St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2006, 640 p.

Military campaigns of the Mongols played an important role in the life of the population not only in Asia, but also around the world. Historians have paid enough attention to various aspects of these events. However, researchers who rely on sometimes very contradictory written evidence are mainly interested in the political and military organization of the greatest Mongol empire in history, as well as the historical role of its founder. The appearance of the book, the author of which refuses to "literally read official texts", is very important, because he offers a fundamentally different approach to the image of Genghis Khan.

The new work of A. G. Yurchenko, a researcher who has long been fruitfully engaged in the study of Mongolian state mythology, can be divided into two large parts. The first part, devoted to imperial myths, contains the author's comments on the cited documents and assumptions about the roles, goals and objectives of myth-makers, about the religious and cosmographic components of the "myth of Genghis Khan" - the main Mongolian imperial myth, as well as extensive quotations from sources, of which Yurchenko counted 49 (25 of them are considered in detail, some of them are considered in detail). translated from Latin into Russian). The vast majority of annotated sources are written by external observers, mostly Western ones. The "View from Europe"is particularly important, since previous research by Soviet and Russian scientists was based mainly on eastern sources, such as Mongolian and Chinese sources. The second part of the text is devoted to the "anti-myth" and includes data presented in the author's two previous major works, so they will not be considered here [Yurchenko, 2002 (1); Yurchenko, 2002 (2)].

A. G. Yurchenko rightly believes that most written sources contain information only about the secret mechanisms of the formation of political myths, and not about historical events, so it is impossible to write a true history of the Mongol Empire on their basis.-

page 194
it is set as possible. The value of these texts lies precisely in their ideological orientation, recognizing which we will be able to learn with varying degrees of reliability about the mindsets and tasks of the creators of myths. After collecting and analyzing the sources, A. G. Yurchenko divided them into internal (created on the territory of the Mongols), external (written by foreign observers - diplomats and travelers) and border (de Saint-Quentin's report on a diplomatic dispute between papal ambassadors and Noyon Baiju courtiers).

The author shares the myths themselves: 1) according to the time of appearance, created during the reign of the first two Mongol khans and created later; 2) according to the object of appeal, addressed to the elites of the states included in the empire and the elites of countries not yet conquered; 3) according to the geographical principle: imperial and regional. The authors of myths, in turn, are divided into representatives of the military and administrative elites. In addition, myths that reflected the expectations of Nestorians are revealed. According to Yurchenko, there was also an answer to all these myths in the form of the so-called "Novel about Genghis Khan" (p.35). In my opinion, this typology is quite complex, but, most importantly, it does not work, since the same myth or a fragment of a myth can be assigned to different groups depending on the circumstances. Building a clear typology in this case, based on the characteristics of sources, is generally impossible. After all, the mythmakers, in my opinion, were engaged in what is now called "manipulation" - one of the techniques of "psychological warfare", whose activities are aimed not only at eliminating or pacifying opponents, but also at raising the "morale" of their own people. Depending on the circumstances, both the tactics of "intimidation" - the legend of the "People of Gog and Magog" (the Muslim version - "Iajud wa Majud"), rumors of Mongol atrocities - and the tactics of "appeasement" ("The Legend of Prester John", granting privileges to priests) were used.

Similarly, the image of Genghis Khan changed, becoming "formidable" or " merciful." For example, written sources repeatedly emphasize the mission of Genghis Khan to organize the World under his leadership, and on the instructions of Higher Forces. This idea is conveyed by the creators of political myths to certain groups of the population in different ways. So, in Europe, the Mongols appear as natives of Tartarus, servants of the Antichrist, etc. The same pattern is observed in the Muslim East. This was done in order to intimidate ("warn") Christians and Muslims, based on their eschatological expectations. In internal sources, Genghis Khan appears as a messenger or even a son of the supreme deity-Tengri. The Mongol god, adapted, according to Yurchenko, by the Nestorians, grants Genghis Khan power first over the Mongols, and then over the whole World. At the same time, the Mongol ruler is given the right to destroy chaos by eliminating its carriers and restore order. Higher forces help him to defeat the instigators of quarrels, rebels rebelling against the will of Heaven. This interpretation of the doctrine of "Genghis Khan-messenger of Higher Powers" is addressed to nomads, including the Mongols.

It is necessary to recognize the great merit of A. G. Yurchenko in collecting and publishing numerous fragments of documents containing components of the Mongolian imperial myth. The text of the book, like postmodern works, contains few concrete conclusions, leaving readers to do it themselves. Especially successful is the attempt to interpret the "Novel about Genghis Khan", in which Yurchenko showed a single system, interpreting every detail of the composition in interaction with others. In addition, he determined the purpose for which this work was created.

The main thing that, in my opinion, Yurchenko managed to show is the virtuality of the information contained in the sources. After all, they can only describe the expected scenarios for the development of an event, and not the actual event itself. Therefore, the truth, in search of which historians compare the data of different testimonies without clarifying the tasks of their authors, is initially unattainable. Yurchenko compares descriptions of one myth, such as "Genghis Khan-the messenger of Higher Powers", with different sources, not in order to choose the most plausible one, but to prove that they lie in different planes of worldview. The fact that in Christian sources Genghis Khan communicates with God or even with Jesus Christ, in Muslim sources-with Allah, and in nomadic sources-with Tengri, informs us about the confessional preferences of the addressees of the messages, and not about the religious affiliation of the Mongol ruler. The resulting picture is similar to the discrepancies in Christian, Muslim and Jewish data on the adoption of religion by the Khazars in the "Khazar Dictionary" by M. Pavich. In this case, it would be possible to divide political myths on religious grounds (Yurchenko singles out only "Nestorian" ones), but this will also lead to nothing, since we are dealing with the adaptation of ideas to perception through the prism of religions. Here

page 195
It is important to note Yurchenko, addressed to modern historians that the worldview of the medieval Mongols was based on a fundamentally different model from the monoreligious one.

As already noted, Yurchenko did not provide his book, which is full of excerpts from documents, with specific assumptions about who created political myths, only occasionally expressing hypotheses about the possible origins of a particular fragment. I will allow myself to use " Historical geography..."as a source (due to the abundance of citations, it can be considered as such) and try to put forward a number of assumptions related to one group of mythmakers. Of course, we will not be able to find out the names of the Mongolian "Baudolino" (the hero of the eponymous work of U. S. Tolstoy). Ivf), but it will still bring you closer to solving the problem.

Based on Yurchenko's conclusions about the mosaic nature of the imperial myth and the artificial nature of the new ideology (p. 41), we will try to find the origins of this phenomenon. Since the implementation of the Mongol imperial project was lightning fast, it can be assumed that it was based on the already existing traditions of great power. In organizing its statehood, especially at an early stage, the Mongol Empire took into account the experience of pre-existing steppe states, such as the Uyghur and Turkic khaganates. As the state grew and urbanized territories were incorporated into it, the Mongol elite had to take into account the experience of the Persian and Chinese empires. Thus, we can speak of three major components of the Mongol imperial myth: steppe (Mongol-Turkic), Iranian and Chinese. I will focus on the Iranian component, which is understood here as the influence not only of the state and religious systems of Persia that originated on its territory, but also of the faiths perceived by nomads in the form already transformed by the Iranians, such as Nestorianism, the Near-Asian version of Buddhism, etc.

A. G. Yurchenko cites quite a few examples of Iranian influence, reducing everything to Nestorianism. Let us examine the complexity of religious interpretation on the example of the myth of the phenomenon of Yasa, which is brought by an eagle. Yurchenko believes that Yasa was not related to the codification of Mongolian customary law (p. 288), but was a foreign cultural phenomenon. Therefore, the comparison of the golden - haired giver of Yasa with the eagle, the ancestor and creator of shamans of Yakut (rather close to the Mongols) mythology, is not entirely clear. Presumably, the Yasa also contained the "heavenly mandate to rule the World", the embodiment of Genghis Khan's charisma, his right to power. It is known from external sources (Juvaini, Makrizi) that "Yasa was a talisman that ensured victory on the battlefield" (Vernadsky, 2000, p. 106). The image of the eagle is quite diverse (Shernberg, 1995, pp. 357-384), but as a bearer of the charisma symbol, it can be found an analog in the Iranian religious tradition (as well as the phenomenon of charisma itself, comparable to the Iranian farn). The bearer of the latter is often Ahura Mazda, who often appeared in the form of an eagle. Moreover, in the Mongolian chronicle "Shara Tuji" Genghis Khan is called the son of Khormusta-tengri [Shara Tuji, 1957, p. 131].

Due to the influence and mutual influence of various religions within the Iranian religious tradition, it is quite difficult to recognize a particular creed. It is not easy to determine where Zoroastrianism ends in the so-called Zervanite version [Boyce, 2003, pp. 107-110], and where Mithraism begins in its "pure form" [Kumon, 2000], in its Eastern version-in the Bon religion [Kuznetsov, 2001], or as an integral part of Manichaeism [Wiedengren, 2001, pp. 61-62]. Let me remind you that Manichaeism accumulated both elements of Mazdaism in the form of Mithraism (magical Zervanism), and Judeo-Christian heritage in the form of Gnosticism (there are parallels with Nestorianism [Wiedengren, 2001, p. 153]), in addition, the influence of Buddhism and, possibly, later Islam is strong. It is known that the persecuted followers of Mani often disguised themselves as adherents of other religions , such as Buddhism or Christianity. Therefore, it is more correct to talk about the Iranian influence, the most important component of which, of course, was Nestorianism, and not to reduce everything to this form of Christianity. The abundance of Iranian religious traits allowed some researchers, who mixed the two layers of Mongolian spiritual culture - state cults and folk beliefs-to draw a conclusion about the Iranian character of the entire "ancient Mongolian religion" (Gumilev, 1996).

Having identified the predominance (but not total) of Iranian influence on the Mongol imperial myth, we will consider who was the conductor of this influence. Historians [Vernadsky, 2000, p. 104; Gumilev, 1997, p. 233] have repeatedly noted that the Iranian influence on the Mongols can be explained by the activities of the Uyghurs, who at that time were a Turkic sedentary people engaged mainly in trade along the Great Silk Road (as well as horticulturists-

page 196
and professed Buddhism, Manichaeism, Nestorianism, and Islam. Despite their sedentary status, these people were the guardians of the steppe tradition, remembering their khaganate, which existed in the VIII-IX centuries on the territory of Mongolia. It was this trait that impressed Genghis Khan, who respected the Uyghur culture and contrasted it with the Chinese one (Grusset, 2000, pp. 162-165). Already after the victory over the Kereit ruler Van Khan, who is identified with the mythical presbyter John (Gumilev, 1997), officials of the defeated state go over to the side of Genghis Khan. These were mainly Uyghurs (including Nestorians), who ideologically shaped their transition in the legend given by A. G. Yurchenko (pp. 62-75). It is known that the Mongols borrowed from the Uyghurs a script (and much more) that goes back to Sogdian, and in retrospect - to the Aramaic italic script. The author notes that " educated Uyghur officials and scribes played an important role in the state apparatus of the Mongol Empire "(Yurchenko, 2002 (2), p. 161).

After the defeat of the Uyghur Khaganate, whose state religion was Manichaeism, most of the Uyghurs migrated to East Turkestan. There, in the Tarim basin, they created the state of Kocho with its capital in the Turfan oasis, which in 1207 voluntarily submitted to Genghis Khan. The spiritual and secular ruler of Kocho, idikut Barchuk, came to the Mongol khan with a promise to "give up power" (the equivalent of charisma) and "become the fifth son" [Hidden legend..., 2002, p. 123]. Genghis Khan accepted the" donation " and gave his daughter to Idikut. The significance of the voluntary annexation of the oasis cities of East Turkestan is difficult to overestimate. A. G. Yurchenko cites the opinion that "East Turkestan was the most important geopolitical base of Genghis Khan's power, its strategic center of gravity" (p. 143). I would like to add that the Great Silk Road was its backbone, its vital artery. From the cities of East Turkestan, the Mongols received what they lacked in preparation for the great military campaigns - the initial capital and ideological justification, i.e., the Mongol imperial myth. Only then did the steppe khaganate transform into a vast Eurasian empire.

A. G. Yurchenko cites the Hungarian bishop's story about the interrogation of Mongolian prisoners: when asked about the teachers, they admitted that they were taught by "some poor 1 people who fast a lot, wear long clothes and do no harm to anyone." Based on their rites, the Hungarian bishop considers them Pharisees and Sadducees. Yurchenko believes that they were Nestorian Uyghurs (pp. 68-69). Apparently, however, it cannot be ruled out that these were Manichaeans, whose rites could remind the Hungarian bishop of the Pharisaic and Sadducean rites. In general, in the Uyghur community, belonging to a particular religious community was secondary, the corporate and ethnogenetic community was more important. L. N. Gumilev gives a story about the Uyghur Korkuz (George), who came from a Christian family, converted to Buddhism, and then converted to Islam [Gumilev, 1997, p.259].

On page 72 of his work, A. G. Yurchenko asks a good question: "What could have made the nomads under the banner of Genghis Khan go to conquer the countries where they had to move for years?", rightly noting that "the Mongol impulse was somewhat similar to the religious impulse". In my opinion, we will get closer to the answer if we understand that the Uyghurs and other inhabitants of East Turkestan "inspired" the Mongols with the Messianic (largely Gnostic, Manichaean) idea of establishing a new order, conditioned by the "heavenly essence of the Genghisids" and the rules of "Yasa", made them "tools of God". This is how, thanks to the created mythology, they perceived themselves and were perceived by others (but often with the "opposite sign").

The Uyghurs of East Turkestan themselves pursued a number of goals, the most notable of which was to ensure control over the Great Silk Road, over the distribution of trade flows. Therefore, peace was important for them on the territory of the whole of Eurasia, which is possible only with a single-power administration of a vast territory by a single ruling dynasty. This was achieved with the help of the Mongols of Genghis Khan and his descendants. In his usual manner, L. N. Gumilev writes about the benefits that the Uyghurs received: "They could buy up any amount of loot from the Mongol soldiers, of course at a cheap price, since they were monopolists; in addition, the Mongols needed competent officials... Uyghur literates immediately offered their services and received positions no less profitable than even trade deals" [Gumilyov, 1997, p. 233].

In the book by A. G. Yurchenko - "pale", apparently, this is more correct [Yurchenko, 2002 (2), p. 71].

page 197
It is interesting that the " Novel about Genghis Khan "is named so by analogy with the" Novel about Alexander " (p.13). I agree with A. G. Yurchenko's opinion about the illegality of comparing Genghis Khan and Muhammad (p. 63) and, on the contrary, about the effectiveness of comparing the figures of the Mongol ruler with Alexander the Great (p.120). Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great really have a lot in common in addition to the genius and planetary scale noted by scientists. You can compare the actions of Genghis Khan with the policy of not only Alexander, but also his father Philip II. If Alexander the Great inherited from his father the fragile, but still united union of Macedonia with Greece, then Temujin (the future Genghis Khan) received much less from his father. The path of a father and son from the Argos dynasty of Heraclides (accepted by the Hellenes as "their own" and allowed to participate in the Olympics; who traced their family back to Heracles, and through him to Zeus) for the unification of Macedonia, then an alliance with the Greek states, the liberation of the Asia Minor poleis under the slogans of "pan-Hellenism" and "revenge for the Peloponnesian War", the war against Persia and the campaign further East-all this roughly corresponds to the life path of a representative of the Borjigin family (descended from a ray of light, ethnically different from neighboring families): the unification of ancestral lands, then the war with the Kereites and Naimans, the alliance with the cities of East Turkestan and the war against Kuchluk, the war with the state of the Khorezmshahs (and Muhammad II he himself claimed to be compared with Iskander), campaigns to the West 2.

History has preserved for us the names of the Greeks who called on the Macedonians to organize a campaign to the East: Isocrates, Aeschines, and others [Gafurov, 1980, p. 50], but the names of the Uyghurs - the ideologists of the Mongol military campaigns - are unknown. It is interesting that among the main sources of the "Novel about Genghis Khan" Yurchenko singles out the Uyghur version of the legend about the Oguz Kagan, compared with Alexander the Great [Yurchenko, 2002 (1), p. 133]. It seems that there were other sources of information about Alexander, obtained from Sogdians who had direct contact with him, which the Uyghurs used to create the myth of Genghis Khan. It is believed that Alexander the Great isolated the Gog and Magog peoples, who were identified by Europeans with the Mongols, and even the method of liberation coincided [Yurchenko, 2002 (2), pp. 46-47]. The liberation of the Gog and Magog peoples is the first stage of the final war between the forces of Light and Darkness.

The publication of Yurchenko's book is very timely, because in the postmodern or post-postmodern world in which we live, it is not the things or events themselves that are important, but their perception - all sorts of "PR people" and "image makers"are trying to influence it. Many historians, even realizing that a number of sources of information (future written sources) create their own, different from others, image of the ruler, do not extend this to ancient, sometimes even more odious documents, leaving out the interests and tasks of the author. Interpretation of the sources, without clarifying the ideology of the creators, obviously leads to the creation of their own, contradictory images of Genghis Khan, as was the case with the "Eurasians", Japanese "militarists" or modern "Mongols who have taken the path of democracy". In Mongolia, a comprehensive image of the creator of the state is used by both democrats and nationalists. It is interesting that during the summer election campaign of the 2006 (jubilee) year in the Khubsugul aimag, Mongolian nationalists were represented by a candidate with the characteristic surname Temujin.

list of literature

Boyce M. Zoroastrians. Beliefs and customs. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie Publ., 2003. Vernadsky G. V. Mongols and Rus. Tver-Moscow: AGRAF Publ., 2000. Videngren, G. Mani and Manichaeism, St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2001.
Gafurov B. G., Tsibukidis D. I. Alexander the Great and the East, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980. Grusse R. Genghis Khan, Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya Publ., 2000.
Gumilev L. N. Ancient Mongolian religion//Ancient Tibet, Moscow: Institute of DI-DIK, 1996. Gumilyov L. N. Poiskii vymyshlennogo tsardva [Search for a Fictional Kingdom]. Moscow: Institut DI-DIK, 1997. Kuznetsov B. I. Bon and mazdaizm. SPb.: Evraziya, 2001. Kymon F. The Mysteries of Mithras. St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2000. The Hidden Legend of the Mongols, Moscow: KMK Publishing House, 2002. Shara Tuji, M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1957.

The Cult of the Eagle among the Siberian peoples / / Kunstkamera. Selected articles. St. Petersburg: Evraziyskiy dom Publ., 1995.

Yurchenko A. G. Imperiya i kosmos [Empire and Space], St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2002 (1).

Yurchenko A. G. The Christian World and the Great Mongol Empire, St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2002 (2).

There are other similarities , such as in religious politics.

Permanent link to this publication: