Oriental studies as a science began to develop in Russia in the first half of the XIX century, reflecting an increased interest in the" special " world of the East. As S. F. Oldenburg noted at the time, " there is something quite peculiar and different in the East from our Western world, that its wisdom and beauty are necessary for our life, which will become poorer without them... only the East showed the full spiritual power of man, the enormous direct power of his thought and feeling, which was so great even without the mighty weapon of knowledge" that "our beginnings in ancient times are childish babble in comparison with the achievements of the East" [Izuchenie literatury Vostoka..., 2002, pp. 12-13].

With the decree of Peter I of June 18, 1700 on the establishment of the Russian ecclesiastical Mission in Beijing and with the activities of two seconded monks, the study of the language and culture of the Chinese and Mongolian peoples began [Shastina, 1952, p.18]. The opening of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Beijing in 1716, the establishment of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1724, and the organization of several scientific expeditions to the regions of Siberia and Kalmykia bordering Mongolia largely contributed to the accumulation of necessary information and knowledge about neighboring Mongolia and the Mongolian-speaking peoples. Published in St. Petersburg in 1750, the major work of Academician G. F. Miller "Description of the Siberian Kingdom and all the things that happened in it from the beginning, and especially from the conquest of the Russian power to this day" is a vivid confirmation of this. Some of the materials collected by Miller on the Siberian peoples were passed on to Academician I. E. Fischer, who, after reworking them, published them in his work "Siberian History from the very discovery of Siberia to the conquest of this land by Russian weapons, written in German" (St. Petersburg, 1774). P. S. Pallas in his travels in Eastern Siberia in the Middle of the Soviet Era. 1771 approaches the Mongolian border in Kyakhta. He collected considerable material on the history and culture of the peoples of Siberia, which formed the basis of his work "Journey to different provinces of the Russian Empire" in 3 parts (St. Petersburg, 1773-1778). The two-volume work of P. S. Pallas "Collection of historical information about the Mongolian peoples", published in German in 1776 and 1801, was devoted to the history and culture of the Mongols, mainly their western branch - the Oirats. The works of the above-mentioned scientists marked the beginning of the scientific study of Mongolia [Ulymzhiev, 1994, pp. 3-4].

In the 40s of the XVIII century, the idea of creating a department of Oriental languages appeared and, as is known, it was supported by M. V. Lomonosov in 1754. But it is from the first half of the XIX century that approaches are formed, methods and principles of collecting, studying and analyzing materials on the cultural history of Eastern countries are determined. Mongol studies, as one of the areas of Oriental studies, is formed at Kazan and St. Petersburg Universities and the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Scientific research in the field of Mongolian studies from its very origins is based on the problem of understanding the spiritual values of the culture of the Mongolian peoples. Mongolian literary studies, the subject of which is tra-

page 81
traditional literature of the Mongolian period, that is, literature from antiquity to the XIX century, begins to form in the middle of the XIX century. The literature of this period was especially actively studied at the beginning of the XX century, when literary studies was formed as a scientific discipline.

Russian Oriental studies in the first half of the 19th century was represented by such outstanding scholars as the Sinologists N. Ya. Bichurin (in monasticism, Archimandrite Iak-inf), P. I. Kafarov (Archimandrite Palladius), V. P. Vasiliev; indologist G. S. Lebedev; Sanskrit scholar P. Ya. Petrov; Mongol scholars O. M. Kovalevsky and D. B. Banzarov; Turkologists A. K. Kazem-Bek, I. N. Berezin; Arabists O. I. Senkovsky, V. Ya. Rozen; first curator of the Asian Museum of the Academy of Sciences H. D. Fren; Afghanist N. A. Aristov; Iranist A.V. Boldyrev; Egyptologist B. A. Turaev. At that time, O. M. Kovalevsky and A.V. Popov, who can rightly be called the founders of Russian Mongolian studies, were engaged in Mongolian studies at Kazan University, their students D. B. Banzarov and A. A. Bobrovnikov, learned lamas-teachers G. Gomboev and G. Nikituyev; at St. Petersburg University - K. F. Golstunsky, A. M. Pozdneev; at the Imperial Academy of Sciences PhD - I. Y. Schmidt. Two of the founders of Chinese studies, Nikita Yakovlevich Bichurin (1777-1853) and Pyotr Ivanovich Kafarov (1817-1878), also made a significant contribution to Russian Mongolian studies.

In the first half of the XIX century. Kazan University was a research center for university studies of the East, in particular Mongolia. In the so-called eastern category of Kazan University, the Department of Oriental Languages was established in 1807, and in 1833, with the direct participation of the university rector N. I. Lobachevsky, the Department of Mongolian Philology was established, which lasted until 1855. Osip Mikhailovich Kovalevsky (1800 - 1878), by that time a well-known Mongol scholar, was appointed head of the department. He had a long and difficult scientific trip together with A.V. Popov, then still a student, to the Trans-Baikal Territory, Mongolia and China (to Beijing) from 1828 to 1833.

In one of the reports, O. M. Kovalevsky reported :" During a trip to the nomads, the former collection of Buryat poems significantly increased, as well as stories, most of which are described from the words of the steppe Mongols" [cit. by: Shofman et al., 1955, p. 89]. Numerous articles by O. M. Kovalevsky on Mongolian history, language and literature, Buddhist cosmology, Trans-Baikal Buryats, Chinese history, and Asian history and culture in general were published in the Scientific Notes of Kazan University and the Journal of the Ministry of National Education. In addition, he published a Short Grammar of the Mongolian Book Language (1835) and a two - volume Mongolian Anthology (1836-1837), which were highly appreciated by contemporaries. Nevertheless, for the sake of justice, it should be noted that the right of primacy in the publication of the "Grammar of the Mongolian Language" (St. Petersburg, 1831) and the "Mongolian-German-Russian Dictionary" (St. Petersburg, 1835) belongs to Academician I. Ya. Schmidt, who, according to O. M. Kovalevsky, "laid the foundation for the systematic study of the Mongolian language"[Kovalevsky, 1844, p. III]. O. M. Kovalevsky was the first Russian scholar to apply the comparative-historical method in the field of Mongolian linguistics. From the report on the state of Kazan University for 1842-1843, we learn that O. M. Kovalevsky "has now completed the second and last volume of the history of Mongolian literature, which will be a completely new phenomenon in the field of Oriental literature" [Shofman et al., 1955, p. 89]. Unfortunately, this work was not published and, together with the manuscripts "History of Buddhism", "Journey to Mongolia and China" in six volumes, etc., died in 1863 in Warsaw during a fire in the house where the author lived.

Of course, O. M. Kovalevsky knew and appreciated the artistic work of the Mongolian peoples. In the Preface to the Mongolian Anthology, he wrote that the purpose of this publication is to introduce readers "to the spirit of the works that make up such a rich collection."

page 82
literature" [Kovalevsky, 1836 - 1837, p. 4]. O. M. Kovalevsky holds the palm in determining the periodization of medieval Mongolian literature, in which he" with a careful look at the circle of spoken language and written monuments of the Mongols "[Kovalevsky, 1844, p. IV - V] identified four elements" and designated them as nomadic, Indo-Tibetan, Chinese, and European.

The nomadic element, of course, appeared long before the era of Genghis Khan, but it was during this period that it received fundamental development and found its expression in lyrical and epic works, chronicles, genres of ritual and aphoristic poetry and was based on the worldview and worldview of the nomad. According to O. M. Kovalevsky, the nomad element is the basis on which the others are based, "the canvas on which other elements displayed multi-colored patterns" (Kovalevsky, 1844, p. VI).

The remaining elements, as O. M. Kovalevsky writes, are "grafted", i.e. introduced from outside, are borrowed in nature, actualizing the problems of literary interrelations, mutual influences and the so-called theory of originality and borrowing in medieval Mongolian literature.

The Indo-Tibetan period, closely connected with the penetration of Buddhism into the Mongolian-speaking world in the XVI-XVII centuries, is characterized by profound changes in the spiritual and cultural life of the Mongolian peoples. There is a rich translated literature, including works of the Buddhist canon-Ganjur and Danjur, translation activities are actively studied and mastered, which were later pushed into the background by the Tibetan-language creativity of the Mongols. The influence of Buddhism was especially strong in the field of artistic literature, permeating the content-formal side of the text. Works of Mongolian authors in the Tibetan language were created until the 20s of the XX century.

O. M. Kovalevsky characterizes the Chinese element introduced during the Manchu Qin dynasty as "extensive" and connects it with the moral and philosophical aspects of literature. Chinese influence on Mongolian literature was mainly limited to translations of novels and historical works. In general, the Chinese tradition, with the possible exception of southern Mongolia, did not have a profound impact on Mongolian literature and culture, as compared to Indo-Tibetan, which may be due to Manchu mediation.

The fourth element - European - O. M. Kovalevsky connects with the influence of Europeans on the Mongols. And this influence was mainly expressed, as he notes, through translations of works of Christian literature into Mongolian.

During the years of its existence (1833-1855), the Department of Mongolian Philology of Kazan University, under the leadership of Professor O. M. Kovalevsky, served not only as an educational and methodological center for training specialists in Mongolian studies, but also as a scientific center for studying the history, language, literature, religion and culture of Mongolia and all Mongolian-speaking peoples in general. During this period, a galaxy of Mongolian scientists was prepared, which later became the pride of Russian science.

Dorji Banzarovich Banzarov (1822 - 1855), a well-known Mongol scholar of the first half of the 19th century and the first European-educated Buryat scholar, graduated from Kazan University in 1846 with the submission of his PhD thesis "Black Faith or Shamanism among the Mongols" - the first scientific work in Russian Oriental studies on shamanism, which was successfully defended in the same year and published in "Scientific Notes Kazan University" [Banzarov, 1846, book 3], and then published as a separate book [Banzarov, 1891]. The publication of this work was perceived as a significant event in the scientific life of Orientalists in Russia (Savelyev, 1855), and now it has not lost its relevance both as a separate scientific work and as a source base for the study of Oriental studies.

page 83
further study of historical and literary problems, in particular shamanic poetry of the Mongolian peoples. As one of the modern researchers writes ," without solving the problems of shamanism, it is impossible to fully solve the problems of the history of literature and art, customs and traditions, and cultural heritage in general " [Mikhailov, 1997, p. 19].

Unfortunately, D. Banzarov's career as a scientist was not long. His scientific legacy, although small in scope - sixteen published works from 1846 to 1851-is significant in its content and breadth of coverage of scientific problems. In addition, twenty-four letters were found where the author expounds and defends his point of view on debatable problems of Oriental studies. D. B. Banzarov, like O. M. Kovalevsky and the entire generation of scientists of that time, had an encyclopedic breadth of scientific interests. He not only proved himself as a Mongol scholar, but also did a lot in the field of Turkology, Altaism and Manchu studies. Its scientific methodology is based on a historical approach to the studied material, whether it is linguistic, folklore or literary. His works are characterized by a comparative historical method, which significantly expands the horizons of his research. As is known, the early period of literary studies is characterized by a "traditionally philological" direction of research. Banzarov, in addition to a thorough and painstaking historical and philological analysis of handwritten and published primary sources-medieval Mongolian monuments (not only shamanic and Buddhist manuscripts, but also chronicles, which, as is known, contain many literary sources in the Old Mongolian script and in the so-called square script), was engaged in deciphering Mongolian inscriptions on paidzas-silver tablets of the XIII century. - XIV centuries, on the "Genghis Stone" found near Nerchinsk, Chita region, and brought to St. Petersburg in 1832 (the "Genghis Stone" and the paidzi of the Mongol khans can be seen in the Hermitage collection.)

D. Banzarov's description of the most valuable collection of historical, folklore and literary manuscripts, better known as the "Catalog of Books and Manuscripts in the Manchu language, located in the Asian Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences", has a special place in the series of source studies. In section IX, "Literature", exploring the features of the novel genre, defines the artistic features of Manchurian, Chinese and Mongolian historical novels, as well as the short story genre. According to G. I. Mikhailov," D. Banzarov's "Catalog" testifies to the ability of its author to subtly notice the originality of a particular work, a particular literature. Moreover, the peculiarity of this kind is not something accidental, insignificant or transitory" [Mikhailov, 1955, p. 45]. In his creative work, D. Banzarov paid serious attention to translations. In particular, he translated into Russian from the Oirat language, written in the so-called clear letter (mod bichig), "A historical Poem about Ubashi Huntaiji"; from the Manchu language " Tulishen's Journey to Siberia in 1771."; from the Old Mongolian "Journey of Zayakhamba to Tibet, undertaken in 1734-1741" and unfinished due to early death translation of the chronicle " Golden Legend "(Altan tobchi); from French to Mongolian "Journey of a Chinese Buddhist of the IV century named Fa Xiang". Thus, he was the first Mongol scholar to introduce into scientific circulation a number of valuable historical and literary monuments in the genre of "walking".

Reflecting on the formation and development of Kalmyk literature in the review of A. Popov's book "Grammar of the Kalmyk language", D. Banzarov argues with the author, who in the preface to his work writes that "the Kalmyks formed their own literature, which received an original character." Among the works of Kalmyk literature, A. Popov also refers to translations from Tibetan, which, as he believes, are processed better than the same translations into Mongolian. Wishing to show the peculiarities of the Kalmyk literature and make your own concept on this subject,-

page 84
Moreover, A. Popov suggested that "Kalmyk literature developed under the influence of East Turkestan" (Mikhailov, 1955, p.45). Emphatically rejecting these views of the author on Kalmyk philology, D. Banzarov raised several relevant literary problems for his time. As one of the most important problems, he considers the influence of one literature on another, deals with the problem of borrowing and adapting Tibetan literature on Kalmyk soil. He also raised the question: can translated works from the Tibetan language, even if they have creatively reworked the Tang, be attributed to the national literature and can it be called a "big name of original literature"?

The personality of D. B. Banzarov and his research work were appreciated by his contemporaries-scientists and writers-in the middle of the XIX century. Immediately after his death in June 1855, the orientalist P. S. Savelyev published a short work "On the Life and Works of Dorji Banzarov" (Savelyev, 1855), in which he highly appreciated the scientist's scientific activity and noted that "he had earned a place among European Orientalists". Articles dedicated to the memory of D. Banzarov appeared in the magazines Sovremennik, Otechestvennye Zapiski, Moskvityanin, Biblioteka dlya Chteniya, and others.

N. A. Nekrasov in the September issue of Sovremennik magazine [Nekrasov, 1950, p. 275], N. G. Chernyshevsky in Otechestvennye Zapiski [Otechestvennye Zapiski, 1855, p. 275]. 83], A. Melnikov-Pechersky [Melnikov, 1897, p.64] wrote about D. Banzarov as "a remarkable person", "one of the most useful cultivators of science", "one of the wittiest researchers", "a remarkable Russian orientalist". The literary critic S. A. Vengerov published an article about D. Banzarov in 1891 in his "Critical and Bibliographic Dictionary of Russian Writers and Scientists" (Vengerov, 1891, pp. 85-88). In the same year, 1891, the orientalist G. N. Potanin published the works of D. B. Banzarov with his article on the life and scientific activities of the scientist [Banzarov, 1891]. Professor N. I. Veselovsky, in his review of the publication of D. Banzarov's works by G. N. Potanin in the journal "Historical Bulletin" for 1892, wrote about D. Banzarov as a "scientist of outstanding abilities", "a truly extraordinary phenomenon" (Veselovsky, 1892). In the" Encyclopedia " of F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron in the second volume for 1891, an article about the life and work of D. Banzarov appeared [Banzarov, 1891, articles 881-882]. In the same dictionary, in vol. 37 (1903), the author of the article "Shamanism", recommending literature on this issue, is the first to cite the well-known works of Buryat scientists. Banzarov and G. Gomboev [Veselovsky, 1903, p. 121]. In 1892, when the 70th anniversary of D. Banzarov's birth was celebrated, Prof. N. I. Veselovsky, sinologist V. Vasiliev, Prof. A. Ivanovsky, and well-known literary critic A. Pypin made a high assessment of his scientific achievements in the press.

One of the representatives of the Kazan school of Mongol studies is Galsan Gomboev (1818-1863), who went through a difficult path from the lama of Kulun-Nur datsan, i.e. from a professional Buddhist minister with perfect knowledge of Buryat, Mongolian, Tibetan and Sanskrit languages to a teacher of Kazan and then St. Petersburg Universities, a well-known scholar of Oriental studies in the mid-XIX century. Along with teaching, he was actively engaged in research and translation activities. In 1858, G. Gomboev published the Mongolian chronicle of the 17th century "Altan Tobchi" by an anonymous author and included as an appendix to it the Russian translation of the Oirat poem "The Story of Ubashi-Khun Taijia and His War with the Oirats" (Gomboev, 1858). This was the second translation of the poem in a little over ten years, since the first translation, made by D. Banzarov and transmitted to O. M. Kovalevsky in manuscript, burned down during a fire in Warsaw. Prominent orientalists who worked with G. Gomboev at the same time - V. V. Grigoriev, P. S. Savelyev, D. B. Banzarov - gave a high assessment of his work. In the XX century. its activities

page 85
It attracts the attention of Russian scientists: the Siberian historian P. P. Good [Good, 1927, p.55-58], the Kazan scientist A. S. Shofman [Shofman, 1957, p. 296]. The folklore activity of G. Gomboev was studied by M. P. Khamaganov in the monograph "Buryat Folklore Studies" (Khamaganov, 1962, pp. 240-275).

The life and work of G. Gomboev attracts the attention of the historian D. B. Ulymzhiev, who most fully and thoroughly, drawing on all available materials, including archival ones, was able to present the personality of a teacher and scientist in all its fullness and versatility [Ulymzhiev, 1993; Ulymzhiev, 1994]. In 1966, the magazine "Baikal" published an article by the famous Buryat writer Ilya Madason "Galsan Gomboev's meeting with Leo Tolstoy" [Madason, 1966, pp. 146-147], which provides information about the life of the Buryat scholar lama in Kazan and about his meeting with Leo Tolstoy. This meeting at the university clinic (where Leo Tolstoy was then lying down [Tolstoy, 1985, p. 7]) gave a huge creative impulse to these two remarkably talented people. It is safe to assume that it was precisely from these conversations about Buddhism and its philosophy that Leo Tolstoy's interest in these matters was born. At the end of 1969, I. Linder's book "Tolstoy and Chess" was published. Literary critic N. N. Gusev, a former secretary of Leo Tolstoy, after reading the book by I. Linder, pointed out the inaccuracy he made. In his letter to Linder, N. N. Gusev wrote:: "Tolstoy has written a task: to win back what was lost in chess not to "Lila", but to"Lama". We are talking about a Buddhist lama, wounded by robbers, who, together with Tolstoy, was being held at the Kazan University clinic at that time. From him Tolstoy first learned the basics of the Buddhist worldview "[cit. by: Madason, 1966, pp. 146-147].

Russian Mongolian studies in the last quarter of the 19th century are closely associated with the name of Alexey Matveevich Pozdneev (1851-1920). According to B. Y. Vladimirtsov, who singled out the "Late Russian period" in the development of Mongolian studies, it was he who managed to make a "turn in Mongolian studies", "change the direction of Mongolian studies", "break ties with related fields of knowledge" and "direct work inward" [cit. by: Oldenburg, 1932, p. 670]. A. M. Pozdneev's scientific heritage is distinguished by its breadth and diversity. It is worth noting that the total volume of his works is about 400 printed sheets. These are works on the history, ethnography, Buddhism and literature of the Mongolian peoples, including 17 monographs. After graduating from the Imperial St. Petersburg University in 1876, A. Pozdneev spent two years in Mongolia as part of the expedition of the Russian scientist and traveler G. N. Potanin, after which he extended his business trip for another year and a half. During this time, he managed to collect 972 volumes of Mongolian manuscripts, printed publications and a rich collection of Buddhist sculptures and icons for the university library. Of particular note is his acquisition of the complete 113-volume handwritten Ganjura, translated in the first half of the 17th century. translated into Mongolian. The materials collected during the second expedition to Mongolia and China in 1892-1893 were processed by A. M. Pozdneev and presented in seven handwritten volumes. Of these, only two volumes were published under the title "Mongolia and the Mongols" (Pozdneev, 1896; Pozdneev, 1898).

He began his scientific work as a folklorist and literary critic. His first serious work, Folk Songs of the Mongols (Pozdneev, 1880), which he defended as a master's thesis, was essentially the first monograph on Mongolian literary studies and folklore studies. Its undoubted value lies in the fact that it was the first to study the theoretical problems of Mongolian lyric poetry, although in general the work suffers from "not only excessive verbosity, but sometimes inconsistency, as well as some erroneous judgments" [Shastina, 2003, p.10]. While agreeing with N. P. Shastina's unquestionably correct critical assessment, it should only be added that if a Mongolian scholar today does not always agree with the logic of his research approach, which is replete with emotional attacks and straightforward ones

page 86
However, if the author makes any changes to his conclusions on certain issues under consideration, then this is quite logical and understandable, because medieval studies has made a significant step forward in more than a hundred years after the publication of his works. Much of the scientist's legacy, of course, is outdated, but still most of it remains relevant, activating the research thought of our time. As is well known, the true role of a scientist and his contribution to the development of science can be assessed only after many decades, considering his work in the context of the search for the era when he lived, and determining what new things he made in comparison with his predecessors and contemporaries.

It should be noted that Mongolian literature was practically unknown in Russia before A. M. Pozdneev began studying it. Moreover, there was an opinion that the Mongols did not have artistic literature as such, or that it was insignificant. A. Pozdneev, speaking about the Sanan-Setsen chronicle, translated by Schmidt in 1829 [Schmidt, 1829], and referring to the literary texts of various genres acquired by him and to translated literature from Tibetan and Chinese, comes to the conclusion that "all the treatises of the Sanan-Setsen chronicle are written in the same way." The fact that Mongolian literature is insignificant is more likely due to our ignorance of it, while the accusation against it of the one-sidedness of its Buddhist trend seems, to say the least, strange." He goes on to ask quite rightly: "Is it possible to blame literature for the fact that at a given time there is a certain direction in it, and whether literature is not equally interesting for a scientist, no matter what direction it belongs to?"[Pozdneev, 1880, p. 47-48]. The author considers folklore and literature as two halves of a single whole - the verbal art of the Mongols. He considered literary works to be "a characteristic expression of the spiritual life of the people" (Pozdneev, 1880, p. 298). Noting in his monograph that "the Mongols have a rather extensive literature in their language", he emphasizes that "this literature abounds in their poetic works no less than in other literary peoples of the East" [Pozdneev, 1880, p. 297]. Noting the Mongols 'love of poetry, A. M. Pozdneev writes that" the Mongols consider the compilation of artificial songs and poems to be a matter of high importance and their authors are always credited with great scholarship" [Pozdneev, 1880, p.300]. The monograph includes 65 poetic works: 29 Buryat-Mongolian, 25 Khalkha-Mongolian and 11 Oirat-Mongolian. The author gives the poetic texts in the original language, i.e. in Old Mongolian, which was used by all Mongols at that time, and then provides a transcription and translation into Russian, followed by a commentary-analysis of the work.

A. M. Pozdneev for the first time revealed as a feature of medieval Mongolian poetic works that they are never systematized by the authors into complete collections of poems, but are included in prose works, whether they are historical works, chronicles, individual historical stories, biographies of individuals as an organic part of it. According to the author's observations, "they are scattered in different places of the work, following the presentation of events and, as it were, complementing the prose story about this or that fact" [Pozdneev, 1880, p. 299]. The study of the functional role of poems in prose texts leads A. M. Pozdneev to the conclusion that they "have no other meaning as inserts in order to explain the story and make a stronger impression on the reader" (Pozdneev, 1880, p.300).

Pozdneev saw another feature of Mongolian literature in the fact that "almost all of it is composed of works translated from various foreign languages", and in this connection he raises the question: "Should songs and poems found in Mongolian literature be considered Mongolian works?" [Pozdneev, 1880, p.298]. Answering this question in the affirmative, he emphasizes that "this is the first reason why literary poems of the Mongols should have an indubitable meaning."

page 87
the right to study along with the works of the people, even if the literature of the Mongols would be translated in full and, consequently, all literary poems of the Mongols would be the same. And yet we are far from being able to say this about all literary Mongolian poems." Further, he admits that "in the general mass of Mongolian literature there are not only translated poems, but also samples of original Mongolian creativity" [Pozdneev, 1880, p. 298].

Pozdneev's very important and, most importantly, correct observation about the poems translated from Tibetan was that "they belong in origin to both Tibetan and, it seems, even more so to Mongolian authors; because the Mongolian lamas in recent times generally do not write their works in any other way than by presenting them originally in different ways.Later, and only when necessary, they translate them into Mongolian" (Pozdneev, 1880, p.306). Analyzing poems of a Buddhist orientation, which, as he writes, "revolve among the people in separate small pamphlets, both in handwritten and printed publications," Pozdneev notes their genre diversity and at the same time sees very correctly their continuity with shamanic poetry. In particular, he identifies such genre varieties as songs of praise to various deities and shrines of Buddhism, prayerful appeals to them, requests and incantations of various kinds and for all possible cases of everyday adversity, prophetic broadcasts of the Buddha and his saints to the people, instructions of lamas, khutuktas and khubilgans, etc. Allowing himself to make anti-Buddhist, anti-Islamic statements, Pozdneev still could not help but note that works of Buddhist literature, such as "Ulger-un Dalai", "Ulger-un nom", "Erdeni san" and others were loved by the Mongols and "could be found in the yurt of every Mongol" [Pozdneev, 1880, p. 301].

Pozdneev's undoubted merit is that he made an attempt to study Mongolian versification for the first time in Russia. Studying the history of the issue, he turned to the Tibetan-Mongolian terminology dictionary of Buddhism "Merget garku orun" - the "Source of Sages", which sets out the rules for translating from Tibetan into Mongolian, compiled by the Danzhur Translators ' commission under Qian Long. Relying on the method of translating poetic texts described in this work, Pozdneev pays attention to such a technique of Mongolian versification as equisyllabic, and mistakenly believes that "the coincidence of the number of syllables is most likely accidental" [Pozdneev, 1880, p. 321]. Syllabic and tonic versification, as he writes, "are not at all peculiar to the Mongol language" (Pozdneev, 1880, p.323). As the main law of Mongol versification, he correctly defined "the observance of rhyme, i.e., the agreement in the sounds of their initial syllables" (Pozdneev, 1880, p. 324). "The reason for the development of numerous techniques of Mongolian versification "was that" in their translated works, the Mongols used the laws of versification of the languages from which they translated." Further, studying poems translated from Tibetan, he comes to the conclusion that "the laws of Tibetan versification began to appear in those works that, by their origin, belong entirely to Mongolia and the Mongols" (Pozdneev, 1880, p.324). Pozdneev showed that the laws of Tibetan versification, perceived and assimilated by Mongolian poetry, are distinguished by great art, while the methods of versification become more refined, making poetic speech flexible and ornate in the most positive sense of the word. Making a reservation that he does not pretend to fully study the question to what extent the Mongols were able to learn and use the techniques of Tibetan versification, Pozdneev identifies several techniques that are most characteristic, providing them with poetic examples, and also points out "mutual coordination of the techniques of Tibetan and Mongolian."

page 88
Pozdneev, 1880, p. 339] and identifies several different, and sophisticated, techniques.

The second literary study by A. M. Pozdneev was the "History of Mongolian Literature" in 3 volumes (Pozdneev, 1896; Pozdneev, 1897; Pozdneev, 1908). As the first professor to teach the history of Mongolian literature at St. Petersburg University, and later in Vladivostok as director of the Oriental Institute, he included in this publication recordings of lectures for students, which were then lithographed and collected together, conceived as a historical survey of monuments of Mongolian literature. Of course, this work is not a history of national literature in the academic sense, but the work carried out by A. M. Pozdneev on collecting, processing, systematizing, translating, commenting, analyzing a huge historical and literary material is admirable, and it has not lost its significance to this day. It is impossible not to agree with the high assessment given by a modern literary critic: "These lecture notes can be considered an outstanding work in the history of Russian Mongolian studies without exaggeration" [Shastina, 2003, p.11].

The third work of A. M. Pozdneev "Mongolian Anthology" (Pozdneev, 1900), which is a collection of Mongolian works of various genres, has not lost its significance. The anthology consists of twelve sections, including 75 works in the Old Mongolian language, mostly published for the first time in Russia and put into scientific circulation. It is no accident that Professor N. I. Veselovsky noted in the preface to the book that "this anthology, which presents us in a new form the content and volume of Mongolian literature, not only belongs to the number of textbooks, but is also a direct scientific contribution" [Pozdneev, 1900, p. 18]. N. I. Veselovsky also cites the following words: "an excerpt from a private letter of A. M. Pozdneev" [Pozdneev, 1900, p. 2-18]. In it, Pozdneev sets out in great detail the purpose and objectives, describes the structure of the work, explains what motives were guided when choosing certain works of different genres, and gives a brief overview of each section. In this work, he again addresses the problem of translation and highly criticizes this activity of the Mongols. As he notes, " a huge number of works of Mongolian literature are works translated from the Tibetan, Chinese and Manchu languages, and each of these departments of literature is so independent and unique that often a person who is fluent in the original Mongolian or translated from Tibetan works will be completely unable to correctly understand the text of the Mongolian work.", but only translated from Chinese" [Pozdneev, 1900, p. 5]. He explains the reason for this phenomenon by saying that the Mongols in translation "almost slavishly follow the original." In the last quarter of the 19th century, A. Pozdneev was able to show the fallacy of a one-sided view of Mongolian literature, identify the genre diversity and richness of its artistic possibilities, as well as reflect the process of collecting, processing, studying, commenting and publishing monuments of medieval literature, which has become traditional in the history of Russian Oriental studies.

To some extent, his predecessor in this field was the Mongol scholar I. Ya. Schmidt (1779-1847), who first published in Russia in German in 1829 the chronicle of Sanan Setsen "Erdenin tovch" [Schmidt, 1829] and in Russian in 1836 the epic "Hes-er" [Schmidt, 1836]. A truly invaluable contribution to Mongol studies was the discovery of P. I. Kafarov (1817-1878), a leading scholar of Chinese studies, which he translated into Russian and published in 1866 under the title "The Ancient Mongolian Legend of Genghis Khan" (Kafarov, 1866), better known as "The Hidden Legend of the Mongols" ("The Secret History of the Mongols"). P. Kafarov provided the text of the work with a commentary, which the orientalist V. V. Grigoriev in his review of this publication was

page 89
It is assessed as having "the value of independent work, which is very remarkable given the current state of our knowledge about the Mongolian side" [Khokhlov, 1979, p. 73]. Following P. Kafarov, an attempt to study the "Hidden Legend of the Mongols" was made by A. M. Pozdneev (Pozdneev, 1882; Pozdneev, 1884, pp. 245-259). He also translated and analyzed the Mongolian chronicle "Erdenin Erihe", which he submitted for defense as a doctoral dissertation, and subsequently published [Pozdneev, 1883].

It is necessary to note the huge contribution of the first Russian Mongolian scholars, especially A. M. Pozdneev, to the replenishment and development of the Fund of Mongolian manuscripts and woodcuts and collections of monuments of Mongolian literature, which began in 1720. In the 20th century, this work was continued by Russian Mongolian scholars B. Y. Vladimirtsov (1884-1931), Ts. Zhamtsarano (1880-1937), V. L. Kotvich (1872-1944), A. D. Rudnev (1878-1958), and others.

Summing up, we note that the specifics of the formation of Mongolian studies, as, indeed, of all Oriental studies in Russia in the XIX century, consisted in the fact that it included a kind of conglomerate of sciences. The Mongolian scholar of that time was a general specialist. He was a linguist, a folklorist, a literary critic, a historian, and a political scientist - all this was based on a thorough knowledge of the language of the country under study, its various dialects. Complex Mongolian studies of that time, which was at the stage of formation, did not yet have the opportunity to delve into any of its constituent areas, to master the methods and special tools specific to each of them. In literature research, the traditional philological approach with elements of a historical and cultural nature prevailed at the core, which focused on collecting, translating, and commenting on an ancient or medieval source, its history, and editorial offices.Descriptive methods prevailed. Nevertheless, it was during this period that the foundation was laid for the formation of approaches, methods and principles for studying and analyzing the history of medieval Mongolian literature, developing value criteria, and the nature of evolution.

list of literature

Banzarov D. B. The Black Faith or shamanism among the Mongols. Kazan, 1846.

Banzarov D. B. The Black Faith or shamanism among the Mongols and other articles by D. Banzarov / Preface "Essay on the life and work of D. Banzarov" and edited by G. N. Potanin, St. Petersburg, 1891.

Banzarov D. / / Encyclopedic dictionary / Edited by I. E. Andreevsky, edited by F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron, St. Petersburg, 1891.

Vengerov S. A. Kritiko-bibliograficheskiy slovar russkikh pisatelei i uchenykh [Critical and Bibliographic Dictionary of Russian Writers and Scientists].
Veselovsky N. I. [Book review:] Banzarov D. B. Chernaya vera ili shamanstvo u mongolov [Black Faith or shamanism among the Mongols]. Preface "Essay on the life and work of D. Banzarov" and edited by G. N. Potanin, St. Petersburg, 1891 / / Historical Bulletin, vol. 47, St. Petersburg, 1892.

Veselovsky N. I. Shamanism // Encyclopedic dictionary / Edited by I. E. Andreevsky, edited by F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron, vol. XXXIX, St. Petersburg, 1903.

Gomboev G. Altan Tobchi. Mongol Chronicle in the original text and translation, with the application of the Kalmyk text of the History of Ubashi-Khuntaijia and his war with the Oirats / / Proceedings of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society, Part VI, St. Petersburg, 1858.

Gomboev G. Argi-Burji. Mongol story / Translated by G. Gomboev / / Obshchezanimatel'ny Vestnik, No. 1, 1858.
Izuchenie literatury Vostoka: Rossiya, XX vek [Studying the literature of the East: Russia, XX century]. and comp. by A. A. Suvorova, Moscow, 2002.

Kafarov P. Starinoe mongolskoe skazanie o Genghiskhane [The Ancient Mongolian Legend of Genghis Khan]. Trudy chlenov Russkoy diplomaticheskoy missii [Proceedings of the Members of the Russian Diplomatic Mission], vol. IV, St. Petersburg, 1866.

Kovalevsky O. M. Mongolian-Russian-French dictionary / Comp. prof. O. Kovalevsky, vol. I, II, III. Kazan, 1844, 1846, 1849.

Madason I. Galsan Gomboev's meeting with L. N. Tolstoy / / Baikal, 1966, No. 3.
Melnikov A. (Andrey Pechersky) / / PSS. T. I. SPb., 1897.

page 90
Mikhailov G. I. Voprosy filologii v trudakh D. B. Banzarov [Questions of philology in the works of D. B. Banzarov]. Ulan-Ude, 1955.

Mikhailov T. M. D. Banzarov and modern problems of Turkic-Mongolian shamanism // Abstracts and reports of the International Scientific and Theoretical Conference "Banzarov Readings -2", dedicated to the 175th anniversary of D. Banzarov's birth. Ulan-Ude, 1997.

Nekrasov N. A. Poln. sobr. soch. i pis'mov. Vol. IX. Moscow, 1950.

Oldenburg S. F. Boris Yakovlevich Vladimirtsov / / Izvestiya AN SSSR. 1932. N 8.

Domestic notes. St. Petersburg, 1855.

Obrazby narodnoi literatury mongol'skikh plemen [Samples of folk literature of Mongolian Tribes, Vol. I. Narodnye pesni mongolov] / Collected and published with the application of notes on the nature of folk song poetry of Mongolian tribes, literary poems and techniques of verse compositions among Mongols by A. Pozdneev. SPb., 1880.

Pozdneev A.M. On the ancient Chinese-Mongolian historical monument "Yuan-chao-mi-shi", St. Petersburg, 1882.
Pozdneev A.M. Mongol chronicle "Erdeniin erihe" / Original text with translation and explanations containing materials for the history of Khalkha from 1636 to 1736 St. Petersburg, 1883.

Pozdneev A.M. On the ancient Chinese-Mongolian historical monument "Yuan-chao-mi-shi" / / Izvestiya Imp. Russian Geographical Society, Vol. X. Issue 3-6, St. Petersburg, 1884.

Pozdneev A.M. Lectures on the history of Mongolian literature, read at St. Petersburg University in 1895-96 acad. Vol. I / Written down and published by student H. P. Christie. St. Petersburg, 1896.

Pozdneev A.M. Lectures on the history of Mongolian Literature, read at St. Petersburg University in 1896-97 acad. Vol. II / Recorded and published by student H. P. Christie. St. Petersburg, 1897.

Pozdneev A.M. Lectures on the history of Mongolian literature, read at St. Petersburg University in 1897-98 acad. Vol. III / Recorded and published by former students of St. Petersburg State University G. P. Podstavin and G. Ts. Tsybikov. Vladivostok, 1908.

Pozdneev A.M. Mongolia and Mongols. Results of a trip to Mongolia performed in 1892-1893 by A. Pozdneev. Vol. I: Diary and route of 1892 St. Petersburg, 1896; Vol. II: Diary and route of 1893 St. Petersburg, 1898.

Pozdneev A.M. Mongolian anthology for initial teaching, compiled by A. Pozdneev, former ordinary professor of the St. Petersburg University, now Director of the Eastern Institute in Vladivostok I With a preface by Professor N. I. Veselovsky, St. Petersburg, 1900.

Savelyev P. S. O zhizni i trudakh Dorzhi Banzarov [On the Life and Works of Dorzhi Banzarov], St. Petersburg, 1855.
Tolstoy L. N. Sobranie sochineniy [Collected Works]. In 22 volumes, vol. 21, Moscow, 1985.

Ulymzhiev D. B. Buryat scholar-orientalist Galsan Gomboev (1818-1863). To the 175th anniversary of his birth. Ulan-Ude Publ., 1993.

Ulymzhiev D. B. Pages of domestic Mongolian studies. Kazan School of Mongol Studies. Ulan-Ude Publ., 1994.

Khamaganov M. P. Buryat folklore studies. Ulan-Ude, 1962.

Khoroshikh P. P. Buryat scientist Galsan Gomboev / / Buryatievedenie. No. 3-4. Verkhneudinsk, 1927.

Khokhlov A. N. P. I. Kafarov: zhizn i nauchnaya deyatel'nost ' [Kafarov's life and scientific activity]. Proceedings of the Conference, Part 1, Moscow, 1979.
Shastina N. P. Istoriya izucheniya Mongol'skoy Narodnoi Respubliki [History of studying the Mongolian People's Republic].

Shastina N. P. A. M. Pozdneev (podgotovka k printii, znamen. A. G. Sazykin) [Pozdneev (preparation for printing, note by A. G. Sazykin)]. To the 150th anniversary of the birth of A.M. Pozdneev, St. Petersburg, 2003.
The exploits of the hero Bogda Geserkhan, the destroyer of ten evils in ten countries of the world, the heroic legend of the Mongols from a copy printed in Beijing, re-published by the Imp's dependents. Academy of Sciences under the supervision of I. Y. Schmidt, a member of the Academy. St. Petersburg, 1836.

Shofman A. S., Shamov G. F. The role of Kazan University in the formation of D. Banzarov's worldview // Centenary of D. Banzarov's death. Ulan-Ude, 1955.

Shofman A. S. Galsan Gomboev (1818-1863) / / Notes of the Buryat-Mongolian Research Institute. Issue XXIV. Ulan-Ude, 1957.

Schmidt I. J. Ssanang Ssetsen. Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen und ihres Furstenhauses. St. -Petersburg-Leipzig, N. Gretsch-C. Cnobloch, 1829.

Permanent link to this publication: