Obzoru Xronografov russkoj redakcii) (Moscow, 1869). , Poslanie mnogoslovnoe. Soöinenie inoka Zinovija, COIDR (1880), Bk. 2. Presnjakov, A. E., Carstvennaja kniga ee sostav i proisxoidenie (St. Petersburg, 1893). , "Ioasafovskaja letopis'", 1Z VIII (1940), pp. 242-247. , Knjaioe pravo v drevnej Rusi (St. Petersburg, 1909). , "Letopisnoe delo v XV-XVI w.", Istorija russkoj literatury do XIX v. Ed. by A. E. Gruzinskij, Vol. I (Moscow, 1916), pp. 248-270. , "Moskovskaja istoriieskaja enciklopedija XVI-go veka", IORJaS V (1900), Bk. 3, pp. 824-876 (and a separate reprint [St. Petersburg, 1900]). , "Novye dannye dlja izuienija Moskovskix letopisnyx svodov", ¿MNP CCXCIX 6 (1895), See. 2, pp. 466-475. , Obrazovanie velikorusskogo gosudarstva (Olerki po istorii XIII-XV stoletij) (Petrograd, 1920). , Zametka o licevyx letopisjax (St. Petersburg, 1902). Prisel'kov, M. D., Istorija russkogo letopisamja XI-XV vv. (Leningrad, 1940). Pritsak, O., "Moscow, the Golden Horde, and the Kazan Khanate from a Polycultural Point of View", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 577-583. , "Orientierung und Farbensymbolik", Saecvium V (1954), pp. 376-383. Problemy istoänikovedenija. Akademija Nauk SSSR. Institut istorii. 11 vols. (Moscow, 1933-1963).

344

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Problemy obiéestvenno-politiêeskoj istorii Rossii i slavjanskix stran. (Sbornik statej k 70-letiju akademika M. N. Tixomirova). Ed. by V. I. Sunkov (Moscow, 1963). Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Ed. by J. J. Hussey, D. Obolensky, and S. Runciman (London, 1967). Prochaska, A., Dzieje Witolda W. Ksiçcia Litwy (Wilno, 1914). , "Z Witoldowych dziejôw. Uklad Witolda z Tochtamyszem 1397", Przeglqd historyczny XV: 3 (1912), pp. 259-264. Prodolienie Drevnej Rossijskoj Vivliofiki. Vols. V, VII, VIII, IX (St. Petersburg, 17891793). Proisxoidenie kazanskix tatar (Kazan, 1948). Pypin, A. N., Istorija russkoj literatury. 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 19U-19134). Raeff, M., Siberia and the Reforms of 1822 (Seattle, 1956). Rauch, G. von, Russland—Staatliche Einheit und nationale Vielfalt (Munich, 1953). Roublev, M., "Le Tribut aux Mongols d'après les Testaments et Accords des Princes Russes", Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique VII: 4 (1966), pp. 487-530. • , "The Mongol Tribute According to the Wills and Agreements of the Russian Princes", in: The Structure of Russian History. Ed. by M. Cherniavsky (New York, 1970), pp. 29-64. • , "The Periodicity of the Mongol Tribute as Paid by the Russian Princes during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries", FOG XV (1970), pp. 7-13. Rozanov, S. P., "Nikonovskij letopisnyj svod i Ioasaf kak odin iz ego sostavitelej", IRJaS III (1930), Bk. I, pp. 269-287). , "Xronograf Zapadno-Russkoj redakcii", LZAK XXV (1913), pp. 1-20. Rozov, N. N., "Poxval'noe slovo velikomu knjazju Vasiliju III", AE 1964 (1965), pp. 278-289. RubinStejn, N. L. (ed.), Istorija Tatarii v materialax i dokumentax (Moscow, 1937). Russkaja Istoriéeskaja Biblioteka. Izdavaemaja Arxeografiëeskoju Kommissieju. 39 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1872-1927). Russkoe gosudarstvo v XVII veke. Sbornik statej (Moscow, 1961). Rüga, V. F., "I. S. Peresvetov, publicist XVI v'eka", COIDR (1908), Bk. 1, Sec. 2, pp. 59-84. , "Opyty po istorii russkoj publicistiki XVI veka", TODRL I (1934), pp. 5-120. Safargaliev, M. G., Raspad Zolotoj Ordy (= Uienye Zapiski Mordovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Vyp. XI) (Saransk, 1960). , Review of Kazanskaja istoriia. Ed. by G. N. Moiseeva. Voprosy Istorii 1955, No. 7, pp. 148-151. Sbornik imperatorskogo russkogo istoriieskogo obSiestva. 148 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1867-1917). Sbornik knjaz'ja Obolenskogo, No. 1. (Moscow, 1838). Sbornik statej v ¿est' akademika Alekseja Ivanoviia Sobolevskogo, SORJaS CI: 3 (Leningrad, 1928). Schaeder, H., Moskau das dritte Rom (Darmstadt, 19572). Serbina, K. N., "Iz istorii russkogo letopisanija konca XV v. (Letopisnyj svod 1497 g.)", PIX I (1963), pp. 391-428. — , "Ustjuzskij letopisnyj svod", IZ XX (1946), pp. 239-270. Serbina, K. N. (ed.), Ustjuiskij letopisnyj svod (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950). Sergij, Polnyj mesjaceslov Vostoka. 2 vols. (Vladimir, 1901a). Sertoglu, M., "Ganimet", in: Resimli Osmanli tarihi ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1958). Seton-Watson, H., The Russian Empire, 1801-1917 (Oxford, 1967). Sibirskie Letopisi. Arxeografiieskaja Kommissija (St. Petersburg, 1907). Sidel'nikov, A. D., "Dve zametki po epoxe Ivana Groznogo", in: Sbornik statej k 40-letiju dejatel'nosti A. S. Orlova (Leningrad, 1934), pp. 165-173. "Skazanie o blaiennom Petre, carevice ordynskom", PS 1859, No. 3, pp. 360-375.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

Skazanie o (udotvornoj kazanskoj ikone Presvjatoj Bogorodicy (Rukopis' Sv. Patriarxa Germogena). Predislovie akademika A. I. Sobolevskogo (Moscow, 1912). Skripil', M. O., "Povest' o Timofee Vladimirskom", TODRL VIII (1951), pp. 287-307. Skrynnikov, R. H., "Duxovnoe zaveäianie carja Ivana Groznogo", Novonajdennye i neopublikovannye proizvedenifa drevnerusskoj literatury, TODRL XXI (1965), pp. 309-318. Smirnov, A. P., "Oierki po istorii drevnix bulgar", TGIM, Vyp. XI (1940), pp. 55-129. , "Volzskie Bulgary", TGIM, Vyp. XIX (1951), pp. 1-74. Smirnov, 1.1., Oierki politiieskoj istorii russkogo gosudarstva 30-50x godov XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1958). , "VostoCnaja politika Vasilija III", IZ XXVII (1948), pp. 18-66. Smirnov, N. A., Rossija i Turcija v XVI-XVII vv. 2 vols, in: Udenye Zapiski Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Vyp. 94 (Moscow, 1946). Smirnov, V. D., Krymskoe xanstvo pod verxovenstvom Ottomanskoj Forty do nacala XVIII v. (St. Petersburg, 1887). Smolitsch, I., "Zur Geschichte der russischen Ostpolitik des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts (Die Eroberung des Kazaner Reiches)", JfGOE VI (1941), pp. 55-84. Sobolevskij, A. I., "Materialy i izsledovanija v oblasti slavjanskoj filologii i arxeologji", SORJaS LXXXVIII: 3 (1910). Sobranie gosudarstvennyx gramot idogovorov. 5 vols. (Moscow, 1813-1894). Soiinenija prepodobnogo Maksima Greka. 3 vols. (Kazan, 1859-1862). Solov'ev, A. V., "Zametki k 'Slovu o pogibeli Ruskyja zemli"', TODRL XV (1958), pp. 78-115. Solov'ev, S. M., Istorija Rossiis drevnejSix vremen. 15 vols. (Moscow, 1960-1966). Spisok s piscevoj i meievoj kttigi goroda Svijaiska i uezda (Kazan, 1909). "Spisok s sudnogo spiska. Prenie Daniila, Mitropolita Moskovskogo i vseja Rusi s inokom Maksimom Svjatogorcem", COIDR (1847), Bk. 7, Sec. 2, pp. 1-13. Spuler, B., Die Goldene Horde (Die Mongolen in Russland: 1223-1502) (Wiesbaden, 1965s). , "Die Goldene Horde und Russlands Schicksal", Saeculum VI (1955), pp. 397-406. , Die Mongolen in Iran (Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit, 1220-1350) (Berlin, 1968»), , "Die Volga-Tataren und Baschkiren unter russischer Herrschaft", Der Islam XXIX (1950), pp. 142-216. Sreznevskij, 1.1., Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka. 3 vols. (St.Petersburg, 1893-1903, reprint, 1958). Sreznevskij, V. I. (ed.), "Pamjat' i poxvala knjazju Vladimiru i ego zitie po sp. 1494 g.", Zapiski Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 8th series, I (1897), No. 6, pp. 1-12. Stefanoviö, D., O Stoglave. Ego proisxoidenie, redakcija i sostav (St. Petersburg, 1909). Stoglav (Kazan, 18872). Strayer, J. R., and Coulborn, R., Feudalism in History (Princeton, N.J., 1956). StremooukhofF, D., "Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine", Speculum XXVIII: 1 (1953), pp. 84-101. Suäyc'kyj, T., Zaxidno-rus'ki litopysy jak pam'jatky literatury (— Zbirnyk lstoryinoFilolohiinoho Viddilu Ukrajins'koji Akademiji Nauk, Vyp. 2, Parts I-II) (Kiev, 1921-1929). Sutherland, D., "Conquest and Law", Studio Gratiana XV (1972), Post Scripta, pp. 33-52. Szeftel, M., "Aspects of Feudalism in Russian History", in: Feudalism in History (Princeton, N.J., 1956), pp. 167-182. Saxmatov, A. A., "Ioasafovskaja letopis'", ¿MNP CCCLIII: 5 (1904), Sec. 2, pp. 69-79. , " K voprosu o proisxozdenii Xronografa", SORJaS LXVI: 8 (1899), pp. 1-121.

346

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

, Obozrenie letopisnyx svodov Rusi severovostolnoj A. I. Tixomirova (reprint from Otiet o sorokovom prisuidenii nagrad grafa Uvarova) (St. Petersburg, 1899). , Obozrenie russkix letopisnyx svodov XIV-XVI vv. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1938). , "Paxomij Logofet i Xronograf", ¿MNP, CCCXXI: 1 (1899), Sec. 2, pp. 200-207. Siepkin, V. N., "Dva licevyx sbornika IstoriÈeskogo muzeja", AIZ4 (1897) pp. 97-128. , "Licevoj sbornik Imp. Rossijskogo istorifieskogo muzeja", IORJaS IV (1899), Bk. 4, pp. 1345-1385. Sevëenko, I., "A Neglected Byzantine Souce of Muscovite Political Ideology", HSSII (1954), pp. 141-180. , "Muscovy's Conquest of Kazan: Two Views Reconciled", SR XXVI: 4 (1967), pp. 541-547. , "Russo-Byzantine Relations after the Eleventh Century", Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Ed. by J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, and S. Runciman (London, 1967), pp. 93-104. Smidt, S. O., "Carskij arxiv serediny XVI v. i arxivy pravitel'stvennyx uòrezdenij", TGIAIVIII (1957), pp. 260-278. , "K istorii carskogo arxiva serediny XVI v.", TGIAI XI (1958), pp. 364-407. , "K istorii sostavlenija opisej carskogo arxiva XVI veka", AE 1958 (1960), pp. 54-65. , "Kogda i poèemu redaktirovalis' licevye letopisi vremeni Ivana Groznogo", Sovetskie arxivy (1966), No. 1, pp. 31-36; No. 2, pp. 46-51. - — , "Miniatjury Carstvennoj knigi kak isto£nik po istorii Moskovskogo vosstanija 1547 g.-", PI V (1956), pp. 265-284. , "Pravitel'stvennaja dejatel'nost' A. F. AdaSeva i vostoinaja politika russkogo gosudarstva v seredine XVI veka", unpublished Candidate's dissertation, Moscow University, 1948-1949. , "Pravitel'stvennaja dejatel'nost' A. F. AdaSeva", Uienye Zapiski Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Kafedra istorii SSSR), Vyp. 167 (1954), pp. 25-53. , "Predposylki i pervye gody 'Kazanskoj vojny' (1545-1549)", TGIAI VI (1954), pp. 187-257. , "Prodolzenie Xronografa redakcii 1512 g.", IA VII (1951), pp. 254-299. , "Russkie polonjaniki v Krymu i sistema ix vykupa v seredine XVI v.", in: Voprosy social'no-ekonomiieskoj istorii i istocnikovedenija perioda feodalizma v Rossii (Sbornik statej k 70-letiju A. A. Novosel'skogo) (Moscow, 1961), pp. 30-34. , "'Skazanie o vzjatii Astraxani' v letopisnoj tradicii XVII-XVIII w.", TGIAI XVII (1963), pp. 393-398. , "Vostoinaja politika Rossii nakanune 'Kazanskogo vzjatija'", in: Meidunarodnye otnosenija, politika, diplomatija (Sbornik statej k 80-letiju akademika I. M. Majskogo) (Moscow, 1964), pp. 538-558. Smidt, S. O. (ed.), Opisi carskogo arxiva XVI v. i arxiva posol'skogo prikaza 1614 g. (Moscow, 1960). Spilevskij, S. M., Drevnie goroda i drugie bulgarsko-tatarskie pamjatniki v Kazanskoj gubemii (Kazan, 1877). Sumilov, V. N. (ed.), Central'nyj gosudarstvennyj arxiv drevnix aktov SSSR. Obzor dokumental'nyx materialov central'nogo gosudarstvennogo arxiva drevnix aktov po istorii SSSR perioda feodalizma XI-XVI vv. (Moscow, 1954). Tatary Sredrtego Povoli'ja i Priural'ja (Moscow, 1967). Tatisòev, V. N., Istorija rossijskaja. 7 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962-1968). Tixomirov, I. A., "Obozrenie sostava Moskovskix letopisnyx svodov", LZAK X (1895), pp. 3-84. , "O sostave zapadno-russkix, tak nazyvaemyx litovskix letopisej", ¿MNP CCCXXXIV: 3 (1901), pp. 1-36; CCCXXXV: 5 (1901), pp. 70-119. Tixomirov, M. N., "Gde i kogda bylo napisano 'Slovo o pogibeli russkoj zemli'",

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

TODRL VUI (1951), pp. 235-244. , Istoinikovedenie istorii SSSR (Moscow, 1962). , "Maloizvestnye letopisnye pamjatniki", IA VII (1951), pp. 207-253. , "Maloizvestnye letopisnye pamjatniki XVI v.", IZX (1941), pp. 84-94. , "Novyj pamjatnik moskovskoj politiöeskoj literatury XVI v.", in: Moskovskij kraj v ego proSlom. Part II (Moscow, 1930) ( = Trudy ObSöestva izucenija Moskovskoj oblasti. Vyp. 6), pp. 105-114. , Rossija v XVI stoletii (Moscow, 1962). Tixomirov, M. N. (ed.), "Zapiski o regentstve Eleny Glinskoj i bojarskom pravlenii 1533-1547 gg.", 7ZXLVI (1954), pp. 278-288. Tixomirov, M. N., Sidorova, A. A., and Nazarova, A. N. (eds.), U istokov russkogo knigopeiatanija (Moscow, 1959). Tolstov, S. P., "K istorii drevnetjurkskoj social'noj terminologii", Vestnik drevnej istorii I: 2 (1938), pp. 72-81. Toumanoff, C., "Moscow the Third Rome: Genesis and Significance of a PoliticalReligious Idea", Catholic Historical Review XL: 4 (1955), pp. 411-447. Trudy Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo istoriko-arxivnogo instituta. Vols. I-XXVIII (Moscow, 1939-1970). Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut russkoj literatury. Vols. I-XXV (Moscow-Leningrad, 1934-1970). Tvorenija svjatejiago Germogena, patriarxa Moskovskogo i vseja Rusi (Moscow, 1912). Uienye zapiski Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. V. I. Ul'janova-Lenina. Vols. I-CXXX irregular (Kazan, 1834-1970). Usmanov, A. N., Prisoedinenie BaSkirii k Russkomu gosudarstvu (Ufa, 1960). Usmanov, M. A., "Tatarskie narrativnye isto£niki XVII-XVIII w . i ix osobennosti", Autoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uiienoj stepeni kandidata istoriöeskix nauk, Kazan, 1968. , "Tatarskie narrativnye istoiniki XVII-XVIII vv. i ix osobennosti", unpublished Candidate's dissertation, Kazan University, 1968. Ustrjalov, N., Skazanija Knjaz'ja Kurbskogo (St. Petersburg, 1868s). Val'denberg, V., Drevnerusskija uienija o predelax carskoj vlasti (St. Petersburg, 1916). , "Predäestvenniki slayjanofilov", Slavjanskie izvestija 19/12 (1913). Vasenko, P. G., Kniga stepennaja carskogo rodoslovija i ee znaienie v drevne-russkoj istorileskoj pis'mennosti. Part I (St. Petersburg, 1904). , "Sostavnyje iasti 'Knigi stepennoj carskogo rodoslovija"', LZAK XIX (1908), pp. 3-51. , "Zametki k Latuxinskoj Stepennoj knige", SORJaS LXXII: 2 (1903), pp. 1-89. (and a separate reprint [St. Petersburg, 1902]). Vaxidov, S. G., "Issledovanie jarlyka Saxib-Girej Xana", IOAIE X X X m (1925), Vyp. 1, pp. 61-92. , "Jariyk Xana Saxib-Gireja", VNOT1-2 (1925), pp. 29-37. Vel'jaminov-Zernov, V. V., Izsledovanie o Kasimovskix carjax i careviiax. 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1863-1887). Veselovskij, S. B., Feodal'noe zemlevladenie v Severo- Vostoinoj Rusi. 1 vol. (MoscowLeningrad, 1947). , Issledovanija po istorii opriüniny (Moscow, 1963). , K voprosu o proisxoidenii votiinnogo reiima (Moscow, 1926). Vernadsky, G., "Feudalism in Russia", Speculum XIV (1939), pp. 300-323. , Kievan Russia (New Haven-London, 19631). , Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age (New Haven, 1959). , The Mongols and Russia (New Haven-London, 1953). , The Tsardom of Moscow 1547-1682. Parts I-II (New Haven-London, 1969). Vestnik Naucnogo obSiestva tatarovedenija. Nos. 1-10 (Kazan, 1925-1930).

348

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vladimircov, B. Ja., ObSiestvennyj stroj mongolov (Mongol'skij koievoj feodalizm) (Leningrad, 1934). Vladimirskij-Budanov, M. F., Obzor istorii russkogo prava (Petrograd-Kiev, 1915'). Vodovozov, N. V. (ed.), Skazanie o carstve Kazanskom (Moscow, 1959). Voronin, N. N., "Skazanie o pobede nad Bolgarami 1164 g. i prazdnike Spasa", Problemy obSiestvenno-politiieskoj istorii Rossii i slavjanskix strati (Sbornik state} k 70-letiju akademika M. N. Tixomirova). Ed. by V. I. Sunkov (Moscow, 1963), pp. 88-92. Wapowski, B., Dzieje Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Ksigstwa Litewskiego od roku 1380 do 1535. Ed. and tr. by M. Malinowski, 3 vols. (Wilno, 1847-1848). Weber, M., Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Ed. by G. Roth and C. Wittich, 3 vols. (New York, 1968). Xlebnikov, P. X., Astraxan' v starye gody. Part I, Vtoraja polovina XVI veka (St. Petersburg, 1907). Xudjakov, M., Oierkipo istorii Kazanskogo xanstva (Kazan, 1923). Zabelin, I. E., Materialy dlja istorii, arxeologii i statistiki goroda Moskvy. Parts I-II (Moscow, 1884-1891). , "Sledy literaturnogo truda Andreja Bogoljubskogo", AIZ 2-3 (1895), pp. 37-49. Zenkovsky, S. A. (ed.), Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles and Tales (New York, 1963). Zimin, A. A., I. S. Peresvetov i ego sovrememtiki (Moscow, 1958). , "Ivan Groznyj i Simeon Bekbulatovii v 1575 g.", Uienye Zapiski Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogiöeskogo instiluta. Vyp. 80, Iz istorii Tatarii, Sbornik IV (Kazan, 1970), pp. 141-163. , "Iz istorii posadskoj ideologii XVII v. (Pesni i legendy o vzjatii Kazani)", in: Goroda feodal'noj Rossii (Sbornik pamjati I. V. Ustjugova) (Moscow, 1966), pp. 231-238. , "K izuieniju istoönikov Stepennoj knigi", TODRL XIII (1957), pp. 225-230. , "Kogda Kurbskij napisal 'Istoriju o velikom knjaze Moskovskom'?", TODRL XVHI (1962), pp. 305-308. , "Kratkie letopiscy XV-XVI w.", IA V (1950), pp. 3-39. , Opriinina Ivana Groznogo (Moscow, 1964). , Reformy Ivana Groznogo (Moscow, 1960). , Russkie letopisi i xronografy konca XV-XVI vv. (Moscow, 1960). -—, Soiinemja I. Peresvetova (Moscow-Leningrad, 1956). , "Uiastnik vzjatija Kazani v 1552 g. Litvin Rasmysl Petrov", in: Voprosy voennoj istorii Rossii (XVIII i pervaja polovina XIX vekov) (Moscow, 1969), pp. 273-278. Zimin, A. A. (ed.), Ioasafovskaja letopis' (Moscow, 1957). 2dan, M., "Stosunki litewsko-tatarskie za czasöw Witolda, w. ks. Litwy", A W VII: 3-4 (1930), pp. 529-601. 2danov, I. N., Sotinenija. 1 vol. (St. Petersburg, 1904). ¿itija svjatyx zemli Kazanskoj. Sv. muöeniki: Avraamij Bolgarskij, Ioann, Stefan i Petr. (Arsenija, arxiepiskopa Kazanskogo i Svijazskogo) (Kazan, 1900). ¿urnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveStenija (St. Petersburg, 1834-1917).

INDEX

Abdullah, bahfi, 45, 324 Abdul'manova, A. K., 126 n. 58 Abduliatif, Khan of Kazan, 30-34,68 nn. 10 and 12, 69, 70, 259, 324, 333 Abdulmumin, prince, 26, 324 Abdurrahman, Khan of Astrakhan, 262, 324 "About the Advance of the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan Towards Moscow", 273 AdaSev, Aleksej Fedorovii, 46, 46 n. 92, 89,93 n. 2 AdaSev, Daniil Fedorovii, 238 Afanasij (Andrej-Afanasij, Andrej Protopopov), Metropolitan of Moscow, 128,214 n. 1,215, 220, 222-226,248, 279 Agalak, prince, 30, 324 prince, 29, 324 Ahmet, Cheremissian commander, 49 n. 102, 324 Ahmet, Khan of Golden Horde, 114 n. 21, 254-256, 324 Ahmil, envoy, 259, 324 Ak-Horde (White Horde), 160 n. 53. See also Jaik Horde Ak-Mangkyt (White Mangkyt) clan, 160 n. 53, 164 n. 57. See also Mangkyt yurt Akmagmet, oglan, 44, 324 Alatyr' River, 4 n. 2 Aleksander Jagiellohczyk, King of Poland, 15 Aleksander Jaroslavii Nevskij, Grand Prince of (Suzdal')-Vladimir, 95 n. 6, 96, 198, 202-203, 229, 330; miraculous appearance of, 214-216; as national saint, 199 Aleksandr of Svirsk, Saint, 199. See also Saints

Aleksej, Metropolitan of Moscow, 199 Alexander the Great, 252 Aleykum Nank, mirza, 47, 324 Alfoldi, A., 56 n. 109 Ali Bek (or Alim Bek). See Libej Ali Ekrem, Khan of Kazan, 49 n. 102, 324, 334 Alijukur, prince, 276, 278 n. 4, 324 Almond, G.,303n. 24 Al'Sic, D. N„ 101 n. 34,222 n. 35 Amonak, prince, 236, 324 Andrej Bogoljubskij, Grand Prince of (Suzdal')-Vladimir, 144-149, 330 Andreyev, N., 222 n. 35 Angelov, Andrej, 229 Anna, grand princess of Kiev, 300 Antonova, V. I., 284 n. 3 Apay, oglan, 38, 324 Apostol of 1564, 268-269, 294 Arat, R. R., 317 nn. 1 and 3 Arcixovskij, A. V., 222 n. 35 Armenia, Armenians, 37 n. 54, 245-246 Arsk land, 44, 89, 119 n. 40, 279 Art, conquest theme in, 283-284 Arxangel'skij Sobor, 264 Asan, prince, 152, 308 Asan (baptized Mixail), 195, 308 Astrakhan, Khanate of, Horde, state, Tsardom, 5 n. 2, 33, 37 n. 54,38,71, 82-83,103, 134, 134 n. 90, 160, 162, 166-167,178,210,245-246, 248, 262, 265, 299, 299 n. 16, 300-301; Muscovite administration of, 300; Muscovite claims to, 87, 95, 288, 304; Muscovite tribute (vyxod) to, 286, 286 n. 7; the "Russian land", 122; as Tmutorokan', 122,122 n. 45 Augustus, Emperor of Rome, 108, 111, 288 Avraamij, Christian Bulgar martyr, 151

350

INDEX

Avraamij of Smolensk, Saint, 199. See also Saints Axpolbej, Nogai tsarevich, 49 n. 102,324 Azi Alem-Erdin, prince, 45, 324 Azov, 160,162,166-167 'Agä'ibu'1-ma/tluqät (Wonders of Nature), 127 n. 62 Bacon, F., 16-17 n. 18 Bak$anda, 73, 325 Balaxna, 235 Baltic Sea, 210 Bara$, Seyit of Kazan, 30 Barbaiev, A., 156 n. 47 Barsov, E. V., 204 n. 89 Barsukov, N „ 257 n. 35, 272 n. 115 Bartol'd, V. V., 56 n. 109, 81 n. 9 Bashkirs, 7 n. 2 Batory, Stefan, King of Poland, 126 n. 60 Battal, A., 14 n. 9 Batu, Khan of Golden Horde, 77 n. 1, 113, 117-118, 121,170-171,249 n. 66 Baubek, prince, 42, 325 Bazileviü, K. V., 9 n. 3, 26, 29 n. 21, 51, 66 n. 2, 180 n. 5, 182 n. 10 Becker, S„ 4 n. 1 Begis, envoy, 181, 325 Begs, 56 Begunov, Ju. K., 95 n. 6,96 n. 7,119 n. 40 Belaja River, 4 n. 2 Belev, 48; battle of (1438), 24, 179,179 n. 2,180,228 Beloozero, 32, 42, 94 Belorussia, Belorussians, 116, 126-127, 134, 190, 264 Berke, Khan of Golden Horde, 258, 258 n. 40, 259, 325 Bersen-Beklemiäev, I. N., boyar, 187-188, 213 Betej, 33, 325 Beybars Rast, prince, 43-45, 83, 325 Bezzubcev, Konstantin, voevoda, 182-183 Bielski, Joachim, 165 n. 57 Bielski, Marcin, 142 n. 1, 164-165 n. 57 Billington, J. H „ 273 n. 120 Black Sea, 155 Blagovesienskij Sobor (Annunciation Cathedral in Kreml), 144 n. 21, 251 Bloch, M„ 74 n. 22 Bol'äoj Ceremäan River, 4 n. 2 Bol'äoj Kinel' River, 4 n. 2 Book of Degrees of Imperial Genealogy. See, Kniga stepennaja

Book of the Hundred Chapters. See, Stoglav Book printing, in Muscovy, 268-269, 269 nn. 102 and 103 Boris, prince of Kiev, Saint, 199. See also Saints Boris (?), prince of Rostov, 258 Boyars, 78 n. 1, 100, 107, 123, 208, 210, 223, 237-238, 241 n. 36, 243, 251, 260, 265 Bozuk, bahfi, 32, 325 Brest, Union of (1596), 116 Brjagov (Brjaxov or Bijaximov), 119, 119 n. 38, 120, 147, 149, 171 Brockelmann, C., 240 n. 35 Brunner, O., 74 n. 22, 87 n. 22 Budovnic, I. U „ 130 n. 76, 146 n. 20, 178 n. 1, 182 n. 11, 191 n. 44, 232 n. 1, 257, 257 n. 33 Buganov, V. I., 4 n. 2 , 2 8 n. 19,260 n. 49 Bulat, firm prince, 38-39, 41, 45, 54, 72, 325 Bulgar, city of, 152-154 Bulgar, Khanate of, Empire, land, state, 6 n. 2, 94-95, 97, 99-100, 117-120, 122,140-144,160, 166-173, 289-291; agriculture of, 58-59,291; and Andrej Bogoljubskij, 146-149; conquest of, by Mongols (see Conquest); conquest of, by Vladimir I (see Conquest); and Dmitrij Donskoj, 99-100, 151-152; Russian possession (patrimony) "from antiquity", 92-97, 100, 117118, 287-288 Bulgar - Golden Horde - Kazan continuity. See Continuity theory Bulgar - Kazan continuity. See Continuity theory Bulgarians, 97,120 Bulgars: Nizovskie, 98 n. 15; Silver, 98; Volga and Kama, 97-98, 101-102, 124,146 n. 20 Burnuz, prince, 42, 46, 325 Burtassians, 95-96 Buyurgan, Seyit of Kazan, 41, 325 By£kov, A. A., 141 n. 1 Byzantium, 146, 186, 190, 203, 258, 300301, 301 n. 20 Campaigns, expeditions, invasions, raids, wars (individual major battles listed separately). Campaigns: Jurij Dmitreevic's campaign against the area

INDEX of former Bulgar state (1392), 171172; Kazanian insurrections and campaigns (1553-1555), 48-49 n. 102, 210; Muscovite campaigns against Kazan Khanate (1461), 25-26, of (1530), 38, of (1547), 42, 206, of (1549-1550), 43, 196-197, 206, 227, 236,262; Smolensk campaigns (1512, 1513, 1514), 260; Vitovt's campaign against Golden Horde (1399), 154155. Invasions: invasion of Muscovy: by Crimeans (1541), 187; by Edigu (1408), 164 n. 57; by Islam and Sefa Girey (1533), 217; by Mahmut and Yakup (1445), 24-25; by Mehmet Girey (1521), 184, 260; by Ulu Mehmet (1439), 24, 232-233; invasion of Russian territory by Tohtami$ (1382), 153-154. Kazanian raids (1536), 227, 227 n. 63, 235, 243. Pskov expedition (1509-1510), 260. Ulu Mehmet's attack on Muscovy (1439), 24, 233. Wars: "Kazan war" (1468-1469), 26-27, 182-183, 233; "Kazan war" (1545-1549), 41, 235236; Russo-Bulgar war (1219), 150; Vasilij Ill's war with Kazan (15051507), 31-32, 50-51, 216, 261; war between Muscovy and PolandLithuania (1514-1522), 247 Can Ali, Khan of Kazan, 39-40, 50, 7172, 74,217, 285, 325, 334 Cambek, Khan of Astrakhan, 35, 325 Captives, Russian: Islamic-Turkic concept of, 240,240 n. 35; legal attitudes on, 244-246; liberation of, from Muslim captivity, 27, 44-45, 58, 84, 102,132-133,179,184,197,203, 205206, 215, 221, 232-250; number of, held in Kazan (calculated), 238-240; and taxes for ransom money (Stoglav 1551), 245-248, 292; treatment of, 249-250 Carevo gosudarevo poslanie ... ("Epistle of the Tsar and Sovereign to All His Russian Tsardom Against Those that Violate the Oath of Allegiance, Against Prince Andrej Kurbskij and His Comrades, Concerning Their Treacheries" (July 5, 1564), 86, 106, 209, 209 n. 105,210, 240-241 n. 36 Carica River, 5 n. 2 Caricyn (Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad),

351

4-5 n. 2 Carstvennaja kniga (Imperial Book), 106, 134, 304 n. 27; art in, 284; authorship and dating of, 222 n. 35; as court historiography, 10, 101 n. 34, 291292; legends, miracles, omens, prophecies, religious motif and its significance in, 211, 222-225, 231, 273; on Sil'vestr, 252 Car'grad. See Constantinople Caspian Sea, 37 n. 54,93-95, 118,122 Cathedral of Vasilij the Blessed, 96, 284 Catholics. See Roman Catholic Church Certtral'ny] gosudarstvennyj arxiv drevrnx aktov, 88 Cheremissians (Mari), 8 n. 2, 56, 94-96, 116, 118, 120, 135, 249, 253, 265, 274; Hill or Mountain, 8 n. 2, 44, 89, 237-238; Meadow, 8 n. 2, 44, 89, 237; Right-bank, 43, 287 Cherniavsky, M„ 287 n. 7, 299 n. 15 Chingiz Khan, Khan of Mongol Horde, 56-57, 164 n. 57 Chronicle of the Beginning of the Tsardom of the Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan VasiPeviC of all Russia. See, Letopisec nacala carstva ... Chronicle of the "New Years", 93 n. 2, 94, 143 n. 1 Chronograph of 1617, 128, 134,134 n. 90 Chronograph, West Russian (or Southwest Russian): authorship and dating of, 142-143 n. 1, 149; and Nikon Chronicle, 142-143 n. 1 Chud', 94,195 Church. See Roman Catholic Church; Russian Orthodox Church Chuvash, 8 n. 2,43-44,49 n. 102,56, 274 Claims. See Legal claims "Codex Cumanicus", 219 n. 25 Conquest: and integration theory, 171; law of, 88-91, 287, sableju (by the sword), 89, 287; Muscovite, of Astrakhan, 101, 122, 209-210, 212213, 215-216, 225-226; Muscovite, of city of Kazan (1552), 16,48,48 n. 102, 85-86; Muscovite, of Kazan Khanate, 4-8, 11, 52, 61, 105, 128, 134,192,197,201, 205,208-218,220221, 225-226,230,232,242,249, 251252,256,291,293,298-299,299 n. 16, 300, 302-303, as first major Russian expansion, 4-8, and formation of

352

INDEX

multinational Russian Empire, 8; Muscovite, of Polock (1563), 116117, 264; of Old Bulgais by Mongols, 170,170 n. 62; theme of, in art, 283-284; of Volga Bulgais by Vladimir 1,97-98,101-102,288 Constantine Monomax, Emperor of Byzantium, 107-110 Constantine the Great, 192,198,201,227, 227 n. 61, 230, 252 Constantinople (Car'grad), 36, 107-109, 114n. 22,129 n. 71,143 n. 1,146-147, 149,190,193, 203, 245-246, 300-301 Continuity theory (translatio theory): Bulgar - Golden Horde - Kazan, 170-173, 290-291; Bulgar - Kazan, 102-103, 139-173, 289-291; Kiev Vladimir - Muscovy, 10, 10 n. 4, 97-98, 111-112, 139, 170, 288, 290; and the "second Jerusalem", 130; and the "second Kiev", 114, 114 n. 23, 115-117, 130,289; and the "third Rome", 114-115,114-115 n. 24, 130, 256 Conversion: and baptisms, 42-43, 102, 120, 125, 132 n. 82, 179, 191, 193195, 202, 227, 230-231, 249, 251, 253-254, 258, 260, 264-265, 274275; and Fedor Ivanovo's Decree, 274-275,295; to Islam, 133,249,258; and missionary activities, 251, 269272; and Muscovite attitudes toward converts, 264, 294; and national subjugation, 253; of nationalities of Kazan Khanate, 293; task of Muscovite Empire, 251; of Tatar notables, 256-265. See also Germogen, Gurij, Makarij, Sil'vestr, Varsonofij Cossacks (Russian), 42-43, 73, 127 n. 62, 281 Coulborn, R„ 74 n. 22 Council of the Hundred Chapters. See, Stoglav Crimea, Khanate of, Crimean Horde, Crimeans, Crimean Tatars, 5 n. 2, 11, 28, 33-36, 39-42, 48, 50 n. 104, 54, 56, 66-67, 70-73, 82-83, 85, 122, 127 n. 62, 162, 167, 171-172, 178, 183-185, 187, 199-200, 210-211,235236, 265, 270, 293 n. 10, 302 n. 21; claims to Kazan, 41, 70, 88 Crimean Records. See, Dela Krymskie Cross, S. H„ 94 n. 5

Cumans. See Polovcians Czechs, 95 Caev. N. S., 115 n. 24 Calym, 49 n. 102 Cepca River, 4 n. 2 Ceremissov, Ivan, strel'cy, Commanderin-Chief of, 238 Cerepnin, L. V., 77 n. 1, 78 n. 1, 164 n. 57, 286 n. 4 Cernigov, 76 n. 1 ; archbishopric of, 266 CernySov, E. I., 60 n. 121 Cusovaja River, 4 ft. 2 Çapkin, prince, 46, 325 Çora, prince, 37, 309 Çora Nank, prince, 41-42,236,325 Dana, prince, 37-38, 325 Daniil, Metropolitan of Moscow, 140 n. 1, 178, 186, 316; on foreign policy, 188-189 Daniil of Perejaslav, Saint, 220, 222, 225 Danube River, 97, 107, 120 David IgoreviC, prince, 76 n. 1 David Svjatoslavii, prince, 76 n. 1 Dedilov, 219 Dela Krymskie (Crimean Records), 11-12, 12 n. 5, 88 Dema River, 4 n. 2 Demin, A. S., 304 n. 27 Derevlians, 112 Dervifes (devotees), 56 Deriavina, O. A., 128 n. 69 Destutt de Tracy, A. L. C., 16-17 n. 18 Devlet Girey, Khan of Crimea, 48, 325 Dewey, H. W., 78 n. 1 Djakonov, M. A., 2 Dtugosz, Jan, 164 n. 57 Dmitrieva, R. P., 106 n. 10 Dmitrij Ivanovii, grand prince, 75 n. 22 Dmitrij IvanoviÈ Donskoj, Grand Prince of Muscovy, 77 n. 1, 99-100, 151, 153, 202-203, 229, 330-331 Dmitrij Konstantinovi£, Grand Prince of Suzdal', 151-153, 330 Dmitrij Semjaka, prince, 180-182 Dnieper River, 154 Dobrynja, 97 Don River, 202, 229 Donelly, A. S„ 4 n. 1 Droblenkova, N. F„ 128 n. 69, 129 n. 72 Dubenskij, Feodor, envoy, 181 Dunaev, B. I., 36 n. 51, 80 n. 6, 81 n. 8 Dvorjanstvo (service nobility), 52, 133,

INDEX

268, 303-304 Dynastic justifications, Muscovite, for Kazan conquest, 11, 97-103, 288; and conquest of Volga Bulgars by Vladimir I (see Conquest); dating, sources and inspiration of, 98-102; and Kiev - Muscovy dynastic continuity (see Continuity theory). See also Makarij Eastern Europe, 61, 139, 154, 166-167, 189, 203 Edigu, Emir of Golden Horde, 54, 160 n. 53, 162-164, 164-165 n. 57, 165, 168, 325 Ejnerling, P., 105 n. 2 Elena Glinskaja, grand princess, 40, 219 Eliseev, G. Z„ 266 n. 88 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 126, 126 n. 60 Emirs, 56 Enlightenment, 296 Epistle of Archbishop Vassijan Rylo to Ivan [III] Vasil'evic (1480), 183, 183 n. 14; compared with Makarij's Address of October 1552, 201-203; compared with Makarij's Epistle, 198; compared with Sil'vestr's Epistle, 254-255; as model for Feodosij, 230; as model for Makarij, 198; as model for Pimin's Epistle, 117 n. 29 Epistle of Archpriest Sil'vestr to Ivan [IV] Vasil'evifi: compared with Sil'vestr's Epistle, 254-255; content, dating and sources of, 114 n. 21, 254-256; significance of content, 293; use of Psalms, 256 Epistle of Archpriest Sil'vestr to Prince Aleksandr Borisovii Gorbatyj, content, dating and significance of, 252254 Epistle of Five Russian Bishops (December 29,1447), 182,182 n. 8 Epistle of Maxim the Greek to Grand Prince Vasilij m (1519), 186-187 Epistle of Maxim the Greek to Grand Prince Vasilij III (1521), authorship, dating and significance of, 184-186 Epistle of Metropolitan Makarij to Tsar Ivan [IV] Vasil'eviC (May 21 or 25, 1552), 197, 197 n. 71, 198, 205, 242 Epistle of Metropolitan Makarij to Tsar

353

Ivan [IV] Vasil'eviC (July 13, 1552), 197,197 n. 72,198-200,202,205,242 Epistle of Metropolitan Makarij to Tsar Ivan [IV] Vasil'eviC (August or September 1552), 93 n. 2, 100, 100 n. 28, 197, 197 n. 73, 198-201 Epistle of Pimin, the Archbishop of Novgorod, to the Pious Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviC, by God's Grace Sovereign and Autocrat of All Russia at the City of Polock, [Advising Him] to Struggle Valiantly Against Godless Lithuania and the Most Unclean Lutherans, 116-117, 117 n. 29, 296 n. 12 Epistle of the Tsar and Sovereign ... See, Carevo gosudarevo poslanie ... Epistles of Archbishop Feodosij to Ivan [IV] Vasil'eviC, content and dating of, 230-231 Epstein, F. T., 300 n. 17 Ermark, 281 Evdokija, grand princess, 260-261 Erzja, 8 n. 2 Fatima, Khanum of Kazan, 28,309 Fedor IvanoviC, Tsar of Russia, 272 n. 117; Decree of July 18, 1593, 274, 274 n. 122, 275, 331 Fedorov, Ivan, 268 Fennell, J. L. I., 9 n. 3,27 n. 15,48 n. 100, 66 n. 2, 86 n. 20,119 n. 40,133 n. 86, 187 n. 29, 209 n. 105, 210 nn. 108 and 109, 211 nn. I l l and 112, 212 n. 114,219 n. 24,241 n. 36 Feodosij, Archbishop of Novgorod, 230231 Feudalism; interstate, 287; Kazanian, 57; nature of, 74-75, 74-75 n. 22. See also Soyiirghal; Investiture theory; Patrimonial theory; Protectorate theory Filipp I, Metropolitan of Moscow, 234235, 332 Filofej of Pskov, 114-115 n. 24,293 Finland, Gulf of, 194 Finns, 195 "First Prophecy of Philosophers and Doctors", authorship, content and dating of, 192-193 Fisher, A. W„ 4 n. 1 Florence, Council of, 140 n. 1, 142 n. 1, 191, 203

354

INDEX

French Revolution, 296 Frye, R. N. 56 n. 109 Galaktion, 216 GaliC, 235, 238-239 Ganimet (booty), 240 n. 35 Ganshof, F. L„ 74 n. 22 "Gathering of Russian lands", 10, 112, 122-123,288-297 Gazi, prince, 37, 325 Gedymin, Grand Prince of Lithuania, 113, 161, 163 German, Archbishop of Kazan, 266-267, 267 n. 91, 271, 295. See also Saints Germans, 95-96, 135, 157, 159-163, 166168, 195, 303, 304 n. 27 Germogen, Archbishop of Kazan, Metropolitan of Kazan and Astrakhan, Patriarch of Russia, 103, 131, 131 n. 77, 266, 270, 270 n. 106, 274, 281, 291, 295-297; missionary and proselytizing activities of, 270. See also Gramota of Metropolitan Germogen ...; "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij"; "Tale About the Appearance of the Miraculous Icon of Our Lady, the Virgin Mary [of Kazan]" Gevher §at, princess, 39-40, 54, 72, 223, 325 Glazatyj, Ioann, 132 Gleb, Prince of Kiev, Saint, 199. See also Saints Golden Horde, 53-56, 61, 77 n. 1, 84, 121,165,171-173,178,180,183, 254258, 258 n. 40, 293, 298, 301; and Bulgar - Golden Horde Kazan continuity (see Continuity theory); and color symbolism, 160 n. 53; control over Bulgars, 59; "desolation of", 113-115, 255; internal conflicts in, 23-24; Muscovite tribute to, 286-287 n. 7; Turkic elements in, 7 n. 2; and Vitovt, 154170; yarhki of, 13-14, 14 nn. 6 and 10. See also Mongols Golicin, Jurij Mixajlovid, boyar, 238 Golovin, Ivan Petrovic, 225 Goloxvastov, D. P. and Leonid, 114 n. 21, 252 nn. 6 and 8, 254 nn. 19, 20 and 22, 255 n. 25, 256 n. 29 Golubinskij, E. E„ 101 n. 34, 259 n. 46, 269 n. 103, 271 n. 114, 272 n. 115,

281 n. 14 Gorbatyj, Aleksandr Borisoviô, prince, 86, 252-253 Goroxovec, 235 Gosmanov, M., 14 n. 8 Gostomysl, voevoda, 111 Gramota of Metropolitan Germogen to Patriarch Iov (January 9, 1592), 280; three "Tales" of, 280, 280 n. 10 Gramota of Patriarch Iov to Metropolitan Germogen (February 25, 1592), 281, 281 n. 13 Great Luck, 157, 159, 161, 163 Great Menology. See, Velikie minei detii "Greater Petition" : authorship and dating of, 189, 189 n. 39; proposals of, 190-192 Greeks, 107-109, 191, 245-246 Grekov, B. D., 9 n. 3, 59 nn. 115 and 118, 78 n. 1, 160 n. 53 Grekov, I. B„ 9 n. 3, 23 n. 2 Grigor'ev, A. N., 268 n. 97 Grunwald, battle of (1410), 166 Gruzinskij, A. E„ 101 n. 34 Gundurov, Semeon, prince, 72 Gurij, Archbishop of Kazan, 103, 116, 264, 266-268, 268 nn. 99 and 100, 271, 294-295; conversion activities of, 270. See also "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij"; Saints Habsburg Empire, 90, 285 Hajko, Jan, envoy, 86,208 Halasi-Kun, T., 14 nn. 7 and 10,59 n. 117, 317 n. 3 Halil, Khan of Kazan, 309, 317, 317 n. 4 Hastings, Lady Mary, 126,126-127 n. 60 Herberstein, Sigismund von, 37 n. 54, 68 n. 12, 69, 79 Herrschaft, 87 Hintze, O., 74 n. 22 Historical justifications, Muscovite, for Kazan conquest, 11; dating, sources and authorship of, 92-97; territory of Kazan Khanate - Russian possession "from antiquity", 92-97, 117118, 124, 287-288. See also Makarij History of Kazan. See, Kazanskaja istorija History of the Grand Prince of Moscow. See, Istorija o velikom knjaze Moskovskom "History of the Narratives About the Bishoprics Which Are Subordinated

INDEX

355

Iona, Metropolitan of Moscow, 25, 182, 199, 302, 316 Iosif Volockij, 297 Iov, Patriarch of Russia, 280-281, 332 Isaja of Rostov, Saint, 199. See also Saints Ishmaelites. See Muslims Isidor, metropolitan, 142 n. 1 Iskander, envoy, 80 Israel, 238, 248, 252 Istorija o velikom knjaze Moskovskom Iatviagians, 95, 98 (History of the Grand Prince of Icon: Our Lady of Kazan, 272-273,273 n. Moscow), 119 n. 40; authorship, 120, 274, 284, 295, as model for content and dating of, 210-212 legend of Our Lady of Tobol'sk, 295, legend of, 272 (see also "Tale About Ivan (Ioann), 131, 276-278, 278 nn. 3 and 4,279-280,295. See also "Martyrdom the Appearance ..."); Our Lady of of the Saintly Ivan"; Martyrs Vladimir, 145, 273, 273 n. 120 (see also "Tale About the Miracles of Ivan Ivanovii, son of Ivan IV, 272 n. 117, 298 the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir"); VoinstvujuSlaja cerkov (ecclesia mili- Ivan (I) Kalita, Grand Prince of Muscovy, tans), 284 77 n. 1, 330-331 Ideology: binary oppositions as applied Ivan (III) Vasil'eviC, Grand Prince of Muscovy, 15 n. 13, 26-31, 52, 65-67, to, 302-303, 302-303 n. 24; definition 69,72,74-75 n. 22, 77-78, 77-78 n. 1, of, 16-18; Muscovite, and Kazan 80, 82 n. 12, 88, 109-110, 112-113, conquest, 9; Muscovite imperial, 82, 117 n. 29, 182-183, 199, 230, 233225-226, ethnic and national ele234, 254-255, 286, 288, 296 n. 12, ments in, 104; study of, 18-20 302, 331 Ignatij, 259 Ignatij of Rostov, Saint, 199. See also Ivan (IV) Vasil'evic, Grand Prince of Saints Muscovy, Tsar of Russia, 42-43, 45, 48, 72-74, 82-83, 85-86, 89-90, Igor, Grand Prince of Kiev, 110,202,230, 93 n. 2, 96, 99-100, 101 n. 34, 103, 312 107, 109-110, 114 nn. 21 and 23, Ikonnikov, V. S., 2-3, 13, 114 n. 23, 115 116, 118, 121-123, 123 n. 47, 125, n. 25 128-129, 131, 134, 134 n. 90, 135, Illuminated Chronicle. See, Liceroj leto169, 187, 189-199, 201, 204-205, pisnyj svod 209, 209 n. 105, 210, 210 nn. 108 Imperial Book. See, Carstvennaja kniga and 109, 211-212, 214 n. 1, 217"In Gratitude and Praise ..." (or "In 219, 222-227, 230, 236-238, 240Praise of Grand Prince Vasilij III"), 241 n. 36, 242, 244, 248-252, 256, content and dating of, 217 262-266, 268-269, 272 n. 117, 274, "In Praise of Ivan IV and His Host for the 285-286, 288, 296 n. 12, 299 n. Victory Against the Kazan Tatars", 16, 301 n. 20; assumption of authorship, dating and text of, 292titles "Tsar of Kazan", "Tsar of 293 n. 9 Astrakhan", 225-226,298-300, 300 n. Investiture theory: "father-brother", 10, 301; compared to Moses, 238, "son-brother" relationship, 66-67; 240, 248; compared to Vladimir I, origin and dating of, 65-67; para102; on conversion, 267-268, 294; feudal nature of, 74-75, 74-75 n. 22, coronation of, as the first tsar of 287. See also Protectorate theory Muscovy, 10, 82,92,92 n. 1; equated Ioasaf, Metropolitan of Moscow, 140 with Constantine, 252; as ideal ruler, n. 1, 142-143 n. 1, 149, 246-248, 332 105; marriage plans to Lady Mary Ioasaf, Patriarch of Constantinople, 117 Hastings, 126, 126-127 n. 60; as Ioasaf Chronicle, 24 n. 4, 65 n. 1, 143 ruler-conqueror, 134-135 n. 1; dating of, 140 n. 1 and Obedient to the Metropolitan of Kiev and of All Rus'", 266 Hosrev, prince, 45, 325 Howes, R. C„ 286 n. 6, 298 n. 13 HruSevs'kyj, M„ 155 n. 43, 156, 156 n. 48 Hungary, 95-96 Hussey, J. M„ 145 n. 16

356

INDEX

Ivanov, A. I., 183 n. 15, 186 n. 25 Izjaslav I, Grand Prince of Kiev, 76 n. 1, 312 Ibrahim, bahfi, 37-38, 325 Ibrahim, Khan of Kazan, 14, 14 n. 8, 26-27, 69-70, 233, 259, 325, 333 lëki (military), 58, 70 Ilham, Khan of Kazan, 28-29, 69, 71, 90, 259, 325, 333 îpek, Khan of Nogai Horde, 255, 325 îslâm, prince, 47, 325 Ismail, mirza, 85-86,90, 325 Jaik

Horde (Zajac'kaja Orda or Zajaickaja Orda), 160, 160 n. 53, 162,166-167. See also Ak-Horde Jaik River, 160 n. 53 Jakobson, R., 303 n. 24 Jakov, monk, 97. See also Pamjat' / poxvala knjaz'ju Vladimiru Jakovleva, O. A., 218 n. 20 Jakubovskij, A. Ju., 9 n. 3, 59 n. 118,160 n. 53 Janissaries, 188, 240 n. 35 Jaroslav I, Grand Prince of Kiev, 76-77 n. 1, 312 Jaroslav Svjatoslavii, prince, 76 n. 1 Jaroslav VsevolodoviC, Grand Prince of Vladimir, 121, 314 Jaroslavl', 286 n. 7 Jasinskij, A. N„ 211,211 nn. 112 and 113 Jer xablasi (land tax), 59 Jews, 17, 240,248,273, 302 Johnson, H. M., 17 n. 18 Josephans, 52, 189, 196, 230, 266, 297; and alien religions, 194-196, 291; and ransom, 246-247; tendencies in Ioasaf Chronicle, 140 n. 1 Jur'ev, 32 Jur'ev, Daniil RomanoviC, 300 n. 17 Jur'evec, 235 Jurij Dmitreevii, prince, 171 Jurij Dolgorukij, Grand Prince of Kiev and (Suzdal')-Vladimir, 147, 329330 Jurij Vasil'eviC, prince, 99-100 Jurij (II) Vsevolodoviô, Grand Prince of Vladimir, 150, 330 Justifications. See Dynastic; Historical; National; Religious Kaffa, 162,167,245-246 Kama River, 4 n. 2, 47, 94, 102, 117-

120, 147, 149, 170, 262 Kapterev, N. F., 301 n. 20 Karafi (councillors, advisors, overseers): office and function of, 54; ulu karafi (great karafi), 54 Karamzin, M. N., 2-3, 51, 105, n. 2 Karelians, 95 Kargolom, 29 Kasimov, Kasimov Tatars, 44, 54, 83, 236, 280, 286 n. 7, 298 Kasim, Khan of Astrakhan, 262, 325 Kasim, molla, 44, 325 Kasim, prince, 26-27, 79, 182, 325 KaStanov, S. M. 66 n. 1, 265 n. 79, 271 n. Ill Katanov, N. F., 15 n. 14 Kati$, prince, 41-42, 325 Katyrev-Rostovskij, Ivan Mixajlovic, prince, 299 n. 16 Kazakova, N. A., 183-184 n. 15 Kazaks (military), 55, 58 Kazan, archbishopric of, 96, 101, 220, 226, 265-266, 266 n. 82, 268, 269, n. 103, 293-294 Kazan, city of, 30, 46-48, 85, 117, 151, 153, 171, 185, 202, 207, 219-220, 233, 238, 253-254, 262, 269, 273, 276-277, 277 n. 2, 279-280, 294 n. 11 Kazan, Khanate of, Horde, state, Tsardom yurt, 65, 71-72, 76, 81-82, 8485, 87-88, 96, 104, 123-124,132, 139141, 162, 167, 170, 172, 177-179, 183, 188-189, 192-193, 203, 210, 221, 226, 234, 236-238, 240, 251, 265, 283, 287, 291, 293, 298-299, 299 n. 16, 300-301, 304; agriculture of, 58-61; boundaries of, 4-8 n. 2; Christianization of, 230, 253, 268, 275, 293-295; conquest of (see Conquest); the "dragon's lair", 118123, 185; dynastic conflicts in, 26, 28, 65; foundation and consolidation of, 23-25, 232; incorporation of, 89; legendary origins of; 119-121, 171; multinational nature of, 53; Muscovite annexation of, 92; Muscovite supremacy over, 34, 41, 44; Muscovite tribute (yyxod) to, 286, 286 n. 7; referred to as carstvo, 53, as yurt, 53; Russian expansion into, 9, 212, 287, 291-292; the "Russian land", 117-124, 171; as "satellite" country, 66; "second origin" of, 23;

INDEX slave trade of, 58; socioeconomic profile of, 52, 58-61; sociopolotical system of, 53-61; sovereignty of, 284-285, and limitations on, 66; soyurghal, 57,75; status of, 29,49-51; submission of, to Muscovite protectorate, 67-69,183, 284, to Muscovite sovereignty, 43. See also Muscovy; Russia Kazan River, 237 Kazanians, Kazanian Tatars, 7 n. 2, 31, 36, 41, 44-45, 48, 48-49 n. 102, 52, 58, 71-72, 74, 79-80, 82-84, 97, 123, 128, 152,168,179,188,195-196,199201, 206, 216, 223, 235, 241-243, 246, 248, 250, 253, 263, 268, 275, 292; theories on ethnic origins of, 290-291 Kazanskaja istorija (History of Kazan), 23, 66 n. 2, 73 n. 20, 119 nn. 38, 39and 40,121, 121 n. 43, 122-123, 128, 229,248-249,262-263,263 n. 68,278280, 294 n. 11; art in, 283-284; author of, as first antinormanist, 111, 289; and Bulgar - Golden Horde Kazan continuity (see Continuity theory); compared with Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix, 106-111; dating and authorship of, 115-116, 124133, 133 n. 87, 134; on "desolation" of Golden Horde, 113-115; on East Slavic tribes, 112; on Kievan Rus' as tsardom, 112; literary history of, 104-105 n. 1; miracles, omens and visions in, 221-222, 224, 226-228; on "Moscow - the second Kiev", 114, 114 n. 23, 115-117, 130, 289; on "Moscow - the third Rome", 114115, 114-115 nn. 22, 23 and 24,130; on numbers of captives, 239-240, 240-241 n. 36; Polonisms in, 126; problem of Belorussian/Ukrainian borrowings in, 134; on Protestantism, 116-117; readership of, 298; religious justifications of, 129; style of, 128129, 129 n. 72 Kazvini, 127 n. 62 Kampfer, F., 105 n. 1,125 n. 57, 283 n. 1, 284 n. 3 Kedrov, S„ 103 n. 39, 266 n. 84, 269 n. 105, 273, 273 n. 121 Keenan, E. L„ 9 n. 3, 24 n. 3, 43 n. 78, 51 n. 105, 125 n. 57, 126 n. 59, 127

357

n. 62, 133 nn. 87 and 89 Kel Ahmet, prince, 29, 325 Kerch Strait, 122 Khan: relationship of titles tsar - khan basileus, 299-300; status of, according to Mongol-Turkic political theory, 53-54 Khazars, 98 Kiev, Kievan Rus', Kievans, 10-11, 94, 107-113, 117, 154, 157-161, 163, 170, 193, 202, 210, 232, 287-288; "Moscow - the second Kiev", 114, 114 n. 23, 115-117, 130, 289; territory and tribute-paying peoples of, 9496; as tsardom, 112; votcina concept in, 76-77 n. 1 Kiev - Vladimir - Muscovy continuity. See Continuity theory Kij, 98 Kirill, Bishop of Rostov, 258,258 n. 40 Kiril, Saint, 199. See also Saints Kiselev, Fedor, 82 n. 12 Klibanov, A. I., 303 n. 26 Kljapik, Mixail, envoy, 31 Klju6evskij, V. O., 2-3, 103 n. 39, 144 n. 8, 243 n. 47, 257, 257 n. 32, 258, 258 n. 38, 259 n. 46, 269 n. 105, 270, 270 n. 107 Kniga stepennaja carskogo rodoslovija (Book of Degrees of Imperial Genealogy), 10, 97, 101, 112-113, 117-118, 122, 128, 130, 134, 153, 209, 217, 220-224, 226-227, 248, 264-265, 279; authorship and dating of, 97 n. 10, 204, 214 n. 1; on captives, 248, 292; on East Slavic tribes, 112; on Kievan Rus' as tsardom, 112; legends, miracles, omens and prophecies in, 214-221, 273, adopted by Carstvennaja kniga, 222, 222 n. 35, 292; on Muscovite claim to Bulgar land, 101-102; readership of, 298; on unitary character of old Rus', 112, 288 Kolomna, 24,48, 232-233 Komel'sk, 243 Kopanev, A. I., 78 n. 1, 293 n. 9 Kosoj, Feodosij, 303 Kostroma, 235, 238-239 KoSira, 30, 32-33, 69, 195 Ko$?ak, 43-44, 325 KotoSixin, G., 299 n. 16 Kok-Horde (Sinjaja orda [Blue Horde]),

358

INDEX

160 n. 53 Kopek, prince, 47, 325 Krader, L„ 56 n. 109 KravCenko, A. G., 66 n. 1 Krivichians, 94 Kuday Kul, oglan, 46, 326 Kuday Kul (baptized Petr), tsarevich, 259-260, 259-260 n. 47, 261, 261 nn. 54 and 55, 263-264, 294, 326 Kudrjavcev, I. M„ 115 n. 26, 117 n. 29, 183 n. 14, 230 n. 75, 254, 254 nn. 21 and 23, 255 n. 26 KukuSkina, M. V. 293 n. 9 Kul Ali, prince, 46-47, 326 Kul Dervij, envoy, 34,67-68,326 Kul $erif, molla, 43, 326 KuluS, prince, 42, 326 Kuncevii, G. Z„ 47 n. 98, 104 n. 1, 105, 105 nn. 1 and 3, 106 n. 10,115 n. 25, 118 n. 34, 119 n. 39, 123 n. 47, 124, 124 n. 50, 125, 129 n. 71, 132,132 n. 80, 133 n. 88, 172 n. 70, 196 nn. 68 and 69, 224 n. 44, 225 n. 55,227 nn. 61 and 63, 229 nn. 69 and 72, 243 n. 48, 249 n. 66, 263 n. 68, 278 n. 4, 279 nn. 5 and 6 Kurat, A. N „ 14 n. 6 Kurbskij, Andrej M., prince, 48, 48 n. 102, 117 n. 31, 125-126, 133, 177, 219, 251-252; on religious justifications, 209-213, 291. See also Carevo gosudarevo poslanie ...; Istorija o velikom knjaze Moskovskom Kuricin, Ivan, envoy, 79 Kutuzov, Andrej, 264, 264 n. 73 Kuz'min, A. G. 142 n. 1 Kusuk Ali, mirza, 39, 326 Lantzeff, G„ 4 n. 1 Lapps, 194 Laptev, V. V., 139 n. 1 Latins. See Roman Catholic Church Lavrentij, Metropolitan of Kazan, 271272 Lavrov, N. F„ 93 n. 2, 142 n. 1, 143 n. 1 Law of Conquest. See Conquest Leach, E„ 303 n. 24 Lebedev Chronicle. See, Letopisec russkij Legal claims, Muscovite, to Kazan. See Conquest, law of; Investiture theory; Patrimonial theory; Protectorate theory Leonid. See Goloxvastov, D. P. and

Leonid Leontij of Rostov, Saint, 199. See also Saints Letopisec natala corsiva carja i velikogo knjazja Ivana Vasil'eviía vseja Rusii (Chronicle of the Beginning of the Tsardom of the Tsar and Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'eviC of All Russia), 72-73, 100, 128, 131, 204, 207-208, 223, 240, 242-243, 248, 292; authorship, dating and sources of, 93 n. 2; and "Beginning of the Tale ...", 128, 205, 236-237; and "Continuations", 93, 93 n. 2, 94, 96; as court historiography, 9-10, 205, 291 ; on Kazan's subjugation, 44, 207-208, 211; on law of conquest, 89; on number of captives released, 236, 238-240, 292; religious motif in, 129, 204-208, 221, 224; as source for Kazanskaja istorija, 105; as source for Nikon Chronicle, 139 n. 1, 143 n. 1 ; use of votèina concept in, 85-86 Letopisec russkij (Lebedev Chronicle), 94 n. 3,118 Lettenbauer, W„ 115 n. 24 Lévi-Strauss, C„ 302-303 n. 24 Levina, S. A., 139-140 n. 1 Libej (Ali or Alim Bek), prince, 23 n. 2, 326 Licevoj letopisnyj svod (Illuminated Chronicle), 10, 101 n. 34, 222 n. 35 "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij", authorship, dating and theme of, 103, 193 n. 39, 269-271 Lithuania, Grand Principality of, Lithuanians, 15 n. 11, 24, 31-32, 6970, 95-96, 113, 154, 154 n. 42, 157170, 185, 188, 190, 208, 233, 255, 261, 304 n. 27 Livonia, 87, 194, 211, 296 Livonian war, 116, 134, 216, 289, 296 LixaSev, D. S„ 93 n. 2, 97 n. 11, 127 n. 63,128,128 n. 70,209 n. 105 Lixaòev, N. P., 127 n. 62, 139-142 n. 1, 222 n. 35 Ljaskoronskij, V. G., 154 n. 42 Ljubarskij, P., 103 nn. 39 and 40, 131 n. 77, 266 n. 88, 267 n. 89, 269 n. 105, 270 nn. 108 and 109, 271 nn. 110, 112 and 113, 281 n. 13 Ljubavskij, M. K „ 2-3 LjubeC, 76 n. 1

INDEX

Ljutorskaja Rus\ 116 Loparev, X. M., 95 n. 6 Ludat, H., 160 n. 53 Lur'e, Ja. S„ 17 n. 18, 65 n. 1, 75 n. 22, 126 n. 60, 127 n. 61, 210 nn. 106 and 110 Lutherans, and anti-Protestant campaign, 264,289, 296, 296 n. 12 L'vov Chronicle, 10, 65 n. 1, 96-97, 105, 117-118, 278; on Battle of Belev, 179 n. 2; and "Continuations", 93, 93 n. 2 Mahmut, Khan of Kazan, 14, 14 n. 7, 23, 23 n. 2, 53, 69-71, 180, 182, 302, 326, 333, 333 nn. 3 and 4 Makarij, Metropolitan of Moscow, 42, 92, 99, 125, 130, 178, 185, 205-206, 215, 223, 229, 244, 254 n. 20, 262264, 266, 269, 296-297, 332; Address of October 1552, 121-122, 201203, 205; as author of historical justifications, 94, 96-97, 287-288; as chief ideologue of religious struggle against Kazan, 196-197, 259, 291; and compilation of chronicles, 101 n. 34; and compilation of historicoecclesiastical works, 9-10, 92; on conversion of Chud', Finns and Lapps, 194-195; on conversion of Kazanian Tatars, 195-196, 203; as inspirator of dynastic justifications, 100-102, 288; on Muscovy and her ruler as chosen tools of God, 199200; on religious justifications for the Kazan conquest, 194, 196, 200, 203-204; on subjugation of barbarian nations, 204, 256, 293. See also Epistle of Archbishop Vassijan Rylo to Ivan [III] Vasil'eviò (1480); Epistles of Metropolitan Makarij; Kniga stepennaja ; Letopisec nacala carstva; Opricnina; Otryvok russkoj letopisi; Velikie minei cetii Malinin, V. N „ 114 n. 24, 252 n. 7 Malinovskij, A., 188 n. 33 Malinowski, M., 164 n. 57 Malov, S. E„ 81 n. 9 MalySev, V. I., 95 n. 6 Mamay, 229, 326 Mamay, military commander, 38, 326 Mamay, prince, 15, 326 Mamuk, Khan of Siberian Horde, 29-30,

359

326, 333 MamyS-Berdej, prince, 49 n. 102, 326 Mangkyt yurt, 160 n. 53. See also AkHorde; Ak-Mangkyt Mannheim, K., 17, 17 n. 18,18 Manuel Comnenus, Emperor of Byzantium, 145-148 Manuel Porphyrogenitus, Emperor of Byzantium, 149 "Martyrdom of the Saintly Ivan ...": from Velikie minei ietii, dating of, 278, text of, 277 n. 2, translation of, 276-277; from Nifont Codex, dating of, 278, text of, 278 n. 3 Martyrs, 276-281; Ivan (Ioann), 276281, 295; Petr, 280-281, 295; status of, 131, 281; Stefan, 279-281, 295 Marx, K „ 17 n. 18 Maslennikova, N. N., 115 n. 24 Matvej, Metropolitan of Kazan, 268 n. 100 Maxim the Greek, 188-189; on foreign policy, 183-187; on Kazan - the "dragon's lair", 185; on religious justifications, 183, 183 n. 15, 184, 184 n. 16, 185-187, 211 Mcensk, 24 Mecca, 302 Mehmet, Sultan of Volga Bulgars, 152, 326 Mehmet II, Ottoman Sultan, 14-15, 333 n. 3 Mehmet Emin, Khan of Kazan, 15, 15 n. 13, 28-34, 60, 65-70, 75, 75 n. 22, 82 n. 12, 259, 326, 333 Mehmet Girey, Khan of Crimea, 34-35, 70, 184, 260, 326 Menges, K. H„ 8 n. 2, 56 n. 109 Mengli Girey, Khan of Crimea, 15 n. 13, 28, 32-33,67, 326 Meria, 94 MeScera, 26, 47, 236, 238-239 Mikulinskij, Semen Ivanovic, prince, 46, 48 n. 102, 124-125 Miljukov, P. N., 2,10 n. 4,28 n. 19 Miller, D. B., 92 n. 1, 144 n. 7, 194 n. 56, 199 n. 82, 214 n. 1, 216, 216 n. 9, 221 n. 34 Minorsky, V., 57 n. 112 Mirzas, 55, 70, 135 Mitteis, H., 74 n. 22 Mixail FedoroviC, Tsar of Russia, 268 n. 100

360

INDEX

Mixail Olel'kovii, Prince of Kiev, 113, 134 Mjuller, R. B., 78 n. 1,126 n. 60 Mneva, N. E„ 284 n. 3 Mohammedans. See, Muslims Moiseeva, G. N., 23 n. 1, 51, 104-105 n. 1, 106 nn. 6, 7 and 9, 125, 132, 132 n. 81, 133, 133 nn. 85 and 86, 241 n. 36 MokSa River, 4 n. 2 Moldavia, 190, 191-192 n. 50 Mollas (performers of religious services), 16,56 Monasteries: Andronikov, 271; of the Caves (Kiev), 158-160, 163; Ferapont, 216; Nikolo-PesnoSskij, 271; Novo-Spasskij, 196, 278; Obnorsk, 243; Petrovskij, 258; Pskov, of the Caves, 95 n. 6; Selizerov, 266; Soloveckij, 104 n. 1, 243, 252; Spaso-Preobrafenskij, 267, 270-271 ; Svijazsk, 266-267; Troice-Sergiev, 128,130,219,229,265 ; Volokalamsk, 266 Mongols, 60-61, 164 n. 57, 165, 180-181, 257, 294; invasion of Rus' by, 77 n. 1, 95, 170, 178, 232; Mongol Shamanism, 258. See also Golden Horde Mordvinians (Mordva), 8 n. 2, 44, 94-95, 117-118, 265 Morozov, P. V., boyar, 48-49 n. 102 Moscow, city of, 30, 34, 38-39, 41, 77 n. 1, 105, 116, 184, 193, 208, 227, 232, 242, 245, 260-261, 263, 268, 286 n. 7; the "second Kiev", 114-115, 130, 289; the "third Rome", 114115, 130 Moskovskij letopisnyj svod konca XV veka (1479) (Muscovite Codex of the End of the Fifteenth Century), 65 n. 1, 106, 151-152, 290 Moskva River, 260, 263 Mozarovskij, A. F., 251, 251 n. 1 Mstislavec, Petr, 268 Mstislavskij, I. F., prince, 48-49 n. 102 Murat II, Ottoman Sultan, 14 Murom, Muroma, Muromians, 94, 181 197-198, 235-236, 238-239, 242 Musa, prince, 29, 67 Muscovite Codex of the End of the Fifteenth Century. See, Moskovskij letopisnyj svod konca XV veka (1479)

Muscovy, Grand Principality of, Muscovite state, Empire, Tsardom, 24-25, 29, 31-32, 38-39, 41-44, 46-47, 4953, 55, 66-68, 71-72, 74, 79, 81, 8385, 92, 104, 112-113, 117, 122, 135, 159-160, 166, 169, 181, 193, 198, 200, 203-204, 209, 221-223, 244-246, 249, 261-262, 265,268-269,285,299, 301, 303; agriculture of, 52; autocratic system of, 52; expansion of, 52, 61, 208, 210, 218, 291; foreign policy of, 33, 155, 184, 210-211, 213; as the "most Christian" Empire 204; Muscovite (or Russo)-Kazanian relations, 9, 11-12, 20, 24-28, 37, 40, 45, 48-53, 69-70, 87, 91, 96, 179, 181, 200, 241, 284-285, 287, 289, 301-302; transformation of, into multinational Empire, 8, 61, 177178, 283, 304; as universal Empire, 254-256, 293. See also Russia; Kazan, Khanate of Muslims, also Ishmaelites, Mohammedans, Mussulmans, Saracens, Sons of Hagar, 7 n. 2, 8, 54,90, 97, 114, 120, 124, 129-130, 141 n. 1, 142-143, 146, 184-185, 206-211, 219, 274-277, 285, 291; religious tolerance of, 301-302 Muxamed'jarov, S. F., 14 nn. 8 and 9, 57, 57 n. 110, 59 nn. 118, 119 and 120,60 nn. 121 and 123,290-291 n. 8 Nasonov, A. N., 128 n. 67, 143 n. 1, 229 n. 72 National justifications, Muscovite, for Kazan conquest, 11, 104-135, 288289; Kazan - the "Russian land", 117-124, 171; Rus'-tozemca (autochthonous Russian people) as original inhabitants of Kazan Khanate, 119123, 171, 288-289 Nazarova, A. N „ 268 n. 101 Nestor Iskander, 106 Neubauer, H., 299 n. 14 Nifont, Archimandrite of Novo-Spasskij Monastery, 196, 278 Nikon Chronicle, 10, 40 n. 68, 65 n. 1, 70-71, 96-98, 98 n. 19, 101 n. 34, 105, 117-118, 144-154, 160 n. 53, 164, 164-165 n. 57, 167-168, 172, 184, 215, 218, 255, 278; authorship, components, dating and sources of, 139-143 n. 1; and Bulgar - Kazan

INDEX

continuity (see Continuity theory); and "Continuations", 93, 93 n. 2, 96-97, 102; and Letopisec, 93 n. 2; on Vladimir I and Islam, 143-144 Niznij Novgorod, 31, 37, 99, 117, 152, 160 n. 54, 193, 225, 235, 276, 286 n. 7 Nogai Horde, Nogais, 5 n. 2, 11, 2831, 35, 39-40, 43, 45, 47, 49 n. 102, 54, 56, 66-67, 83-85, 89-90, 130, 135, 160 n. 53, 227, 235-236, 255256, 262, 265, 300-301 Nolde, B., 1, 9 n. 3, 32 n. 32, 45 n. 88, 49, 68, 68 n. 11, 69 n. 14, 300 n. 17 Novgorod, Great Novgorod, Novgorodians, 27, 94, 111-113, 134, 158160, 162, 166; annexation of, by Muscovy, 78 n. 1, 84, 118; archbishopric of, 100, 194-195, 230, 266 Novgorod Chronicles, 25 n. 7, 105-106, 123 n. 47, 141 n. 1, 164, 232 Nuntux (or nutug). See, Yurt Nur Ali, firm prince, 45, 54, 326 Nur Sultan, Khanum of Kazan (later of Crimea), 15 n. 13,28, 33,54,67, 302, 326 Oblezov, Gavrilo, d'jak, 133 n. 87 Obnorsk, 243 Obolenskij M., 300 n. 19 Obolenskij, Vasilij Ivanovic, prince, 28, 181

Obolensky, D., 145 n. 16 O'Brien, C. B„ 4 n. 1 Oglans (military), 42, 55, 57, 57 n. 1, 58, 68 n. 10, 70, 72, 208 Oka River, 94-95, 119 n. 38,181 Oleg, successor of Rurik (?) 107, 111, 328 Oleg SvjatoslaviS, prince, 76 n. 1 Opriinina: and Kazanskaja istorija, 131; Makarij's vision of, 218-219; Muscovy's foreign policy during, 131; Tatar prophecy of, 219-220 Orak, prince, 29-30, 326 Orhan, Ottoman Sultan, 240 n. 35 Orlov, A. S., 106 nn. 5 and 10, 114 n. 22, 127 n. 62 Orthodox Christian faith: alleged superiority of, 206; defense of, 178; ecclesiastical and state policies on the expansion of, 265-269; enlightenment of Kazan by, 251, 256; equation of, with Russian land, 178, 180;

361

expansion of, 251-275; and Fedor Ivanovo's Decree, 274-275,295; and "Russian God", 130; russkaja vera and national aspects, 228 Ostaf'ev, Jakov, envoy, 82 Otryvok russkoj letopisl, 102, 114 n. 23, 194, 197, 229; authorship, dating and theme of, 98-101 Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Porte, 11,15, 74, 185, 240 n. 35, 301-302. See also Turkey ötemi? Girey (baptized Aleksandr), Khan of Kazan, 42-44, 73, 82-85, 125, 133, 221, 261-262, 264, 326, 334 Pafnutij, Saint, 199. See also Saints Pakahn, M. Z„ 240 n. 35 Pamjat' ipoxvala knjaz'ju Vladimiru, 97, 97 n. 13, 98, 98 n. 14 Pankrat'ev, Grigorij, d'jak, 133 n. 87 Paterikon of Soloveckij Monastery, 243244 Patrimonial theory: and annexations, 78 n. 1; as applied to Kazan, 76-87; claim to deportation prerogative, 8284; claim to Kazan tribute, 82-84; Kazan - patrimony of Muscovite rulers, 76, 78-80, 82, 84-86, 201, 285-286, 296; national connotation in patrimonial claim, 78 n. 1; origins and dating of, 76-80; votcina equated with yurt, 87; yurt equated with zemlja, 79-80 Paxomij Logophet, 140-141 n. 1 Peasants, 243,247, 268, 304 Pelenski, J., 9 n. 3, 283 n. 1 Perec, V. N., 104 n. 1 Perejaslav, 76 n. 1; Treaty of (1654), 1 PeremySl', 76 n. 1 Perenck, 286 n. 7 Peresvetov, Ivan, 106,177,189, 192 n. 50, 193 n. 55, 291; on foreign policy, 189-193; Polonisms in writings of, 126-127; on religious justifications, 191-193. See also "First Prophecy of Philosophers and Doctors"; "Greater Petition" Perm, 117, 119, 233, 238-239 Persia, Persians, 37 n. 54, 108, 147-149 Petr. See Kuday Kul-Petr Petr, Metropolitan of Rus', 199 Petr, Tatar convert, 131, 280-281, 295. See also Martyrs

362

INDEX

Petr (?), tsarevich from the Horde, 257, 257 n. 36, 258-259, 259 n. 46, 294 PetruSevskij, I. P., 59 n. 118 Pfitzner, J., 154 n. 42,155 n. 45,167 n. 60 Philipp, W., 189 nn. 37, 39 and 40,191 n. 44, 192 nn. 49, 50 and 51, 193, 193 n. 55 Photius, Metropolitan of R u s \ 150 Pierce, R. A., 4 n. 1 Pil'emov, Andrej, envoy, 38 Pimin, Archbishop of Novgorod, 116-117, 117 n. 29, 296 n. 12 Pisemskij, Fedor, diplomat, 126, 126127 n. 60 Piskarevskij letopisec (Piskarev Chronicle), authorship and dating of, 218, 218 n. 20, 219, 219 n. 21, 220 Platonov, A. F „ 2, 141-142 n. 1 PleSCeev, Andrej, courier, 181 Pocep, 219 Podobedova, O. I., 93 n. 2,222 n. 35 Podolia, Podolians, 112, 134, 157, 159, 161 Podzegin, Sigona, diplomat, 81 Podzegin, Vasilij, envoy, 35 Pokrovskaja, V. F „ 293 n. 9 Pokrovskij, I. M., 15 n. 14,266 n. 82,268 n. 100 Poland, Kingdom of, Poles, 79, 95, 116, 157, 159, 161-163, 167-168, 209, 273 Poland-Lithuania, Commonwealth of, 11, 28, 33, 73-74, 87, 90, 96, 113, 116, 125,134,184,189,193,208-209, 211, 244, 247, 264-265, 285, 288, 296, 303 Polianians, 112 Polikarpov, Vasilij, envoy, 77 Polock, 94, 116, 264 Polotians, 112 Polovcians (Cumans), 76 n. 1, 95, 117, 202, 219 n. 25 Popov, A., 134 n. 90, 303 n. 25 Posol'skij prikaz, 16, 133, 300 n. 17 Posliny (taxes and duties), 25, 82 n. 12 Povest' o Petre careviée ordynskom (or Éitie carevica Petra) ("Tale About Tsarevich Petr From the Horde"), 257, 257 n. 31, 258-259, 294 Povest' o vzjatii Car'grade turkami, 106, 106 n. 5, 129 Povest' vremennyx let (Primary Chronicle), 59, 97, 97 nn. 11 and 12, 98, 109-110,141 n. 1,170 n. 62,287-288; on East Slavic tribes, 94-96, 112;

on otiina, 16 n. 1; on Vladimir I and Islam, 142-143 Presnjakov, A. E., 2, 10 n. 4,13, 77 n. 1, 78 n. 1, 101 n. 34, 140 n. 1, 155 n. 45, 222 n. 35 Prikaz Kazanskogo dvorca (also Kazanskaja izba), 300, 300 n. 17 Primary Chronicle. See, Povest' vremennyx let Princes: Kazanian, 55, 80; Muscovite, 78 n. 1, 107, 243, 254, 265 Prisel'kov, M. D., 150 n. 30, 166 n. 59 Pritsak, O., 9 n. 3, 160 n. 53 Prochaska, A., 155 n. 43 Pronsk,219 Prophecies, predictions, omens and miracles, 214-231, 291-292; Daniil's vision, 220-221; Elena's vision, 219; Feodosij's prediction, 230-231; Galaktion's prophecy, 216; Russian omens and miracles, 225-227, 229; Tatar prophecies and omens, 223225, 227-229 Protas'ev, Grigorij, 24 Protectorate theory, based on investiture prerogative, 65-71, 284-285; vassal relationship between Muscovy and Kazan, 49, 66 n. 2, 68, 285. See also Investiture theory Proxor, Bishop of Rostov, 259 Prussia, 111 Pskov, 84, 112, 158-160, 162, 166, 195, 260; archbishopric of, 266 Putilov, B. N „ 257 n. 34 Pypin, A. N., 132 n. 78 Qalan (land tax), 59, 59 n. 118 Qurultai (vsja zemlja kazanskaja [Assembly of the Land]), 32; social composition and function of, 55, 67 Rademichians, 97 Radziwill, Jerzy Mikolaj, prince, 71 Raeff, M., 4 n. 1 Ranke, L. von, 12 Rares, Peter, Prince of Moldavia, 190-191 Rauch, G. von, 1 Religious justifications, Muscovite, for Kazan conquest, 11; expansion of Orthodox Christian faith (see Orthodox Christian faith); Islam defined as "pagan" and "dragon", 177-178; Kazanian Tatars defined as notori-

INDEX

ous and wicked peijurers, 206, as godless enemies of Christian faith, 206; liberation of Russian Christians from Muslim captivity (see Captives) ; Providential interpretation of history, 10, 178-179, 205, 207, 209, 212, 214, 218, 221-222, 224, 272273, 291-292; religious justification for "Kazan war" of 1468-1469, 182183; struggle against Muslims equated with struggle against Latins, 203; struggle between Christianity and Muslim world, 177. See also Kurbskij; Makarij; Letopisec míala carstva ...; Peresvetov; Prophecies... Rjazan', 48, 84, 113, 160, 160 n. 54, 166, 219,233,249 n. 66 Roman Catholic Church, Catholics, Latinisms, Latins, 108, 140 n. 1, 142-143 n. 1, 158, 165, 190, 202-203, 273, 295 Romanov, B. A., 78 n. 1, 244-245 Rostov, 94, 99, 120, 146-147, 149, 198199,230,254,258-259; archbishopric of, 266 Roth, G., 74 n. 22 Roublev, M., 287 n. 7 Rozanov, S. P., 142-143 n. 1, 149 Rozov, N. N„ 217, 217 n. 12 RubinStejn, N. L., 16 n. 15 Runciman, S., 145 n. 16 Rurik (or Rjurik) (?), 92, 94-96, 104, 107, 110-111, 118, 287-288, 312 Rurikide dynasty, 214 n. 1, 287-288 Russia, Grand Principality of, Great Russia, Russian Empire, Russians, Great Russians, 8-9, 13, 23, 52, 65, 77-78 n. 1, 84, 116, 200, 224, 233, 245, 252, 254, 268, 273, 288-290, 292-293, 297-298, 302, 304; formation of national centralized state, 177-178, 288-289, 297-298; imperial character of, 1; as unitary national state, 1; multinational character of, 1-3; Russian land, 113-114, 117119, 122-123, 159, 161, 249, 270, 288; motif of beauty of, 119 n. 40; the "second Jerusalem", 130; sedentary nature of, 52. See also Muscovy; Kazan, Khanate of Russian Chronograph of 1512, 106, 114 n. 22, 118, 121, 150, 159, 160 n. 53, 164; authorship and dating of, 140-

363

142 n. 1; idea of all-Slavic unity in, 141 n. 1; Serbianisms in, 140-141 n. 1 Russian Orthodox Church, 116, 192, 265-266; clergy of, 13, 177-178,182, 187, 243, 246-247, 253, 265, 303; Councils of 1547, 1549, 10, 92, 259, 279; establishment of Patriarchate, 266, 270; intolerance of, 295-296, 301-303; nationalization of, 10, 199; relations of, with state, 52, 265266, 296-298. See also Martyrs; Orthodox Christian faith; Prophecies ...; Religious justifications Rziga, V. F., 184, 184 n. 17, 185 n. 20, 189, 189 n. 36 Saadet Girey, Khan of Crimea, 188, 326 Sadir, prince, 29, 326 Safargaliev, M. G., 9 n. 3, 23 nn. 1 and 2, 160 n. 53, 164 n. 57 Sahip Girey, Khan of Kazan, Khan of Crimea, 14, 14 n. 9, 34-36, 40, 53, 55, 57, 80-81, 88, 90, 139 n. 1, 184, 188, 326, 333 Saints: canonizations of (1547, 1549), 243,259 n. 46,294; Gurij, Varsonofij, German, 270-272, 295; as intercessors, 179, 179 n. 2, 206-207; Mongol convert Petr, 259, 294; Russian national, 198-199 Samara River, 4 n. 2 Samogitians, 157, 159, 161 Saracens. See Muslims Saratov, 4 n. 2 Sarai, 120-121, 153, 160, 171, 262 Sawatij, 243-244. See also Saints Sayn Bolgarskij (?), 119-123, 171 Schaeder, H „ 114 n. 22, 114-115 n. 24 Second Sophia Chronicle, 65 n. 1, 98 n. 22, 105, 179 n. 2, 188, 255 Sefa Girey, Khan of Kazan, 36-41, 50, 53-54, 72-74, 82, 85, 132 n. 82, 206, 217-219, 223, 227, 235-236, 261, 278 n. 4, 326, 333 Semen Ivanoviö, Grand Prince of Muscovy, 77 n. 1, 330-331 Seniority principle, 76-78 n. 1 Serapion of Vladimir, 249 n. 66 Serbina, K. N „ 26 n. 15 Serebrjanyj, Petr Semenovii, prince, 261 Sergij, 144 n. 6 Sergij of Radonez, Saint, 179 n. 2, 199,

364

INDEX

229. See also Saints Serpuxov, 30, 195, 270 Sertoglu, M„ 240 n. 35 Seton-Watson, H., 1 Seyit (ecclesiastic), 55-56, 68, 79, 228 Seyit Ahmet, Khan of Golden Horde, 262, 326 Sheikhs (preachers and elders), 56 Sherbowitz-Wetzor, O. P., 94 n. 5 Shils, E., 17 n. 18 Siberia, Khanate of, Siberian Horde, Siberian Tatars, 7-8 n. 2, 29-30, 45, 56, 134, 281, 299 n. 16, 300 Sidel'nikov, A. D „ 127 n. 62 Sidorova, A. A., 268 n. 101 Sil'vestr, archpriest, 251 n. 2, 291, 293, 296-297; as author of conversion and Christianization program in conquered Kazan Khanate, 251254; as author of Muscovy's claim to universal empire, 254-256, 293; on desolation of Golden Horde, 114 n. 21,255; on expansion of Orthodox Christian faith, 251-256 Simeon. See Yadigar Mehmet-Simeon Simeon, Metropolitan of Moscow, 260, 332 Sineus,94, 111 Skazanie o knjaz'jax Vladimirskix, 106, 129-130, 289; compared with Kazanskaja istorija, 106-111; dating of, 106, n. 10 Skripil', M. O., 234, 234 n. 8, 257, 257 nn. 34 and 36 Skrynnikov, R. H., 286 n. 6 Slavs, 60-61, 94; East Slavic tribes in Primary Chronicle, 94, 112, 287288; Southern Slavs, 141 n. 1, 191192 Slovenes, 112 Slovo o pogibeli ruskyja zemli (Tale About the Downfall of the Russian Land), 95-96, 119 n. 40; dating of, 95, 95 n. 6 Smirnov, A. P., 59 n. 115, 98 n. 19 Smirnov, I. I., 8 n. 3, 33 nn. 39 and 41, 36 n. 51, 66 n. 2, 78 n. 1, 81 n. 7, 251 n. 2, 254 n. 20, 256 n. 29 Smolensk, 155 n. 44, 163, 168, 199, 219, 247, 260 Smolitsch I., 8 n. 3, 23 n. 1, 36 n. 51, 43 n. 81, 48 n. 101, 49 n. 103 Smuta. See Time of Troubles

Sobolevskij, A. I., 127 n. 62,272 n. 117 Sofija Vitovtovna, grand princess, 155 n. 44 Sofijskij vremennik, 101 n. 34, 157 n. 49 SokraSienrtyj letopisnyj svod 1493 g. (Abridged Codex of 1493), 65 n. 1 SokraSiennyj letopisnyj svod 1495 g. (Ahridged Codex of 1495), 65 n. 1 Solov'ev, S. M., 2-3, 9 n. 3, 23 n. 1, 27 n. 15, 36 n. 50, 41 n. 69, 43 n. 81, 46 n. 93, 49 n. 102, 51, 66 n. 2, 88 n. 1, 99 nn. 25 and 26, 105 n. 2, 156 n. 47, 186 n. 23, 239 n. 33 Sons of Hagar. See Muslims Sotnicyn, Ivan, bailiff, 86 Soyürghäl, 57,75 Sozina, Jakov, envoy, 71 Spuler, B., 4 n. 2, 9 n. 3, 23 n. 1, 25 n. 8, 53 n. 107, 56 n. 109, 59 n. 118, 61 n. 124, 121 n. 41, 151 n. 37, 154 n. 42, 156 n. 47, 164 n. 57 Sreznevskij, 1.1., 76 n. 1, 104 n. 1,127 n, 62 Sreznevskij, V. I., 97 n. 13 Stefan, 131, 279-280, 295. See also Martyrs Stefanoviö, D „ 245 n. 54,246 n. 59 Stepanov, R., 14 n. 8 Stoglav (Council of the Hundred Chapters), 245-247, 253, 292; (Book of the Hundred Chapters), 245-247,253 Strayer, J. R., 74 n. 22 Stremooukhoff, D., 115 n. 24 Structuralism, structural analysis, 302303 n. 24; as applied to intellectual history, 16; and binary oppositions, 302-303, 302-303 n. 24 Sudebnik of 1497, 244, 244 nn. 50 and 51 Sudebnik of 1550, 78 n. 1, 244-245 Suleiman the Magnificent, Ottoman Sultan, 36, 70, 80 Sunbulov, Fedor, 219 Sunbulov, Mixail, voevoda, 219-220 Sunbulov, Semen, 219 Sura River, 4 n. 2, 36, 188 Suäyc'kyj, T„ 156 n. 46, 157 n. 49, 158 n. 51,165,165 n. 58 Sutherland, D. W., 91 n. 6 Suxona, 243-244 Suzdal', 59, 146; battle of (1445), 2425, 168, 180, 233, 314 Süyün Bike, Khanum of Kazan, 40, 4244, 49 n. 102, 50, 54, 85, 125, 133,

INDEX

227 n. 63, 261, 326, 334 Svijaga River, 8 n. 2, 36, 43 SvijaZsk (also Ivangrad), 36, 43, 45-48, 89, 99, 103, 128, 197, 205, 224, 227, 229, 236-239, 242, 253, 262, 265-266 Svjatopolk II, Grand Prince of Kiev, 76 n. 1, 312 Svjatoslav, Grand Prince of Kiev, 76 n. 1, 107, 109-110, 202, 230, 328 Sylva River, 4 n. 2 Syzran' River, 4 n. 2, 5 n. 2 Szeftel, M „ 78 n. 1 Szpytko (Ispytko, Luspytko, Vyspytka or Vyspytko) of Cracow, prince, 158161, 163 Saxmatov, A. A., 13, 93 n. 2, 139, 141 n. 1, 143 n. 1 SCepkin, V. N., 222 n. 35 Seremetev, I. V., boyar, 48 n. 102 SevCenko, I., 9 n. 3, 145, 145 n. 16, 204, 204 n. 90, 217, 217 n. 11, 226, 226 n. 60 Smidt, S. O., 8 n. 3,12n. 5,16 n. 17, 37 n. 54, 38 n. 57, 41 nn. 70 and 73; 43 n. 78,46 n. 92, 51, 68 n. 12, 88,88 n. 2, 122 n. 45, 222 n. 35, 235 n. 16, 239 n. 34, 243 n. 46, 244 n. 51, 245 n. 54 Spilevskij, S. M., 105 n. 2, 132, 132 n. 79 Sujskij, Petr IvanoviC, prince, 49 n. 102, 267 Sumilov, V. N., 12 n. 5 Sunkov, V. I., 144 n. 9 Çah AU, Khan of Kazan, 34-36, 39, 4147, 50, 68, 70, 73, 77, 81-82, 84-85, 89, 125, 184, 195-196, 236-238, 261263, 280,285, 326, 333 $ah Huseyn, Seyit of Kazan, 32, 326 $ah Yusuf, prince, 31-32, 326 Çaptiak, prince, 25, 326 Çavas §am, prince, 45, 326 "Tale About the Appearance of the Miraculous Icon of Our Lady, the Virgin Mary [of Kazan]", authorship of, 103 n. 39, 131, 272, 272 n. 117; content and dating of, 272, 272 n. 117, 273-274 "Tale About the Conquest of Astrakhan", 122 n. 45 "Tale About the Miracles of the Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir" (Prologue), 144-147; dating of, 144

365

"Tale About the Origin ol the [Veneration] of the True Cross on the First of August", 146-148; dating of, 144 "Tale About the Victory Against the Bulgars in 1164 and the Feast of the Savior", dating of, 144-145 "Tale About Timofej of Vladimir", dating and content of, 234-235, 235 n. 15 "Tale, Beginning of the ...", in Letopisec naiala carstva, 85-86, 128, 204-208 Tarxans (nobility), 55-57, 59 Tatars (Crimean, Kasimov, Kazan, Siberian, listed separately), 150-151, 157-159, 161, 178-179, 224, 244, 258-259, 271, 294, 298, 302-303; attitudes of, toward captives and slaves, 232, 245; military tactics of, 168; service Tatars, 182 TatiSiev, V. N „ 132 n. 78 Tabi, prince, 38-39, 326 Temir Kutlu, Khan of Golden Horde, 154, 156-169, 326 Terebovl', 76 n. 1 Tereul, prince, 42, 326 Testament of Ivan III of 1503-1504, 286, 286-287 n. 7; dating of, 286 n. 4 Testament of Ivan IV of 1572, 286; dating of, 286 n. 6, 298-299 Testament of Vasilij III of 1523, 286, 286 n. 5 Teutonic Order, 69-70, 166 Tevkil, bahfi, 37, 326 Tevkil, prince, 38,326 Theodosius the Great, 198 Time of Troubles (smuta), 273, 295 Timofej, archpriest, 279 Timofej of Vladimir. See "Tale About Timofej of Vladimir" Tipografskaja letopis' (Typographic Chronicle), 65 n. 1 Tixomirov, A. I., 93 n. 2 Tixomirov, M. N „ 4 n. 2, 15 n. 12,' 81 n. 10, 125, 125 n. 56, 127 n. 62, 133, 133 n. 87, 144 n. 9, 268 n. 101, 269 n. 104 T'ma, 160 n. 54 Tmutorokan', 122, 122 n. 45 Tohtamij, Khan of Golden Horde, 153, 155, 157-164,164 n. 57,165-167, 327 Tolstov, S. P., 56 n. 109 Torks, 97 Torusa, 286 n. 7 Toumanoff, C., 115 n. 24

366

INDEX

Toymians, 95 Translatio theory. See Continuity theory Tretjak-Gubin, Vasilij, envoy, 70 Tribute, 43, 82-84, 112, 156, 162-163, 184, 253; alleged Bulgar, to Rus', 98; alleged Greek, to Rus', 107; imposition of, on Bulgars by Andrej Bogoljubskij, 147-148; to Rus', 9496, 117. See also Vyxod Trostenkov, Timofej, prince, 28 Truvor, 94, 111 Tsar; assumption of titles by and coronation of (see Ivan [IV] Vasil'eviö); as martyr, 207; relationship of titles tsar - khan - basileus, 299-300 Tula, 48 Tulup, Vasilij, prince, 28 Turkey, Turks, 48,142 n. 1,186,190-193, 227; claims to Kazan, 36, 80-81. See also Ottoman Empire Tütün sani (house tax), 59 Tver, city of, 77 n. 1, 181, 286 n. 7 Tver, Grand Principality of, 77 n. 1, 113, 141 n. 1, 160, 160 n. 54, 166 Tyäkevyi, Jurij, envoy, 265 Udmurts, 8 n. 2 Ufa River, 4 n. 2 UgorSöina (Vigil on the Ugra River), 113, 115 n. 26, 171, 254-255, 255 n. 26, 256 Ukraine, Ukrainians, 116, 126-127, 190 Ulu Mehmet, Khan of Kazan, 13-14, 14 n. 6, 23-24, 34, 53-54, 172, 180-181, 228, 232-233, 327, 333 Unofficial (or Metropolitan's) Codex of 1489-1490, 65 n. 1 Uraiko, 73, 327 Usmanov, M. A., 15 n. 14 Ustjug, 95, 233, 238-239 Ustjugov, N. V., 300 n. 17 Ustjuiskij letopisnyj svod (Ustjug Chronicle), 26 n. 15, 27, 29 n. 20, 66 n. 2, 233 Ustrjalov, N., 117 n. 31 USakov, Simeon, 284 Ufr (tithe), 240 Valachians, 157, 159, 161 Val'denberg, V., 191 n. 48,192 n. 49 Valk, S. N „ 75 n. 22 Varangians, 94, 111 Varlaam, Saint, 199. See also Saints

Varsonofij, archimandrite, bishop, 266267, 269-271, 295; conversion activities of, 270-271. See also "Life of Gurij and Varsonofij"; Saints Vasenko, P. G., 214 n. 1, 215, 215 n. 4, 220, 220 n. 29 Vasil'grad (also Vasil'sursk), 36-37, 188 Vasilij I, Grand Prince of Muscovy, 155 n. 44,156, 331 Vasilij II, Grand Prince of Muscovy, 24, 24 n. 3, 25, 113, 180-182, 233, 315 Vasilij III, Grand Prince of Muscovy, 3133, 35-37, 40, 75 n. 22, 79-81, 109110, 184-186, 188, 194, 200, 213, 216-220, 226, 233-235, 243, 247, 260-261, 261 nn. 54 and 55; 285286, 286 n. 5, 294, 304 n. 27, 331 Vassijan Rylo, Archbishop of Rostov, 117 n. 29, 178, 199, 296 n. 12. See also Epistle of Archbishop Vassijan Rylo ...; UgorSiina Velikie minei ietii (Great Menology): compilation and nature of, 10, 276, 278, 280; and "Life of Tsarevich Petr", 259. See also "Martyrdom of the Saintly I v a n . . . " Veliz, 219 Vel'jaminov-Zernov, V. V., 9 n. 3, 23, 23 n. 2, 26-27 n. 15, 39 n. 63, 42 n. 75,43 n. 7 8 , 4 6 n . 93 Vernadsky, G „ 9 n. 3, 23 n. 2, 29 n. 21, 66 n. 2, 78 n. 1, 98, 98 n. 16, 154 n. 42, 156 n. 47, 160 n. 54, 164 n. 57 Ves', 94 Veselovskij, S. B„ 78 n. 1, 219 n. 23, 286 n. 6 Vetluga River, 4 n. 2 Viada, 96 Viatichians, 98 Vitovt, Grand Prince of Lithuania, 154, 154 n. 42, 155-169, 290; agreement with Tohtami?, 155; domestic and foreign policy programs of, 169; imperial "grand design" of, 164, 167, 170; and universale Weltherrschaftsplane, 167 Vjatka, 27, 113, 117, 119, 233, 238-239 VjatkaRiver,4n. 2 Vjazemskij, Afanasij Ivanovii, prince, 274 Vladimir, city of, 25, 77 n. 1, 196, 215 Vladimir, city of (in Volhynia), 76 n. 1

INDEX

Vladimir, Grand Principality of, 10,112, 160 n. 54, 170 Vladimir I, Grand Prince of Kiev, 99100, 102, 107, 110, 112, 114, 117118,142-144,198,202, 214 n. 1,230, 258,288, 300, 328; as national saint, 199 Vladimir Andreevic, prince, 85, 99-100, 107, 199 Vladimir AndreeviC, Prince of Serpuxov and Borovsk, 77 n. 1 Vladimir Monomax, Grand Prince of Kiev, 95-96, 99, 107-110, 148, 198, 202, 300-301, 328 Vladimircov, B. Ja., 53 n. 107, 56 n. 109, 57 n. I l l , 81 n. 9 Vladimirskij-Budanov, M. F., 78 n. 1 Vodovozov, N. V., 105 n. 1 Volga River, 4 n. 2, 36-37, 43-44, 5859, 93-95, 97, 102, 117-120, 122, 150, 153, 224, 238, 288 Volhynia, Volhynians, 112, 134 Vologda, 29, 235, 238-239, 243 Vologda-Perm Chronicle, 65 n. 1 Voronin, N. N., 144 n. 9, 145, 145 nn. 14 and 18 Voronoj-Volynskij, M. I., 300 n. 17 Vorotinskij, Ivan Mixajlovii, prince, 274 Vorskla River, 154, 157-162, 165, 167; battle on, 154, 154 n. 42, 156, 156 n. 46, 164-165 n. 57, 165, 290; Tale about, in First Novgorod Chronicle, 158, 164-165, 167-169, in Fourth Novgorod Chronicle, 158, 158 n. 51, 159, 164-166, 168, in Nikon Chronicle, 156, 161-164, 164 n. 57, 165-170, in Russian Chronograph (1512), 159-160, 164, 166-168, in Voskresensk Chronicle, 160-161, 166-167, in Western Rus' Chronicle (Suprasl' Manuscript), 157-158, 165169 Voskresensk Chronicle, 23 n. 2, 65 n. 1, 70-71, 101 n. 34, 105, 139 n. 1, 143 n. 1, 151-152, 214-215, 255, 260 n. 47, 278, 290; dating of, 139-140 n. 1 Votâina (or otiina) (patrimony, patrimonium, Grundherrschaft, seigneurie) : as Kazan yurt, 86; treatment of, 76-78 n. 1 ; and udel, 77 n. 1 Votiaks, 8 n. 2,56,120,274 Vsevolod I, Grand Prince of Kiev, 95,312 Vsevolod (III) Jur'eviC, Grand Prince of

367

Vladimir, 77 n. 1,118, 150,330 Vyrodkov, Ivan Grigor'evii, d'jak, 238 Vyxod (tribute), Muscovite, 24: to Astrakhan, 286, 286 n. 7; to Crimea, 184,286,286 n. 7; to Golden Horde, 286-287 n. 7; to Kazan, 286,286 n. 7. See also Tribute Wallachia, 265 Wapowski, Bernard, 164 n. 57 Weber, M„ 74 n. 22, 87 n. 22, 207 n. 98 Western Rus' Chronicle (Suprasl' Manuscript), 165; dating of, 157 n. 49; Polish version of, and Ol'Sev manuscript (1550), 158 n. 51 Wittich, C„ 74 n. 22 Xabarov, Ivan IvanoviC, boyar, 238 Xerxes, Emperor of Persia, 107 Xolmogorskaja letopis', 74-75 n. 22 Xolop (servant), 68 Xotun', 30 Xudjakov, M., 4 n. 2, 8 n. 3,23 n. 1, 26 n. 13, 33 n. 41, 42 n. 77, 45-46, 46 nn. 91 and 94,49 nn. 102 and 103, 51,53 n. 107, 55, 55 n. 108,57-58,58 n. 114, 66 n. 2,88 n. 1, 121,121 n. 43,239 n. 33 Yadigar Mehmet (baptized Simeon), Khan of Kazan, 47, 50, 83, 86, 207208, 221, 228, 261-264, 327, 334 Yagmurci, Khan of Astrakhan, 83, 327 Yagmurci, mirza, prince, 31, 255, 327 Yah?, prince, 38, 327 Yarhk of Khan Ibrahim, 14, 14 n. 8 Yarlik of Khan Mahmut to Turkish Sultan Mehmet II (April 10, 1466), 14.14 n. 7 Yarlik of Khan Mehmet Emin to Polish King Aleksander Jagiellonczyk (1506), 15, 15 n. 11 Yarlik of Khan Sahip Girey (1523), 14, 14 n. 9, 55, 57, 59 Yarlik of Khan Tohtamx? to Grand Prince Vitovt (1397 or 1398), 155, 155 n. 43 Yarlik of Khan Ulu Mehmet to Turkish Sultan Murat II (March 14, 1428), 13-14, 14 n. 6 Yarlik of Prince Mamay and the Kazan Land to the Ottoman Porte (1549), 15.15 n. 12

368

INDEX

Yarliks of Khan Ahmet of the Golden Horde to Turkish Sultan Mehmet II (1465-1466 and 1477), 14, 14 n. 10, 15 Yasaq (tithe), 59, 240 Yer xablasi (land sale tax), 59, 59 n. 119 Yurt (nuntux or nutug), definition and origin of the term, 81 n. 9 Yusuf, mirza, prince, 40, 49 n. 102, 8485, 327 Zabelin, I. E., 144, 144 n. 10, 145, 147 n. 21, 148 n. 23, 284 n. 2 Zajac'kaja (or Zajaickaja) Orda. See Jaik Horde Zamyckij, Vasilij, prince, 72 Zenkovsky, S. A., 95 n. 6 Zimin, A. A., 24 n. 4,78 n. 1,93 n. 2,127 n. 61, 140 n. 1, 143 n. 1, 189 nn. 37,

38 and 39, 190 nn. 41 and 42, 191 nn. 44 and 45, 192 n. 52, 193 nn. 54 and 55,196 nn. 64 and 66, 211 n. 112,222 n. 35, 239 n. 34,245 nn. 54 and 56,246 n. 58, 251 n. 2, 252 nn. 3 and 5, 253 n. 18, 254 nn. 20 and 21, 256 n. 29, 261 n. 54, 267 n. 91, 300 n. 17 Zosima, 243-244. See also Saints Zudov, Zanka, 35 Zygmunt I, King of Poland, 15 n. 11, 77,79 Zygmunt (II) August, King of Poland, 82,86,265 2aren, Fedor, d'jak, 187 Zdanov, I. N „ 254 n. 20 ¿itie Aleksandra Nevskogo (Life of Aleksandr Nevskij), 95 n. 6, 96 2dan, M„ 154 n. 42,156 n. 47