Events related to the beginning of the annexation of Siberia to Russia are reflected in the" Kungur", Stroganov, Esipov and Remezov chronicles. They are based on now-lost primary sources, which puts these "historical stories built on a single plot" 1 on a par with the few official documents. Historians who have studied the question of the annexation of Siberia (starting with G. F. Miller), including Soviet scientists, usually relied on the concept of one of these chronicles, which in many respects (chronology, causality of phenomena, interrelation of events, etc.) contradicts the rest 2.

The modern view of the Siberian chronicle is mainly determined by the conclusions contained in the fundamental research of S. V. Bakhrushin3 . In connection with the publication of the Siberian chronicles by the Archeographic Commission in 1907, in 1915-1927, he revised the structure of the Siberian chronicle as a whole, including the interdependence of the Stroganov and Esipov chronicles and their relation to Chapter 37 ("Synod of the Cossack") of the latter (briefly, but not quite identical with the main text, repeating the same plot)4 . The question of their correlation is the cornerstone of all polemics, which, according to Bakhrushin, has a large literature .5 Bakhrushin's starting point was the conclusions of S. A. Adrianov, a consistent proponent of the concept of the chronicler S. A. Khabib. Esipova 6 . For them, the "Synodik kazakom" of Esipov is the synodik of Cyprian in 1622, as such. Adrianov further claims that the synodik is the "Writing" that the Cossacks brought at the request of Cyprian; the synodik, or otherwise "Writing", is the main source of the Esipov chronicle, and it, in turn ,is the main source of the Stroganov chronicle. 7
1 V. G. Mirzoev. Annexation and Development of Siberia, Moscow, 1960, p. 4. 7. See also N. A. Dvoretskaya. Archeographic review of stories about the campaign of Ermak. "Trudy" ODRL. T. 13. Moscow-L. 1957, p. 467.

2 Thus, according to the Kungur chronicler, Maxim Stroganov alone, forced by the Cossacks, equipped Yermak's squad; according to the Stroganov chronicle, Semyon, Maxim and Grigory Stroganov called up Cossacks from the Volga and organized Yermak's campaign to Siberia; the Esipov and Remezov chronicles exclude the Stroganovs altogether. There is not even a generally accepted date of Yermak's death. It is reported: "On the night of August 5 to 6, 1585" ("History of Siberia", vol. 2. L. 1968, p. 30); " In August 1584 "("History of the USSR since ancient Times", Vol. 2. M. 1966, p. 340); " On the night of August 6 1585, according to other sources-1584" ("Soviet Historical Encyclopedia", Vol. 5. Moscow, 1964, stb. 509).

3 S. V. Bakhrushin. The question of the annexation of Siberia in historical literature. "Scientific works", vol. 3, part 1, Moscow, 1955.

4 See Siberian Chronicles, St. Petersburg, 1907 (hereinafter referred to as SL), pp. 164-170.

5 For a detailed analysis of the issue's historiography, see: V. G. Mirzoev. Edict op.

6 S. A. Adrianov. On the question of the conquest of Siberia. "Journal of the Ministry of National Education", 1893, April, pp. 522-550.

7 See S. V. Bakhrushin. Edict op., p. 22; S. A. Adrianov. Op. ed., pp. 533, 539.

page 45
A careful analysis of the texts of the chronicles and the revealed inconsistencies led Bakhrushin, contrary to Adrianov's conclusion, to assume that the chronicles are connected only through a common protograph. This, according to Bakhrushin, is the "Writing" mentioned by Esipov, which is restored "in general terms" without any special difficulties .10 However, it is found that in the view of some, the protograph is an "artless story" that reflects the "democratic stream" in the chronicle, while for others, it is a high - sounding work of"fine literature"11 . The contradictory properties of the protograph led to the idea of the existence of another intermediate source - the first official chronicle, or otherwise the " story "About Siberia" 12 . But this assumption clearly contradicts the"extremely close similarity of parallel places, sometimes literally" 13 in the Stroganov and Esipov chronicles; if we take into account the direct connection between the Esipov and Remez chronicles discovered by Adrianov, then the possibility of scientifically substantiating any of the mutually exclusive chronicle concepts is reduced to nothing. On this basis, some researchers argue that all or at least some of the Siberian chronicles cannot be considered historical sources .14
When reviewing the main conclusions of Adrianov, Bakhrushin draws for comparison and analysis the oldest (believed to be the first half of the XVII century) list of one of the three known editions - the main Stroganov and the main (of the two editions - the oldest, dated 1649) list of the Esipov chronicles. The subsequent development of chronicles, the emergence of their widespread, short and mixed editions, and their mutual correlation can now be traced in many lists .15 The question of the correlation between the main editions of these chronicles remains unclear. In order to determine their correlation, it is quite enough, following S. V. Bakhrushin, to limit ourselves to the same objects of research (with the use of original lists). The fact that the issue had to be resolved, "of course, in... the main editorial offices" of the chronicles was also pointed out by A. I. Andreev in 196016 .

With the obvious proximity of the chronicles (Esipovskaya, including ch. 37, and Stroganovskaya), three schemes of their interdependence are objectively possible: 1) Esipovskaya from Stroganovskaya, 2) Stroganovskaya from Esipovskaya; 3) both from a common protograph (more broadly, sources or source), and it is also permissible for a second chronicle to be a protograph among these sources for each of the two chronicles. Finding out the relationship between the two chronicles is complicated, however, by the fact that Chapter 37 of the Esipov Chronicle (supposedly the synod of Cyprian) is singled out as an independent object of research. And can it not be considered chapter 37 of this chronicle as such? In 1622, the Cossacks brought Kyprian a "Spelling" with the names of their slain associates. The Archbishop ordered them to be recorded in the Synod of the Cathedral. These names are not mentioned in Chapter 37, and the author of the chronicle makes a clear distinction between it and the other two.-

10 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., p. 30.

11 See V. G. Mirzoev. Op. ed., pp. 116, 130-131, etc.; S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., p. 30.

12 D. S. Likhachev. Russkiye letopisi i ikh kul'turno-istoricheskoe znachenie [Russian Chronicles and their cultural and historical significance]. Moscow, l. 1947, p. 394. From the history of literature of the Urals and Siberia of the XVII century. Sverdlovsk. 1965, p. 130, 144 (diagram).

13 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., p. 22.

14 See G. Krasinsky. The Conquest of Siberia and Ivan the Terrible. Voprosy istorii, 1947, No. 3; L. I. Andreev. Ocherki po istochnikovedeniyu Sibiri [Essays on Source Studies in Siberia], Issue 1, Moscow, 1960, p. 216.

15 See N. A. Dvoretskaya. Edict op. It attracted more than 50 lists of the Esipovskaya and 16-Stroganovskaya chronicles.

16 A. I. Andreev. Op. ed., p. 213.

page 46
mine and the "synod", in which "their names are written"17 . This means that despite the great similarity of Chapter 37 with the Synod of Cyprian in 1622, it can be considered part of the Esipov Chronicle.

Revising the main propositions of Adrianov and introducing the concept of a protograph, Bakhrushin clearly showed the inconsistency of the statement about the dependence of the Stroganov chronicle on the Esipov chronicle. In fact, he also proved the earlier origin of part of the text of the Stroganov Chronicle compared to the" Synodik Kazak " 18 . This allows us to raise the question of the dependence of the Esipov Chronicle on it. Why wasn't such a possibility considered then? The fact that Bakhrushin at the beginning of the study shared the point of view of Adrianov (a supporter of the priority of the Esipov chronicle) also determined his initial positions. Bakhrushin highly appreciated Adrianov's" strictly scientific methods of text criticism "and believed that his conclusions"have not yet lost their force" 19 . Justifying his positions, Adrianov (without touching on the contradictions within the Esipovskaya chronicle) focuses attention either on similar errors in the Stroganov chronicle or on its inconsistencies with the Esipov chronicle. Therefore, he writes about the impossibility of Yermak's squad marching on September 1 due to the attack of the Pelym prince on the Stroganov fiefdoms on the same day, and about the unreasonableness of sending Stroganov Cossacks on September 1, looking "at winter", and that sending 300 people to help Yermak is a fiction because neither Cyprian neither Esipov "knows about it". "Finally," asks Adrianov, " how could Ermak have beaten the emperor with his brow with a country that was submissive to them at the will and with the support of the Stroganovs?"20 . However, all these inconsistencies with the "circumstances of the case" reveal only the inconsistency of Stroganov's chronicle concept and interpretation of the facts known to the chronicler .21 In conclusion, Adrianov asserts that among the sources of the Esipov chronicle "there is no place for the Stroganov chronicle" 22 . In the course of the analysis, when an unsuccessful revision of the text in Chapter 37 (according to Bakhrushin and Adrianov, the Synod of 1622) was revealed in comparison with the original corresponding place in the text of the supposedly "later" Stroganov chronicle, Bakhrushin was confirmed in the opinion that a direct connection between the chronicles is impossible. If we agree with Adrianov that the Esipov chronicle precedes the Stroganov chronicle in time, and the synodic of 1622 is Chapter 37 of the Esipov Chronicle, it remains to assume that the chronicles are connected only through a common protograph, which S. V. Bakhrushin did .23
What is the basis of Adrnanov's conclusions? Its proofs include, along with scientific arguments, a simple parry of the arguments of opponents, based on the same obvious contradictions of the "circumstances of the case". It is the conclusions that interest us that are most polemically justified. First, the article in the Stroganov chronicle "On the Siberian Tsars" is "as similar as two drops of water to the corresponding one" in Esipovskaya. So, Esipov "incorrectly said that he used the Tatar chronicle: he took it from Stroganov's" 24 (but also according to the scheme of Bakhrushin

17 The 1622 Synodic of the Ermakov Cossacks was recently discovered by E. K. Romodanovskaya and published (see Izvestia of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1970, No. 3). I would like to thank her for the opportunity to get acquainted with the publication while still in the manuscript.

18 See S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., pp. 26-27.

19 Ibid., pp. 22, 28.

20 S. A. Adrianov. Op. ed., pp. 526, 527, 546, 548, etc.

21 These contradictions are resolved if we consider the events in accordance with the chronology of Ermak's campaign proposed by us (see V. I. Sergeev. To the question of the campaign to Siberia of Ermak's squad. Voprosy Istorii, 1959, No. 1, pp. 120, 126, 128).

22 S. A. Adrianov. Op. ed., pp. 539, 540.

23 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., p. 28.

24 S. A. Adrianov. Op. ed., p. 531.

page 47
Esipov in this case did not use the so-called Tatar chronicle 25 ). Secondly, Esipov speaks about the use of Cossack traditions. Adrianov asks: "What exactly is taken from the legends", if all these facts "are also in the Stroganov chronicle"? (Not everything that is revealed during the analysis of chapters 30, 32-34, which have no analogies in the Stroganov Chronicle.) Third, "finally, he (Esipov - V. S.) also lied about distributing his original." The Esipov chronicle "can by no means be considered a distribution of the Stroganov chronicle" 26 (volumes of early texts of chronicles: Stroganovskaya-46, Esipovskaya-66 pages 27 . Adrianov had an unsatisfactory list of the Esipov Chronicle, which Bakhrushin also noted)28 . As a result, Adrianov concludes that the dependence of the Esipov chronicle on the Stroganov chronicle can be recognized if "we decide to consider the entire afterword of the first chronicle a lie."29 . Thus, the argument itself indicates the possibility of a direct connection between the two texts and the dependence of the Esipov chronicle on the Stroganov chronicle. Esipov's information about the sources of his chronicle requires further study.

The direct relationship between the two chronicles, along with textual proximity, is also indicated by the structural features inherent in the chronicles (both the most general and particular). Even their initial (abbreviated) titles: "On the capture of the Siberian land"and" On Siberia and the Siberian capture" - bear both semantic and lexical similarity If we do not take into account Chapter 37 (as a special synodic), then in the annals, respectively, 36 chapters and articles (with prefaces). In the Stroganov Chronicle, article 7 ("On vocation... the Cossacks... to Chyusovsky towns") and 8 ("About the parish... the Cossacks... Chyusovsky Gorodki") find a structural analogy in chapters 7 of the Esipov Chronicle ("On the coming of Ermak and others to Siberia") and 8 ("On the coming of Ermak and other Cossacks to Siberia"). However, with the exception of the general news about the number of Cossacks (540), the content of chapter 7 and article 7 is completely different: The 7th article is devoted to the Stroganovs, and the 7th chapter is devoted to abstract arguments about divine providence. If we take into account that for Esipov in the Stroganov chronicle there is a figure of silence (as will be discussed below), then the very presence of such a chapter in the chronicle is easily explained by Esipov's desire at the initial stage not to deviate from the structure of the Stroganov chronicle.

The "older text" identified by Bakhrushin in the Stroganov Chronicle in comparison with the corresponding text "Synodika Kazakom" is evidence in favor of the dependence of the Esipov Chronicle on it .30 Let's see if there are any other examples in the main parts of the two chronicles similar to the one discovered by Bakhrushin. Compare the texts of both chronicles 31 .

STROGANOV CHRONICLE

ESIPOVSKAYA CHRONICLE

[v. 12] ... along the Tura and doidosh to the Tavda River in courage, and at the mouth of that river poimasha Tatars. One be from them, named Tauzak, the king's court, and told them everything in a row about the Siberian kings and princes and Murz and Ulans and about King Kuchyum. They also uvedavshe from him about everything reliably and released him, let Kuchyumovi saltanu say the coming of Russian soldiers and their courage and bravery-The King Kuchyum about this offended and sad velmi zelo and paki...

Chapter 8 ... and Turoy and doplysh to the river Tavda. At the mouth of your river, Yasha Totarina, we will name Tausak, the king of Kuchyum's court; tell them all about King Kuchyum. Hearing the same Tsar Kuchyum coming Russian warrior and their courage and bravery and about this offended Zelo and paki...

25 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., pp. 29-30.

26 S. A. Adrianov. Op. ed., p. 531.

27 See SL, pp. 1-46, 105-170.

28 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., p. 22.

29 S. A. Adrianov. Op. ed., p. 531.

30 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., pp. 26-28.

31 SL, pp. 16-17 and 125-127.

page 48
Here, as in the example of Bakhrushin, in the Esipov Chronicle, there is an unfortunate abbreviation. The logical connection between Tausak's detention and Kuchum's receipt of news about the Cossacks is established only from the Stroganov Chronicle.

A continuous comparison of the two texts reveals the following correspondence between their articles and chapters: Articles 12, 14 - Chapter 8; Articles 13-Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5; Articles 15, 16-Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; article 17-Chapter 15; Article 18 - 17; article 19 - chapter 18; article 20 - chapter 19; article 21-chapter 16; articles 22, 23-chapter 20; article 24 - chapter 21; article 25 - chapter 22; article 26 - chapter 23; article 27-chapter 24; article 28 - chapter 25; art. 29, 30 - ch. 26; art. 31-ch. 27; art. 32-ch. 28, 29; art. 33-ch. 31; art. 35 - ch. 35. With the different nature of correspondence (from textual generality to approximate semantic), in general, the direct relationship of the compared texts is indubitable. It is not without reason that Adrianov also noted the" perfect identity " of the core of the two chronicles .32
Before touching on the disparate original chapters and articles (v. 1-11, 34, 36; ch. 1, 6, 7,30, 32 - 34, 36, 37), let us pay attention to the marked differences in the sequence of articles and chapters of the chronicles (v. 13-ch. 2-5; v. 21-ch. 16)., as it allows you to look into the creative laboratory of the chronicler.

Esipov sets out the content of article 13 of the Stroganov Chronicle in chapters 2-5 (the texts themselves, as Adrianov puts it, are similar "like two drops of water").33, the texts of articles 12, 14 are presented in Chapter 8. This change in the arrangement of the material explains the expediency of Esipov's reduction of part of the phrase ("about the Siberian tsars and princes..." from the text of Article 12, where these words led the reader to Article 13 - " Toya Sibirsky, about tsars and princes, how and how I started").

According to the version of the Stroganov chronicler, the Cossacks inform the Stroganovs about the victory over Kuchum and the capture of Mametkul. The latter, having reported this to Moscow, receive the tsar's salary, and then the Cossacks turn to Ivan the Terrible and are instructed to "send Mametkul to Moscow", whom Ivan the Terrible meets. If we recognize Yermak's connection with the Stroganovs, then the Cossacks ' "delay" in addressing the tsar is understandable. The exclusion of the Stroganovs from the circle of actors and the attempt to link the Cossacks directly with Grozny bring the defeat of Kuchumov's kingdom closer in time to the Cossacks ' appeal to the tsar, which is what Esipov reflects. At the same time, if the Stroganov chronicler, setting out the letter of the Cossacks to Moscow, combines in it the news about the "driving away" of Kuchum and the capture of Mametkul, then Esipov, placing the appeal of the Cossacks to the tsar before the article telling about the capture of Mametkul, naturally excludes this fact from the Cossack letter. Therefore, in Esipov's Chapter 17, in contrast to Article 18 of the Stroganov Chronicle, Ermak can "tell" the captive Mametkul about the "royal great salary". Esipov also interprets the fact of Mametkul's arrival in Moscow in a different way, referring it, contrary to the Stroganov chronicle, to the time of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich . We find a justification for this in the first two articles of the New Chronicler 35, comparing with them the semantic and lexical discrepancies between the Esipov and Stroganov chronicles, revealed when comparing them 36 .

32 S. A. Adriano V. Op. ed., p. 536.

33 Ibid., p. 531.

34 See. Esipovskaya chronicle, ch. 21 (SL, p. 143), Stroganovskaya chronicle, art.25 (SL, p. 33).

35 A new Chronicler was compiled in the Embassy Order around 1630 (see L. V. Cherepnin. "Smuta" and historiography of the XVII century. "Historical Notes", Vol. 14. 1945).

36 Similar phrases and terms are detected: "The law of King Kuchyum Moamet... and they are worshipped as an idol" (ch. 6. SL, pp. 118-119), "the same law of the Moametes"... Pegayazhorda and ostyaki and samoyad do not have the law, but they worship an idol" (ch. 1. SL, p. 111), "Before that chyud lived all over the Siberian land" (ch.3. SL, p. 117). In the New Chronicler, respectively, we find:

page 49
And Esipov's rearranged Chapter 16 (in contrast to Article 21, called "On the Epistle to the Tsar to Moscow by soonchom") finds an analogy in the text of the New Chronicler: "To the tsar to Moscow of the ambassador with seunchom" 37 . However, Esipov does not follow the New Chronicler further, maintaining the sequence of presentation of the Stroganov Chronicle: after sending voivodes to Siberia, sending Mametkul (voivodes) to Moscow, and not vice versa (as in the New Chronicler 38).

Articles 1-11, 34 and 36 of the Stroganov Chronicle are not reflected in Esipov. All of them (except Article 34) are connected with the Stroganovs. Some original chapters of the Esipov Chronicle are not actually connected with the actions of the Cossacks; they are devoted to the description of the " Siberian Country "(Chapter 1), the "faith" of the Siberian peoples, the" triumph "of Orthodoxy (Chapter 6), and the "divine providence" in the fate of Ermak and the Cossacks (Chapter 7). Of particular interest are chapters 30, 32-34, different from the Stroganov chronicle developing the chronicle plot. The fact that it is not the Stroganov chronicler who excludes from the text the material of the original chapters (allegedly using the Esipov chronicle), but, on the contrary, the Eoipov excludes the material of the Stroganov Chronicle that does not satisfy him (partly articles 33 and 34) and expands his own presentation (Chapters 30, 32-34), is evidenced by a comparison of the corresponding passages.

Like Esipov (in chapter 35), the Stroganov chronicler describes the "dispensation of cities" in article 35, but does not even mention the foundation of the first city in Siberia - Tyumen. Contrary to the fact (known to Esipov at least from the New Chronicler), it turns out that Tobolsk was founded first, and even on the site of the "city of Siberia". Introducing chapter (30) on the foundation of Tyumen, Esipov specifies the order of the foundation of cities, and then, undoubtedly polemicizing, determines the topographic ratio of Tobolsk and the "city of Siberia". Let us compare again the texts of both chronicles 39 :

STROGANOV CHRONICLE

ESIPOVSKAYA CHRONICLE

[v. 33}... Tsar... sent from Moscow to Siberia voivode Danil Chyulkov with many military people... Tatarova is afraid of this... and zbegosha from his city, and before this there was in Siberia their Tatar capital city-ust Tobol and Irtysh, also called Siberia, it was left empty. Rustii zh voi priidosha and sedosha in it and having established the city firmly, idezh be now called the God-saved city of Tobolesk.

Chapter 31 ... by his royal permission sent from Moscow... voivode Danilo Chyulkov with many military people... doidosha to the Irtysh River, from the city of Siberia fifteen fields (my discharge. - V. S.) ... instead of this tsarstvuyushago city of Siberia, the elder was this city of Tobolesk, ponezhe bo tu victory and victory on the cursed busormen was, even more so and instead of tsarstvuyushago city of Siberia.

Esipov was a resident of Tobolsk, where the village of Chernaya, located on the site of Kuchum's capital ("on Old Siberia, on the yar"), was then known40 . Therefore, there is no reason to make the erroneous presentation of this issue in the Stroganov Chronicle dependent on the correct presentation of the facts of the Esipov Chronicle. Different from article 34

"king Kuchyum; their faith is Busarman Maameteva law.., and others w chyud stray, faith and the law is not a healer" (PSRL. Vol. 14, part 1, p. 33). Only Esipov in Chapter 30, according to the New Chronicler, tells about the foundation of Tyumen.

37 Seungch, seungch-good news, mostly about victory.

38 From the entry in the embassy affairs of 1585, we can judge the arrival of Mametkul in Moscow under Ivan the Terrible. The record of 1586, which reflects the desire to "emphasize the merits of the new government", refers this event to the time of Tsar Fyodor (see A. A. Preobrazhensky. Russian diplomatic documents of the second half of the XVI century on the annexation of Siberia. "Research on domestic source studies", Moscow, L. 1964, pp. 387, 389).

39 SL, pp. 41-42, 154-155.

40 TSGADA, f. SP, book 1207, ll. 98, 110; column 571, l. 70. (In the petition of the Tobolsk Archbishop Nektary of July 8, 1638, it is noted that Savva Esipov is a deacon of the Sophian house.)

page 50
In the Stroganov chronicle, Esipov describes (in Chapters 32-34) the fate of Prince Seydiak, Kuchum and their capital after the death of Ermak, giving details that are clearly known to him from the words of eyewitnesses. As Esipov notes in the introduction," about the kingdom of Siberia and the principality "he wrote" ino with the chronicler Torsky, ino with reliable men experienced", who told him "Java" 41 .

At least three times in the series of sources mentioned, Esipov notes the chronicle, which was later named Stroganovskaya by N. M. Karamzin. The story "about the kingdom of Siberia and the principality" that preceded Ermak's campaign is described in two chronicles, according to Adrianov, "it seems like two drops of water." With the established dependence of the Esipov chronicle on the Stroganov chronicle, Esipov's reference to the" Torsky"chronicler as the source of this information allows identifying the latter with the Stroganov chronicle (the" Totarsky " chronicler is a reconstruction of later scribes). Starting in fact the final, 36th chapter, the only one in the oldest list, named only in the table of contents, Esipov notes:: "Have, then, correcting the chronicles, a hedgehog about the capture of Siberia and the victory of Sitsev" 42 . To make sense of a phrase with a clearly broken grammatical structure, we will perform some reconstruction of it. "Hedgehog" is the neuter gender of the pronoun "ezhe" - "which" 43 . To coordinate the parts of the sentence, we will introduce (apparently lost in correspondence) the repetition of the word "chronicles" in combination with the word "which": "I have, correcting the chronicles, a chronicle that (is called): "On the capture of Siberia and its victory." In the full title of the Stroganov Chronicle, three main elements are distinguished: 1 )" On the capture of the Siberian land, 2) kako. "to the tsar... The Siberian state to possess... and 3) approve in it... the archdiocese " 44 . About the last element, noted only in the title of the chronicle, Esipov is silent when he mentions it for the second time.

This assumption is confirmed by the fact that another copyist of the Sychev list, after writing the word "chronicle" (si; i -?) and noticing, apparently, the omission of repetition, makes a clearly visible correction of the singular to the plural - "chronicle" 45. In all the lists of the Esipovskaya Chronicle 46, Chapter 36 is named or according to the table of contents of the Sychevsky list: "On the correction of the chronicle, having such butts" (in various variations), or by removing the parsed phrase from the text of the chapter with its various reconstructions. In one of the lists of the chronicle, the title of the 36th chapter contains the third element of the full title of the Stroganov Chronicle: "On the appointment of the Archbishop to Tobolesk" 47, which confirms our hypothesis. In conclusion, in Chapter 37, Esipov again notes: "Some people have already written something off from the scriptures and are constrained by their speech, but others are too far away." 48 Excluding everything related to the Stroganovs, Esipov, as noted above, significantly exceeded the volume of the Stroganov chronicle, that is, "distributed" his text. So, probably, the same Stroganov chronicle is mentioned here for the third time.

In this case, how can we explain such different concepts and emphasis of the chroniclers? So, in contrast to the Stroganov Chronicle,

41 See SL, page 106.

42 Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library (hereinafter-GPB). Department of Manuscripts. Collection XV XVII. 33, l. 109; SL, p. 162.

43 I. I. Sreznevsky. Material for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language, vol. 1, Moscow, 1958, stb. 819, 1027.

44 See SL, page 1.

45 GPB. Department of Manuscripts. Collection XV XVII. 33, l. 109 vol.

46 More than two dozen such lists were reviewed in the archives and manuscript departments of book repositories in Moscow and Leningrad.

47 Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Collection of the Archeographic Commission, No. 11, 227, l. 181. See SL, p. 162-Notes (misreading on the Korkunov list).

48 SL, p. 169.

page 51
where the companions of Yermak are named, Esipov has "Yermak and others", only Koltsov's name is mentioned in connection with his death (which, by the way, is also noted in the charter of the "consecrated" cathedral)49 . But the Esipovskaya chronicle is full of names of Tatars and descriptions of events related to them. According to Bakhrushin, Esipov created the life of the "new patron of the Siberian Department", glorified the" deeds "of Ermak and the Cossacks in the field of spreading Christianity for the edification of local "gentiles". Hence the emphasis on the names of Tatars and the description of the hagiographic, that is, generalized, type. Fulfilling the order of the church, Esipov excluded not only the specific names of atamans and Cossacks, but also all indications of Yermak's connection with the Stroganovs. The chronicler, who reveals the history of the annexation of Siberia from the standpoint of church ideology, of course, was interested in separating the activities of Ermak and the Cossacks from the name and deeds of rich salt producers and thereby magnifying, "purifying" the motivating thoughts of "God's chosen ones" - the Cossacks, raising them to the level of ascetics for the faith.

However, Esipov does not just casually reject the concept of the Stroganov chronicle. To do this, it had to have a justification. What is it? All three chronicles mention Ermak's letter to the tsar; the Stroganov chronicler also mentions Ermak's replies to Stroganovs, and the Kungur chronicler mentions "about regimental clerks"50 . Apparently, we can talk about some kind of "office" in the squad of Ermak. At that time, office work usually consisted of unaddressed drafts - "vacations". The unsubscribe letters themselves were kept by the addressee in the patrimonial archive (they were used by the Stroganov chronicler)51 . Drafts of the same - "vacations" - remained in the Cossack environment and in some part were probably brought to Kyprian in 1622. This "Writing" was obviously the basis for him to compile the synodic, and for Esipov - the source from which the Stroganov chronicler allegedly "copied something" before him. "Vacations" are usually unaddressed. This allowed Esipov, along with correcting particular errors ,to "correct" the concept of the "protograph" in terms of the Ermak-Stroganov connection. One way or another, but Esipov, as it seems to us, based his work on the text of the Stroganov Chronicle, created his own concept of Ermak's campaign in Siberia, which corresponded to the interests of the Tobolsk diocese .52
Based on the assumption that the Esipov chronicle directly depends on the Stroganov chronicle, we can also speak more definitely about the dating of the latter. In the XV-XVII centuries, when a territory was annexed to the state, the spread of the official religion - Christianity-played an important role. In this regard, great importance was attached to the foundation of dioceses, such as Perm, Kazan, and later Siberian. Given this, we can assume that the solemn passage through Solvychegodsk to Siberia of the first archbishop (in the spring of 1621) or the news of the foundation of the Siberian diocese (Cyprian was appointed archbishop on September 8, 1620).They might have encouraged the Stroganovs to write a documented story, " About the Capture of the Siberian Land," to celebrate their role in the event now that they were in the middle of a war.

49 The charter on the establishment of the order of commemoration of the Ermakov Cossacks dated February 16, 1636 is known to S. U. Remezov (see SL, p. 353).

50 See SL, p. 29, 316; the Stroganov chronicler also mentions the regiments (see ibid., p. 11).

51 Documents about Yermak's campaign in the middle of the 18th century were collected by the Stroganov estate manager P. S. Ikosov, author of The History of Genealogy... Stroganovs" (Perm. 1881). Isn't that why the Stroganovs ' archive doesn't have these materials?

52 The absence of annual dates in the Ermakov documents can be explained by the purely business nature of unsubscriptions.

53 Bucinsky settlement. Opening of the Tobolsk diocese and the first Tobolsk Archbishop Kyprian. Kharkiv, 1991, pp. 57-58; TSGADA, f. 210, N 178, ll. 1-2.

page 52
with the opening of the diocese, Siberia in their view finally became part of Russia. The year 1621 (by the way, the year of the death of the last of the three organizers of Ermak's campaign, M. Stroganov) can be considered the time of writing the Stroganov chronicle. The fact that the foundation of the Tobolsk diocese is mentioned only in the title of the chronicle serves as an additional confirmation of this dating.

Researchers linked the compilation of the Stroganov Chronicle with the claims of G. D. Stroganov (circa 1673) "to the legacy of glory in the vocation of Ermak by his ancestor Semyon", which was not included in the famous "disgraced" charter of November 16, 1582. Mainly on the basis of the inclusion of Semyon's name in the text of the charter given in the chronicle, the entire chronicle was declared a "later falsification" or a sample of "writing at the end of the XVII century" 54. However, what is called "falsification" can be explained by the conditions under which the chronicle was compiled in 1621. Paleographic analysis of the undated list of the Stroganov Chronicle allows us, following A. A. Vvedensky, to state that filigree in the form of a jug with two handles, with the letters " RC " passes through the leaves of the entire manuscript. "There are no filigrees of other drawings" 55 . The completely identical filigree in the printed liturgical book (Trefologion) dates back to 1636-1637 .56 If we assume that the Esipov chronicle (1636) depends on the Stroganov chronicle, then A. I. Andreev was right when he wrote that this is one of the well-known "oldest lists of the chronicle", and not the original, as A. A. Vvedensky assumed .57 Thus, the possibility of compiling the Stroganov chronicle in 1621 and from this side is not excluded. The poor familiarity of the Stroganov chronicler with the topography of Siberia and the Stroganov Chusov possessions, and the inclusion of Semyon's name in the "disgraced" charter suggest that the chronicle was compiled in the Solvychegodsk patrimony, owned at that time by Semyon Stroganov's sons (Kyprian also passed through Solvychegodsk to Siberia).

So, of the three possible schemes of connection between the two chronicles, the most plausible is the scheme of their dependence on a common source (in equivalent drafts-vacations and unsubscriptions by Stroganov from Ermak's squad); understanding the scheme is complicated by the fact that together with the source common to the two chronicles (in two originals) for the Esipov chronicle, the source (protograph) was also the Stroganov chronicle. Whether the synodic of Cyprian, and later the Esipov Chronicle, were compiled directly from drafts of replies, or whether the Cossacks presented in Tobolsk a "Spelling" compiled by them on the basis of memoirs and Yermakov documents-this question remains open.

The Remezov chronicle was created much later than the considered ones, but according to non-preserved sources dating back to eyewitness accounts, it can also be attributed to the initial chronicles. It is also different in design - it is actually the front arch - the original. The Remezov chronicle has been studied since its discovery by G. F. Miller in 1741.58, but some of its sources, time of writing, and other facts have not yet been established. The main author of the chronicle, as you know, is a talented "isographer", a compiler of maps, drawing books

54 A. I. Andreev. Op. ed., pp. 213-217, 279.

55 A. A. Vvedensky. Stroganov House in the XVII-XVIII centuries, Moscow, 1962, pp. 67-68.

56 A. A. Heraklitov. Filigree of the XVII century, Moscow, 1963, p. 127, N 824. With the kind assistance of T. V. Dianova, the identity of filigrees directly by Trefologion (M. 1636-1637) was checked in the Manuscript Department of the State Museum of Fine Arts (Book Collection smaller, N 555).

57 A. I. Andreev. Op. ed., p. 216; A. A. Vvedensky. Op. ed., p. 69.

58 L. A. Goldenberg. Semyon Ulyanovsk Remezov, Moscow, 1965, pp. 111-112.

page 53
S. U. Remezov 59 . Therefore, conclusions about its dating without comparison with other dated works of S. U. Remezov cannot be final. We will limit ourselves here only to observations on the original text and partially to figures 60 .

A comparison of the Stroganov, Esipov, and Remez chronicles indicates that the latter depends only on the Esipov Chronicle . When compiling the facial arch, S. U. Remezov used the structure and material of the Esipov chronicle, correcting its errors and introducing new articles. At the same time, the text is saturated with such details that no other chronicle contains. Here we can assume the detailed influence of a large range of sources, including, if not the "vacations" of Ermakov's clerks themselves, then some material related to them. Only in one case does Remezov deviate from the general sequence of the narrative with Esipov: the dispatch of Mametkul to Moscow (Article 91) and the direction of the first voivodes to Siberia (Article 92) are set out in reverse order (corresponding to chapters 21-20). As noted above, Esipov did not follow the New Chronicler here. Did Remezov, who was not familiar with the Stroganov Chronicle, depend on the New Chronicler's material? To answer this question, let's compare both sources 62 .

THE REMEZ CHRONICLE

NEW CHRONICLER

104. Be bo at Kuchyum Tatar in the death penalty; and this ambassador provodati Ermak and ford through Perekop; Tatar same perebred and the sight of the Cossacks all sleeping announcing Kuchyum; and it is not true be, and packs the ambassador, ordered to carry that; and came the second, taken 3 squeaks and 3 lyadunki, and brought; by the same night the rain is multiplied, for by the judgments of God fate has befallen, and death has come upon the soldiers.

Chapter 2 ... But the Tartar is in Nebo's Kuchyum in wine, and his ambassador Kuchyum is in the river: "Taste the ford in the river for me; when you have tasted it, I will spare you the punishment." The Tartar crossed the river and saw them sleeping, and the Tartar came and led them to Kuchyuma. Kuchyum, not believing him, sent him to the others and took what they took from them. The Tartar went to other places and, coming, took three squeaks and three vyazni from the Cossacks and brought Kuchyuma...

If we add that in the place of insertion of Article 104 (in the Remez Chronicle), two numbers (103, 104) do not refer either to the Esipov chronicle or to the "Kungur" chronicler (about which see below), and in the New Chronicler exactly two articles are related to Siberian events, then we can assume that the material of the latter used in the Remez Chronicle. A strong confirmation in this case is the "Salary Book of Siberia" of 169763 . In it, in the form of an extract from the "Power Book" (facets 17), the material shared with the first two articles of the New Chronicler is set out 64 . The compilation of the "Salary Book" was started in 169665: at the same time - on January 10, 1696-the famous boyar verdict was also held: "On removing the blueprint of all Siberian cities and lands" 66 . The "salary book", which contains a summary of the Siberian cities and the distances between them, was completed in the Siberian Order in 1697, and in the autumn of 1698 S. U. Remezov and his son Semyon left the same place.-

59 Ibid.

60 Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences (in Leningrad). Department of Handwritten Books, 16.16.5; S. U. Remezov. Brief Siberian Chronicle with 154 drawings. St. Petersburg, 1880; sl.

61 This was also pointed out by S. A. Adrianov (op. ed., pp. 543-544). A comparison (based on the Sychev list) confirms his conclusions.

62 Remezovskaya chronicle, article 104. SL, p. 343; Novy Letopisets, article 2. PSRL. Vol. 14, part 1, p. 34.

63 The Salary Book of 1697, compiled in two copies, is now kept in Leningrad (GPB. Handwritten department. G. IV. 76) and 1choskve (GIM. Department of handwritten books. Shchukinskoe sobr. 189).

64 See M. I. Navrot. Salary book of Siberia 1697 "Problems of source studies", V. M. 1956, p. 185.

65 E. I. Dergacheva-Osprey. Edict op. p. 86.

66 The Complete Collection of Laws. St. Petersburg, 1830, vol. 3, N 1532, p. 217.

page 54
completing the boyar sentence, they complete the "drawing", for which, by order of A. A. Vinius (who was involved in the compilation of the "Salary Book"), S. U. Remezov receives an award 67 . When working, the Remezovs undoubtedly used (and therefore knew) the "Salary Book" of 1697.

Since the Remezov chronicle is a facial arch, it is important to determine the degree of mutual influence of "present positioning" (illustration) and text compilation, and in this regard, the types of works of S. U. Remezov himself and his "natural" works, which are mentioned in the final, 157th article of the chronicle. Their names in the figure accompanying the article are encoded in monograms written in ligature, in five images of "hearts" with signs resembling the number "4"; above the central sign is the word "sim" from the text of the final, 157th article ("My name is familiar with this call, with which I have a reputation in the Siberian country").additionally, names in other ink (not simultaneously with the main text) are encrypted with littoreiae above each of the hearts 68 . When the chronicle was published in 1880, all five littorals were deciphered .69 When trying to decipher monograms, litorrhea usually dominated researchers .70
Let's see what initials can be identified in monogram ligatures? What can they mean? And, finally, what can be hidden under the "sign of this"? S. U. Remezov, as is clear from Article 157, "briefly glagolal", that is, composed the text, and "cash pospolozhil" - defined the content, sketched plots and compositions of drawings. At the census of 1710, he was called ikonnik 71 - In the drawing to Article 157, it is necessary to assume more specifically-a face painter 72 . Hence the possible decoding: the hypocrite, or rather "lichil", Semyon Ulyanov Remezov (LSUR), peripheral monograms begin with the letter "C". There is also, apparently, a specification of the activity: the helpers - Leonty Semyonov Remezov (SLSR), Semyon Remezov (Jr.) (SSR), Peter Remezov (SPR) - "celebrated". The lower left monogram is special. In it, taking into account the descent of the letter, in addition to the initials of Ivan Semyonovich, the initial of Afanasy (Nikitich), S. U. Remezov's nephew, is also determined (hence, apparently, the expression "with natural people", and not "with relatives" - SISAR). They entered the sovereign's service together 73 . So you can determine the circle of people encrypted at the end of the vault. The sign under the word "sim" resembles a stylized image of a bird's beak (remez-their generic nickname-surname). This, presumably, is the "banner" of the "hand-to-hand zborschik"

67 L. A. Goldenberg. Op. ed., p. 48, 211.

68 See S. U. Remezov. Brief Siberian Chronicle, St. Petersburg, 1880, p. 39.

69 Ibid., p. 1.

70 A. I. Andreev defined the central monogram as AKP by analogy with litorea ("Semyon Remezov wrote"). Accordingly, they also define peripheral monograms: CPR ("Leontia Semyonova"), SSR ("Semyona Semyonova") (see A. I. Andreev. Op. ed., pp. 253-254). Under the influence of litorei and L. A. Goldenberg in the central monogram suggests PSUR; he was the first to draw attention to the initial letter " S "in other monograms, but his assumption that this word is" son"is hardly justified ("Son of Leonti Remezov" means grandson of S. U. Remezov) (L. A. Goldenberg. Edict op., p. FROM). She was the first to accurately identify the monogram in the center of E. I. Dergachev's composition - Osprey-LSUR (op. ed., p. 27). But it is also difficult to agree with her opinion that "S. U. Remezov encrypted three names: his own and his own (Leontia, Ulyana plus his last name)". Why natural and not native? Why the name of Leontius (who, according to E. I. Dergacheva-Osprey, was 13 years old in 1690) mentioned, and the names of 2 and 9-year-olds Semyon and Ivan (see L. A. Goldenberg. Op. ed., pp. 36, 76) no? It is controversial to explain the sign under the word "sim" as " titla "and at the same time the numbers" 4": four letters: LSUR. Whereas. how could the Remezovs "get a reputation in the Siberian country" under the "sign of this"?

71 See L. A. Goldenberg. Op. ed., p. 76.

72 Litsevshik - one of the specialties in Russian icon production. See I. P. Sakharov. A study of Russian iconography. Book 2. St. Petersburg, 1849, p. 38.

73 See L. A. Goldenberg. Op. ed., p. 38.

page 55
S. U. Remezov, well-known among the local population ("in the Siberian country")74 .

Of great interest are the inserted articles of the" Kuntur " chronicler, included in the general pagination of the arch; they are part of it, but special. Bakhrushin noted that" with all the diversity of its composition, " the chronicler reports "a lot of concrete facts that are not found in other Siberian chronicles." He cites the phrase: 75) and concludes that "unless it is a typo", then "the story was written by a participant in the battle" 75 . But there is reason to believe that the author of the Chronicler is a participant in many other events of Ermak's campaign. However, he does not belong to the Cossacks. A member of the Cossack squad, being in an unknown land among unseen people, could not describe with more curiosity the life and customs of the Cossacks (for them, they themselves are ordinary), and not the Siberian inhabitants. The author notes that Yermak "snatched it in passing, and so did our prey," but Patlik's fighters "Yermak and his comrades killed every single one." 76 The loot is "ours", and they nailed it - "Ermak and his comrades", that is, with the Cossacks. He only heard that the Cossacks "obmisheny", not getting to the mouth of Serebryanka, as this is also trying to explain the Sylven campaign of 1578-1579. So, the author does not clearly represent the original route of the squad to Siberia. But he, as an eyewitness, describes the loading of supplies by the Cossacks ("they did not take their plows to the cargo and sank under the shore; they seasoned the naboi, made it easier to take less supplies on plows, and managed everything") 77 . The author also knows about the rules of "Stroganov's treasury". Apparently, this is one of the ordinary clerks who was in the service of M. Stroganov; he arrived in Chukovsky Gorodok after the Cossacks ' march to Siberia (June 12, 1579) and left before Begbelius attacked the Stroganov fiefdoms of Chusovo (July 21, 1581) .78
74 When we look at the code as a whole (in the original), we will try to reveal the process of working on it. As you know, out of 157 issues of articles - 20 inserts (from the "Kungur" chronicler. The drawings under these articles and under articles 140-147 are executed in a special way, different from the other drawings); there are no three articles (83, 88, 103); as it was assumed above, Article 104 was borrowed from the New Chronicler (where two articles are devoted to Siberia), and therefore the calculation of article numbers in the code was carried out with their respective names. taken into account; together with the omitted (83 and 88) articles and articles of the "Kungur" chronicler inserted 24 numbers. If you add numbers above the drawings that are similar in design to the Kungur chronicler (articles 140 - 147), then there will be a total of 32 additional numbers of articles that do not correspond to the Esipov chronicle. There are references inside the text (in Article 56 to articles 23, 24 and in Article 118 to Article 81), but the facts mentioned are set out in articles with other numbers (27, 28 and 113). In the first case, the difference in the numbering of articles by four (27, 28 minus 23 and 24) is the first sheet of the inserted "Kungur" chronicler (articles 5-8); in the second case - by 32 articles (113 minus 81) - these are all the inserted articles taken into account, but not yet distributed among the sheets. Articles 127-130 correspond to Chapter 34 of the Esipov chronicle and illustrate its content; Chapter 35 in the last one begins with the phrase: "Ottole the sun of the gospel Osias the land of Siberia". There is also an illustration in the code for this chapter, this is under Article 139. But its text is written on a sticker, the number of the pasted article is 115, 139 minus 115-a difference of 24 articles. This is the location of the inserts already taken into account (Article 32 minus Article 8 following article 139, i.e. articles 140-147). The text under the label (number 115) corresponds to, but is not identical to, Article 131; Article 130 is the last one in the illustration to Chapter 34 of the Esipov Chronicle, and the picture to the pasted text of Article 139 corresponding to Article 131 is an illustration to Chapter 35 of the Esipov Chronicle. It reveals a closed chain of complex interrelation of the text and drawings, the dependence of drawings on the sequence of chapters of the Esipov chronicle, which, therefore, is the basis for illustrative work. It was difficult to distribute contradictory material that did not agree with the Esipov chronicle, with the illustration of the text of which work on the code began. This is probably why some of the already marked-up content was rejected during the work. Hence: empty numbers and articles that are not related thematically to the summary.

75 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., p. 42.

76 See the Remezov Chronicle, articles 51, 52, SL, p. 326.

77 Ibid., v. 8, cf., p. 315.

78 In order to determine the place (and then the role) of the author of the Kulgur chronicler in the events related to Yermak's campaign, we compared the dated facts mentioned by him with the corresponding (initial) part of the chronological scheme of this event.

page 56
In article 80, the chronicler complains that all the battles "are difficult to describe in detail: there are no dead howls, and there are many wounded in the forest." This means that the events are memorable and close in time. However, due to his independent relation to M. Stroganov, expressed in the Chronicle, and the fact that there is no place for the "Kungur" chronicler in the Stroganov Chronicle, it seems that the author of the latter is no longer connected with M. Stroganov. Knowledge of local toponymy, legends of the Siberian Tatars, their language-everything speaks for the fact that the Chronicler was compiled in Siberia. About the lake in the Lower Tavda basin, which G. F. Miller could not find, the author confidently says :" even then the word is still a Filthy Bathhouse, full of human bones" (v. 49). Below (in V. 52), an eyewitness chronicler testifies: "Ermak and his comrades... We went back down the Tawda... fleecing bread in yasak... and that zbor is the first yasach bread, in Tobolsk and still bread is in the place of Ermakov's device." This gathering took place in the area of the town of Tabarinets Biya. Tabarinsky volost was subordinated to Pelym from 1593, and in 1594 the Tabarintsy plowed the "sovereign's arable land" 79 . If in Tobolsk" until now "they collect" bread in yasak " from Tabarintsy, who have been led by Pelym voivodes since 1593, then the text was compiled no later than 1592-1593, and most likely in the then main Siberian city of Tyumen. Earlier, on the Tagil portage, "trees" could hardly grow through the bottoms of ships left by Ermak in 1579. The author of the chronicler went to M. Stroganov before the closure of the Chusovsky way (in 1590) and saw those ships. Apparently, among other former" Stroganov people", he was in the Siberian "sovereign" service, and before that he went to report to M. Stroganov, who "in the treasury" and found that people who joined the squad of Ermak in 1581, "still ""collected".

The final articles of the chronicler (articles 99 - 102) show that their author accompanied Ermak in his last speech. Detailed toponymy, vivid episodes-all this says that an eyewitness who distinguishes what he saw from rumors describes the events: in the Tashatkan town, " a stone fell from the sky, his majesty, as it were, a cartload of red flags, and from it the cold, rain and snow gradually rises; and about this Ermak and his comrades marveled." . The author is the only witness of the tragic events on the part of the vigilantes: he is undoubtedly the "leak" from the place of Yermak's death. Bakhrushin noted that, judging by the phrase "one tokmo leak", which varies in the Esipov, Stroganov (we will add - and in the Remezov) chronicles and in the New Chronicler, the source of information about the death of Ermak on the part of the Cossacks was common to all these writings. 81 It must have been through Meshcheryak, the Stroganovs ' last correspondent, that the news came from Siberia to their house office, and then successively to the Stroganov, Esipov, and Remezov chronicles. The Embassy order, which dealt with both Siberia and the Stroganov fiefdoms, undoubtedly wanted to know about the fate of Ermak 82 . It seems that not only the news received from the Cossacks, but also from the Kuchumlians (reflected both in the Stroganov Chronicle and in the New Chronicler), came to the Embassy campaign, compiled mainly on the basis of facts extracted from the Stroganov Chronicle (see V. I. Sergeev. Op. ed., p. 118). It should be noted, by the way,that this revealed an important fact: the first dispatch of a detachment from Ermak's squad to the Stroganovs occurred back in 1583.

79 See G. F. Miller. Istoriya Sibiri [History of Siberia], Vol. 1, Moscow, 1937, p. 283.

80 Remezovskaya chronicle, art. 101. SL, p. 342. This is undoubtedly a meteorite. The author personally testifies about its size and appearance, and according to eyewitnesses - about its condition immediately after the fall. A similar phenomenon was observed when falling in. India of the Dhurmsala meteorite (see I. A. Astapovich. Meteor phenomena in the Earth's atmosphere, Moscow, 1958, p. 319).

81 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., p. 21,

82 See A. A. Preobrazhensky. Op. ed., pp. 383-389.

page 57
order from the Stroganovs 83 . The phrase "one tokmo uteche" should not be included in the Kungur chronicler, since it refers to the author of this chronicle in the third person. And it's not there!

S. U. Remezov prefixes insert articles with the title: "Siberian Short Kungur Chronicle". It is believed that the latter was purchased by him in the "Kungur parcel" in 1703 .84 However, the fact mentioned in the Kungur Chronicler about ships on the Serebryanka River is clearly noted textually by Remezov, at least two years before the trip to Kungursky Uyezd .85 The system of communication between this chronicler and other sources that repeat general news becomes more harmonious if we assume that during their second stay in Moscow (August - November 1698), S. U. and S. S. Remezov met both the Salary Book of 1697 and the Kungur chronicler. The links of the chain are connected through A. A. Vinius, who was the head of the Siberian Order 86 from 1697 .

The embassy order, which was in charge of Siberia until 1596, doubtless also asked the Tyumen service personnel about the initial Siberian events. An eyewitness and participant in a number of events, the former clerk of M. Stroganov, and made a reply, which was then received in Moscow. Around 1630, it was used in the New Chronicler 87, compiled in the Embassy Order and mentioning, like the "Kungur" chronicler, one M. Stroganov. Since the spring of 1664, A. A. Vinius was the only translator from Dutch in the Embassy Order 88 . And at the same time, since the summer, N. Witzen has been in the retinue of the Dutch envoy in Moscow for about a year, with whom Vinius was "in close relations"all subsequent years .89 In Noord en Oost Tartaryen, published in 1692, Witzen also mentions one Stroganov, and information similar to the Kungursky and Novy chroniclers, as Bakhrushin noted, was "recorded by hearsay"in his book .90
It is logical to assume that the bibliophile Vinius, who collected handwritten and printed books for more than 50 years, 91 already knew about the content of the Kungur chronicler from 1664, and by the time the Remezovs arrived in Moscow in 1698, having become the head of the Siberian Order, he owned, if not the original, then the list of this work, which he introduced "sibiryan " 92 . The recalculation of inserted articles in the Remezov chronicle, which also took into account the articles of the "Kungur" chronicler and two articles from the "Salary Book" of 1697, also indicates the proximity in time of their acquisition by the Remezovs. Only after a trip in 1703 to the Kungur district (in the basin of the Sylva River), according to the description of Ermak's Sylva campaign, the chronicler was called "Kungur" by them; this name could not have been the initial one, because Kungur was founded in 1648-1649 .93
83 Stroganov chronicler, describing the death of Ermak, clearly uses the testimony of Kuchumlyans-eyewitnesses: "Your brave warrior Ermak has risen up ... "(see SL, p. 38).

84 L. A. Goldenberg. Op. ed., p. 119.

85 S. U. Remezov. Drawing Book of Siberia 1701, St. Petersburg, 1882, l. 2.

86 S. A. Belokurov. On the Embassy Order, Moscow, 1906, pp. 127-128.

87 The possibility of the same materials influencing the "Power Book" mentioned in the "Salary Book" of 1697 is not excluded.

88 TSGADA, f. 138, op. 1, 1667, 22, l. 2; S. A. Belokurov. Op. ed., p. 127.

89 A. I. Andreev. Op. ed., pp. 48-49; M. P. Alekseev. Siberia in the News of Western European Travelers, vol. 1, part 2. Irkutsk, 1936, pp. 60-61

90 S. V. Bakhrushin. Op. ed., pp. 48-49.

91 See M. Dobroklonsky. "The Book of Vinius". Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series VII. 1929, No. 3, p. 218 (Vinius ' library consisted of 363 books).

92 For the relations between A. A. Vinius and S. U. Remezov and the latter's versatile activities in Moscow, see: L. A. Goldenberg. Op. ed., pp. 48-49.

93 A. A. Preobrazhensky. Essays on the colonization of the Western Urals, Moscow, 1956, p. 49.

page 58
The articles of the "Kungur" chronicler, as Bakhrushin notes, are given by the Remezovs, " apparently in an undistorted form." This is evidenced by the commonality of the texts of the insert article (104) compared above with the article of the New Chronicler (identical with the corresponding passage from the Salary Book of 1697). However, the possibility of including "words and expressions"in the known text should be taken into account. Therefore, researchers ' guesses based on the presence of individual terms or expressions in the text, as a rule, cannot be justified. Is it possible, for example, to draw conclusions about the time and place of its compilation based only on the name of the chronicler? Or can we use the same attribute to determine the time of recording, referring the text to the so-called "oral chronicles"? 94 . At the same time, the origin of the name itself remains unclear.

So, the original" chronicle", which covers in detail parts of the epic of the Volga Cossacks in Siberia, should be considered the "Kungur" chronicler, compiled by a participant and eyewitness of many events. Sources of equivalent information for S. Esipov and Stroganov chronicler had materials of" regimental " Cossack clerks (most likely directly on leave for the first and unsubscribes for the second). The Stroganov chronicler also used other materials of the patrimonial archive, and Esipov-the decree letter of the "consecrated" cathedral, the synod of Cyprian, the Stroganov Chronicle, the New Chronicler and oral news of the Cossacks; "prezh" Esipova "copied something" compiler of the Stroganov Chronicle - the ancestor of the "fine literature" inherent in the two chronicles, and unsubscriptions and vacations - the source of community their "artless" narrative. Sources of the Remez chronicle: the Esipovskaya Chronicle, the "Salary Book" of 1697 (kept in Moscow) 95, the "Kungursky" chronicler, the decree letter of the "consecrated" cathedral, and others (see diagram).

94 See S. V. Bakhrushin. Edict op., p. 40; E. I. Dergacheva-Sko P. Op. ed., page 98.

95 An allegorical drawing of the "seasons" with Latin inscriptions, the texts of the first two articles of the New Chronicler and the list of the Yesilov Chronicle placed in this collection (GIM. Department of handwritten books. Shchukinskoe sobr., 189), suggest that this particular copy of the book belonged to A. Vinius and through him was known to Remezozov.

page 59
The details and vividness of the descriptions of the author of the "Kungur" chronicler are explained by the personal participation of its compiler in the events. But he is far removed from the leadership of the squad, he does not know the relationship of members of the Stroganov family, their connections with the squad of Ermak, with Ivan the Terrible. Hence the conjectures when generalizing the facts heard, and partly seen. The Stroganov chronicler is not an eyewitness: he has never been to the described places, the topography of which is poorly represented. Without knowing many aspects of the internal connection of events, it can not correctly interpret the material. By a combination of facts gleaned from the documents, he judges the chronology of the campaign, and the squad of Ermak, and the attitude of the Stroganovs to it. Hence the inconsistency and erroneous explanation of many real events in the Stroganov Chronicle. S. Esipov is also far from the events described, judging them by scattered documents, the Stroganov Chronicle and oral stories. The fallacy of the concept developed by him comes largely from the decree of the "consecrated" cathedral (1636) and the Stroganov chronicle. The creation of a" hagiographic " type of narrative left a special imprint on his writing. This summary allowed Esipov's followers to interpret the course and interrelation of events in different ways. Thus, for S. U. Remezov, this facilitated the use of the Esipov chronicle as a basis for the facial arch, which was then again saturated with concrete, often contradictory facts from other sources. Hence, the extremely confusing chronology and contradictory connection of events appeared in the Remez chronicle. It can be assumed that the chronicle was not a one-time one-act creation. Like the "Service Drawing Book", which was also compiled not on the instructions of the authorities for decades, the code was started with illustrations of Esipov's chapters even before the Remezovs ' trip to Moscow in 1698. Work on it continued until the younger Remezovs, Ivan and Peter, were able to draw their monograms at the end of the vault.

These are the origins of the Siberian chronicles and the reasons for the inconsistency of their concepts.

page 60

Permanent link to this publication: