Criticism and bibliography

Nizhny Novgorod, 2002, 248 p. (in Russian)

In the words of F. Bacon, " there are books that only need to be tasted, there are those that are best swallowed, and only a few are worth chewing and digesting." I think the book under review can be considered one of the last.

In the Introduction, D. Z. Khayretdinov writes: "Against the background of existing large-scale studies on the history of the German, Armenian, and Assyrian communities of Moscow, the absence of such a work regarding the capital's Muslim community is sharply striking "(pp. 12-13). I'll tell you right away,

page 188

that the author managed to create a book that fills this gap. This study answers the following questions: when and how did the Turkic community of Moscow begin to form? why did the Tatars not lose their religious and ethnic traditions? what contribution did they make to the history of Russia?

According to D. Z. Khayretdinov, the beginning of the community of Moscow Muslims dates back to the time of the Golden Horde (although archaeological finds indicate the penetration of certain elements of Islam into the Moscow lands as early as the IX-X centuries), and the most important role in the formation of the Islamic world of Moscow was played by Meshchera (Meshchersky Yurt - a Muslim semi-autonomous state entity. The author divides the history of the city's Muslim community into four periods, devoting a separate chapter to each of them. The first period (XIV-XVI centuries) - "posolsky", is so named because the natives of the Horde who arrived in the capital and the Moscow region were engaged in the Embassy Order, and the majority of Moscow Muslims were somehow connected with this institution. At the second stage (the 17th century), when huge territories with a predominantly Muslim population were incorporated into Russia, which became an integral part of the Orthodox state, Tatarskaya Sloboda turned into a prominent district of the capital. By the end of this period, many Moscow Tatars were already Christians. The third stage (XVIII - early XIX centuries) is marked by the slow growth of the Muslim community in Moscow and the compactness of its members ' residence. However, it would be wrong to talk about their isolation at this time: contacts with the Orthodox majority developed, which resulted in active assimilation processes. Finally, the fourth stage (the second half of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th century) is characterized by a spasmodic increase in the number of Moscow Muslims and the emergence of national and political interests of Muslim commercial and industrial circles, which was expressed "in the close interaction of major merchants with religious leaders."

A significant part of the workbook is occupied by the Applications section, which includes tables (for example: "Population of the Tatar settlement" in 1669,1672, 1676 and other years; "Personal list of translators of the Embassy Order of 1689"; "Data from the" Act Books of the XVIII century "with mention of Muslim names"; "Prominent families mentioned in various sources from among the Moscow Muslims of the XIX century"; "The number of Muslims in Moscow and the Moscow region". provinces in 1900-1907", etc.), schemes ("The district of Tatarskaya Sloboda" " in 1803, in the 1820s, etc.), documents ("Signatures of Tatar murzs under the certificate of election to the Moscow state of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov in 1613"; " Decree of the Senate on the issue of Tatar cemetery outside the Kaluga Gate in Moscow..."; "Petition of Tatar translators and interpreters addressed to Peter I about the attempt to seize the territory of the Tatar cemetery by F. V. Naumov..." and others).

D. Z. Khayretdinov gives an excellent analysis of written sources that clearly demonstrate the level of office work of Moscow Muslims. He cites documents from the "Metrical Book of the Moscow Mosque": a power of attorney for marriage dated October 19, 1837 and a receipt from the imam of the Moscow Mosque R. Ageev about the marriage (stored in CIAM; facsimile on pages 233-236).

I will allow myself to make some clarifications to the author's text. Thus, the presence of two names-Russian and Tatar (or a Russian name with a Tatar surname) - in one person did not really mean that this person was a Tatar (baptized and Russified) ¹, although such an ethnic identification is still more likely. Some of these names must have been perceived by Orthodox Russians as unrelated to Islam. For example, the most well-born and, of course, Orthodox boyars and nobles of the medieval Russian city of Galich (now the regional center of the Kostroma region), located near the Kazan Khanate, along with non-ecclesiastical, Slavic worldly names (such as: Second, Dirty, etc.) had quite Tatar,and in some cases Muslim [Ancient City..., 2002, pp. 19-21]. There are many examples, if we proceed from the list of modern Russian surnames. No matter how much we try to explain this phenomenon by fear, fashion, or assimilation, in any case, we do not understand it.

¹ In this connection, the author's example of interpreters of the Embassy Order with Eastern languages - " partially Russified descendants of the Tatars... married to Russians " (p. 81): Tatar interpreter Onisim Sudakov - "son of the boyar Tura polonyanik". The boyar's son here is a representative of the category of small serving feudal lords (boyar children), who appeared in Russia in the XV century, who was captured by the Ottomans. Moreover, the author writes about this just below.

page 189

we are dealing with a very deep process of Russian-Tatar synthesis, which is especially well felt on the periphery. Probably, similar cases of wearing the Tatar name as a second (secular) name by Orthodox Russians were not uncommon in medieval Moscow.

In Moscow, unlike many other European capitals of the medieval world, Muslims and representatives of some other faiths were generally quite tolerant. Johann Brembach, secretary of the Embassy of the Hanseatic League, who visited Moscow in 1603, wrote: "Here everyone is granted freedom of religion..." [Foreigners..., 1991, p.160]. In Europe, there were practically no Muslims who flourished under the shadow of Christian power (often almost the only non-reprehensible reason for a Muslim's stay in a Christian country was the ransom of captive fellow believers). In addition to the Muscovite state, the Polish-Lithuanian one was also an exception, where a special stratum of service Tatars was also formed (Drozd, Dziekan, Majda, 1999; Tyszkiewicz, 2002). Adam Olearius reported on the tolerant attitude towards "Tatars, Persians and Turks" in Muscovy in the mid-30s of the XVII century [Olearius, 1906, p. 343]. However, non - Orthodox Christians, as well as Muslims in the Moscow state, were forbidden to have their own Orthodox serfs. In the 20th chapter of the Conciliar Code of 1649, this case was given a special place [Islam..., 2002, p. 41]. The ban was also observed later in relation to serfs: a Muslim could not own them - this would mean an obvious violation of Orthodoxy by Islam (only much later, with the entry into the empire of Polish territories in which the Polish-Lithuanian Tatars had long owned Christians as owners, this provision was canceled). It was this prohibition that caused, for example, the decree of Catherine II of February 22, 1787 on the confirmation of Tatar families, including Moscow, of their nobility. A copy of the decree was sent from the Senate to the Commander-in-Chief of Moscow P. D. Eropkin.

In the Middle Ages and Modern times, the community of Moscow Muslims, mainly Tatar-Mishar in its ethnic composition, was poorly replenished by representatives of other nationalities. Probably, a certain number of Turks (mostly merchants and prisoners of numerous Russo-Turkish wars) could have penetrated its composition, eventually dissolving into it. D. Z. Khayretdinov gives a curious example of this (p. 103, 184, Table 6). However, more often archival documents record a fairly rapid transition of prisoners to Orthodoxy at the same time, it did not always have a violent character [ CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d.264, l. 1,4, 10]. As early as the 17th century (and even earlier), people from Iran also came to Moscow. A Persian (or Armenian-Muslim) by origin, originally from Isfahan, was, for example, the famous clerk V. A. Daudov (Ali-Marjan Baga-oglu, c. 1620-c. 1701). Some "ethnic" Muslims came to Moscow in adolescence or even in childhood, and many after baptism they worked at silk-weaving factories in the Moscow region [CIAM, f. 636, op. 1, ed. hr. 135, l. 1, 2, 2ob., 6, 9, 10, 11, 20].

Some CIAM documents, apparently not used by D. Z. Khayretdinov, make it possible to somewhat clarify his information about the loss of the cemetery outside the Kaluga Gate by Muslims (pp. 112-113, 213-216). The case "On the empty place in the Tatar cemetery "[CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d. 104] supplements the documents opened by S. F. Faizov in RGADA (f. 248, op. 160, d. 948) and used in the reviewed book. The cemetery plan drawn up by architect Karin has been published on page 10. Based on the CIAM documents, I will allow myself to make a few corrections. So, the second word of the 1st line should most likely be read as "porozzh", i.e. empty, empty, and not "carriageway", since this violates the meaning of the context, especially since later in the document (line 12) it is already given in the correct form; in line 18, the sentence should start with "A is still visible..." (in the text "B is still visible..."); in line 20, instead of the word " corner "(2 times), it should be "ugor[b]" (according to V. I. Dahl, a place going uphill, a hillock); in line 21, the phrase " a is behind in addition to this touch", which does not make sense, should be read as "and behind in nadolbakh") [CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d. 104, l. 1ob.]. I think that with such amendments, the description of the Tatar cemetery plan becomes more understandable.

Unfortunately, some details of the cemetery's previous history remain outside the scope of the reviewed work. They are clarified from the report of the deanery council to the commander-in-Chief of Moscow P. D. Eropkin dated January 15, 1787. The arguments of the council were that, firstly, it was forbidden to bury in the cemetery after 1771 (because of the plague epidemic, Muslims were allocated a piece behind the Danilovsky cemetery), and, secondly, it was surrounded by owners

page 190

yards. Experienced administrator P. D. Eropkin did not immediately agree with the proposal of the deanery council to transfer the land of the Tatar cemetery to A. G. Orlov-Chesmensky, considering that it was necessary first to find out " where exactly the Tatars were assigned another place for the cemetery, whether they were given this one, by whom and when, and whether they agreed to give it away [CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d. 194. l. 3]. The administration replied to the commander-in-Chief that the Tatars living in the second part of the city had submitted news in which the very information was reported, which then (almost verbatim) formed the basis of Eropkin's report to the Senate, published by DZ. Khayretdinov (pp. 213-214, doc. N 3). The original text makes it possible to correct some inconsistencies in the text of document No. 3 given in the book (for example, "pasezhe chayaniya" should be read as "pasche chayaniya", etc.). About the Danilovsky cemetery it was said: "And the present Tatar cemetery is assigned to them behind the general Danilovsky cemetery in a similar distance in the most plaguy time, and by whom it is assigned to them, they will not mention where the bodies of the now deceased Tatars are buried" [ CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d. 104, l. 4-4ob.].

The fate of the Muslim cemetery outside the Kaluga Gate after 1771 was a foregone conclusion: the list of nobles who owned lands adjacent to the cemetery did not leave the community any chance, so influential and rich were these people (if A. G. Orlov-Chesmensky had not "dealt" with the cemetery first, any of them could have done it). When asked by D. Z. Khayretdinov how the land of the Tatar cemetery outside the Kaluga Gate was transferred to Orlov-Chesmensky, the author of the book answers as follows:" The Count was very often in St. Petersburg " (p.113). There is another answer, which, however, does not contradict the first: the laws in Russia still worked and no one could just take the land from the Tatars. This required their voluntary refusal or consent to the sale. On March 1, 1787, Eropkin reported to the Senate that the cemetery should remain for the Tatars, since "given to them (the Tatars. - I. Z.) it is impossible for me to destroy an extract from the judicial place" [ CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d. 104, L. bob.]. In the Decree of Catherine II, it was said that "this matter does not belong to the decision of the Senate, but should be considered in the judicial places of the Moscow province established by this highest institution" [ CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d. 104, l. 7]. The Tatars decided to sell the plot, as well as the surrounding fence "in pillars", since in the cemetery " they have no need and need in an idle place, because instead of their Tatar settlement for the cemetery there is another place reserved for the general Danilovsky cemetery." On February 7, 1790, the cemetery "for Tatar renunciation of ownership" was given to Orlov "in eternal hereditary possession". In order to avoid possible misunderstandings in the future, on February 20, 1790, the commander-in-Chief suggested that the Administration "oblige them (Tatars. - I. Z.) by subscription and that they, voluntarily leaving the designated place forever, do not ask afterward both for the return of that person and for the return of that other person in return " [ CIAM, f. 16, op. 1, d. 104, l. 9ob., 10, 14, 15ob., 20].

Thanks to D. Z. Khayretdinov's book, we finally have documentary evidence, which he discovered in the Moscow census books published in 1891 for 1737-1745, of the existence of a mosque and a Muslim cemetery in Moscow as early as 1744 (pp. 49, 105, 115).

The author rightly points out that " in religious and dogmatic terms, a small community (of Moscow Muslims. - I. Z.) was quite homogeneous - the absolute majority of its members belonged to the Sunni branch of Islam" and only at the beginning of the XX century the prerequisites for the unification of the two branches of Islam were laid (p. 11). D. Z. Khayretdinov hardly mentions more about the Shiite minority in his book, but this cannot be blamed on him, since the issue of Shiites in Moscow in the Middle Ages and Modern Times requires separate consideration and attraction of more sources. Numerous and influential Persian (Shiite) communities also existed in other Russian cities (for example, in Astrakhan). Many Persians have long lived in Moscow. According to data from 1888, the Persian cemetery in the city occupied an area of only 366 square meters. fathoms. This is completely out of comparison with large Orthodox cemeteries. For comparison, by this time the Tatar (Danilovsky) cemetery occupied an area of 3 dessiatines of 172 sq. fathoms (i.e., about 3.5 ha) [Shchepkin, 1890, stb. 539].

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning in the book some descriptions of Moscow Muslims, for example, a story written in Swahili by a native of Zanzibar, Salim bin Abakari, about the Muslim Tatars he saw in Moscow and St. Petersburg in 1897 [Salim, 1993, pp. 49-50, 52-53].

D. Z. Khayretdinov wrote an excellent and generally very objective book, completely filling in the gap that existed in our science of Islam, in Moscow studies, and in the history of Russia. Bezus-

page 191

the volume of archival and published materials used by the author in his work is highly respected. Perhaps further research will help to open up new sources on the history of the Moscow Islamic community, for example, on the manuscript activities of Moscow Muslims. So far, scientists operate only with clerical texts, but with rare marginalia in the margins ² .

Some typos and inaccuracies spoil the book. Thus, the Qasimov Khan Seyid-Burhan was first suggested to be baptized in 1636, not in 1836 (p. 96); the collection "On Moscow" (1917; reprint - 1991) was published under the editorship of N. A. Geinike, not Teinike (p. 241). In some publications listed in the list of sources and references, the authors are not specified (for example: "Forty Sorokov", comp. P. Palamarchuk); in the headings of documents N 3 and 5, the date is mixed up (the correct date is February 1 and April 1, respectively - indicated in the texts of the documents themselves on pages 213, 216); the titles of chapters in the headers and footers correspond only in dates to the titles of chapters in their titles and in the content of the book. Sometimes there are incorrect wording. For example, the phrase sounds too harsh: "Those who succumbed to the pressure of state ideology and did not preserve Islam turned into a Soviet person, who automatically passed into the category of Russian after the formation of 15 states" (italics of the author of the book, p. 180). It is obvious that D. Z. Khayretdinov here confuses ethnic and confessional definitions with state identification, confirming his own phrase that for him "one of the difficult issues was the correlation of ethnic and confessional principles in relation to the studied community" (pp. 8-9). Unfortunately, there are no indexes of names and Moscow toponyms in the book. But all these shortcomings do not detract from the value and significance of D. Z. Khayretdinov's research.

list of literature

Ancient city of Galich, Kostroma province. Collected and compiled by S. Sytin, Moscow, 1905 (reprint: Galich, 2002).

Foreigners about ancient Moscow, Moscow, 1991.

Islam in the Russian Empire. Legislative acts, descriptions, statistics, Moscow, 2001.

Olearius Adam. Description of a trip to Muscovy and through Muscovy to Persia and back. St. Petersburg, 1906.

Salim bin Abakari. My journey to Russia and Siberia / / Asia and Africa today. 1993. N 10.

Shchepkin M. P. Public economy of the city of Moscow in 1863-1887. Historika-statistical description. Part 1. Issue II. Moscow, 1890.

Drozd A., Dziekan M.M., Majda Т. Meczety i Cmentarze Tatarow Polsko-Litewskich. Warszawa, 1999 (Katalog Zabytkow Tatarskich. T. II).

Tyszkiewicz i.ZHistorii Tatarow Polskich. 1794 - 1944. Pultusk. 2002.

² See, for example, volume 3 of the Turkish edition of J. Rumi's Mesnevi (from the collection of the SPIB), where on page 269 there is a poetic postscript of 7 lines in Uzbek, written in Moscow on September 23, 1913 by a" Tashkent haji " named Rahmatulla bey-oglu.

Permanent link to this publication: