Siberian chronicles about Yermak's campaign. Siberian chronicles: Pogodinsky chronicler, Sychevsky list of the Esipovskaya chronicle and list of the Stroganov chronicle of G. I. Spassky

The main monument of Siberian literature of the 1630s. is the Esipov Chronicle. It got its name from the name of the author - "Savva Esipov", encrypted at the end of almost all known lists. The end time of the author's work on the chronicle is also recorded here: "summer 7145 (1636) September on 1 day."
Apart from his name, almost nothing is known about Savva Esipov. The note left by him on one of the books of the Sofia library testifies that in the 1630s. Savva Esipov was the deacon of the Tobolsk Bishop's House: “On the 31st day of the summer of 7148 (1639), December, he put this book, the verb Paradise, His Grace Nectarei, Archbishop of Siberia and Tobolsk, into the house of Sophia the Wisdom of God, built on Sophia's houses on government money, signed by Archbishop Deacon Savva Esipov. At the beginning of 1640, instead of Treasurer Sergius, he signed a letter of acceptance after Archbishop Nectarius of the Sofia house treasury.
These few facts indicate that Savva Esipov was the archbishop's clerk (i.e. the head of the archbishop's office) during the stay of Archbishop Nektariy in Tobolsk (1636 - 1640). However, he arrived in Siberia much earlier. It is the clerk Savva Esipov, together with the "archbishop's clerk" Maxim Trubchaninov, who receives 200 rubles after the death of Macarius in 1635 "for his archiepiscopal commemoration and for all sorts of expenses." He, in the inventory of the property of the Sophia house, before the arrival of Nektarius, draws up “The painting ... of the Sophia quitrent peasants.” Consequently, under Macarius, he held the same high post. In 1638, Nektary mentions him in his complaint against the people of the Sophia House who served there before him, singling out Savva Esipov as the only one who does not intrigue against the archbishop: “Yes, and Sophia, sovereign ... courtyard people, elders, boyar children and singing clerks , except for the old clerk Savva Esipov, they are plotting against me, your pilgrim…” It is not clear what Nectarius meant by the word "old": whether Esipov's age or just that he did not belong to the newly arrived (with Nectarius) servants.
There is a traditional opinion that Savva Esipov was from Novgorod and came to Siberia together with the first archbishop Cyprian, appointed to the Tobolsk cathedra from the archimandrites of the Novgorod Khutynsky monastery. But the question of the origin and genealogy of Savva Esipov will be easier to resolve when there are documents about the time of his arrival in Siberia. At present, there is no need to talk about his Novgorodian origin. Most likely, he arrived in Tobolsk later, together with Cyprian's successor Macarius. It is known that Macarius replaced many employees in the Sofia House with people he brought from Rus', which caused discontent and complaints from the Sofia boyar children and elders (Butsinsky P.N. Siberian archbishops ...). In any case, under Macarius, Savva Esipov undoubtedly holds the position of archbishop's clerk and remains in it under the new archbishop Nectarios. (It is possible that the Esipov family occupied a prominent place among the Siberian administration: later, in 1669 - 1678, a certain Boris Esipov was the clerk of the Order of merchant affairs with a salary of 20 rubles, and in 1690 he also held the position of clerk of the furrier's chamber with the highest salary of 30 rubles, both of these institutions existed under the Siberian order.See Protocols of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities dated February 4, 1887 (report by N.A. Popov on the Order of Merchant Affairs) \\ CHOIDR. 1887. Book 4. C .3)

The creation of a chronicle is the result of awareness of one's own unity - of a country, people, region, principality - and at the same time awareness of one's own differences and peculiarities. The "feature" of Siberia was realized in ruling circles Russian state from the first years of its accession, which affected primarily the system of government in Siberia, which differs significantly from the system of government in other Russian regions. From the first years after Yermak's campaign, the government sought to create an administrative center directly in Siberia, dominating other districts and controlling the activities of local governors; in a very short time, Tobolsk became such a center, built not far from the old capital of the Siberian Khanate and inherited political and administrative ties and relations from it.
The special position of Tobolsk, which turns it into the "capital city of Siberia", especially after the creation of an archbishop's chair in it, to a large extent should have contributed to the emergence and strengthening of regional views among Siberians, who perceived Siberia as a special state. This perception was also supported by the fact that in connection with the leading position of Tobolsk, the first (main) governors usually appointed the most well-born representatives of the boyars, close to royal court, often related to the royal house. As a result, “the broad powers that the government gave to the Tobolsk governors, and the subordination of other governors of the Tobolsk category to them, with their noble origin, created a special halo of power in Siberia for them. In the eyes of the Siberians, the Tobolsk governor often overshadowed the figure of the distant tsar in Moscow. Bakhrushin S.V. Governors of the Tobolsk category in the 17th century. \\ Scientific works. T. 3, part 1. S. 262)
In the first half of the XVII century. the perception of Siberia as a "special" land was also officially consolidated. In February 1636, the tsar and the patriarch approved the Synodik for the Yermakov Cossacks, which now began to be pronounced not only in Tobolsk, but also in Moscow. A year later, in February 1637, a special Siberian order was created, which was in charge of the entire administration of Siberia - judicial-administrative, financial-tax, customs, military, and to a certain extent even diplomatic (History of Siberia. L., 1968. Vol. 2 pp. 124). Only political affairs remained outside the scope of his powers; otherwise, all of Siberia was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the administration of the Siberian Prikaz.
The creation of the Esipov Chronicle in September 1636 is one of the official events that were held in connection with the awareness of the specifics of Siberia and, in turn, strengthened it. Judging by these activities (the approval of local shrines, the creation of special governing bodies, the compilation of their own official history), Siberia in the 30s of the XVII century. was perceived as a special country within the Russian state; local annals appear during this period.
The history of the country is understood by Savva Esipov primarily as a political history. Having carefully looked at the content of the monument, we can identify a range of issues that are primarily of interest to the author. It includes the issue of governing Siberia, the successive change of local princes and kings (in the description of pre-Russian Siberia) and Russian governors in different cities, primarily in Tobolsk. (The question of the history of the administration of Siberia is most clearly covered in the later, widespread edition of the Esipov Chronicle); in addition, Esipov notes the centers of Russian rule in Siberia - the towns and prisons taken by the Cossacks and founded by them (on this basis, a special Description of the cities and prisons of Siberia was later created); Finally, one of the main issues for Esipov is the question of the establishment of Christianity in Siberia and the struggle of Christianity with local religions (paganism and Islam).
The combination of these questions makes it possible to talk about the political aspect of the entire work of Savva Esipov. The traditional opinion, established in the Siberian literature, about the main content of the Esipov Chronicle as the history of the Christian enlightenment of Siberia does not contradict this conclusion, but significantly limits the understanding of the monument. We must not forget that Christianity, especially Orthodoxy, was one of the main aspects throughout the entire Russian Middle Ages. state activities. The most striking example of how the phenomena of external and domestic policy covered with a purely religious shell, in the XVII century. was the church reform of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Christianity acquires special significance in the struggle for the independence of the Russian state: it becomes the banner of the broad masses in the struggle against the "infidels" - during the Tatar invasion, in the struggle against the Kazan and Crimean kingdoms, in Time of Troubles. The establishment of Christianity in Siberia for the author of the Esipov Chronicle means the establishment here of precisely the Russian authorities, the only correct and therefore the only legal one.
Esipov portrays the annexation of Siberia to Russia, its subordination to the "Christian Tsar" as a fact predetermined. The defeat of Kuchum with his troops is predetermined by divine providence for his sins and "pride". Ermak's detachment is presented as a "double-edged sword", fulfilling the will of God.
Such a justification of the causes of historical phenomena is typical of providentialism - the medieval "philosophy of history", characterized in detail by I.P. Eremin in the analysis of the Tale of Bygone Years (Eremin I.P."The Tale of Bygone Years" as a literary monument // Eremin I.P. Literature Ancient Rus'. M., 1966. S. 42-97).
The main provisions of this philosophy remain valid throughout the entire period of the Middle Ages and are reflected in the Esipov Chronicle, a monument of the 17th century.
The explanation of events from a providential point of view continues to dominate the historical writings of the 17th century. In this regard, Savva Esipov is no exception among the vast majority of his contemporary writers. But the providentialism of the authors of writings about the Time of Troubles, for example, is largely a mere tribute to tradition, a stereotypical book turn, which is little thought about; explaining modern events by "God's will", the writers of the Time of Troubles gradually more and more comprehend the real, earthly forces that influence the course of history. The providentialism of the author of the Esipov Chronicle is somewhat different; in particular, it is closely connected with the need to prove the rights of the Russian state to the possession of Siberia. The fact that such a question faced the Russian government of the 16th century is evidenced by diplomatic instructions to the ambassadors; they officially substantiate the right of the Russian sovereign to the title of "ruler of the Siberian land" and to its subordination (Preobrazhensky A.A. Russian diplomatic documents of the second half of the 16th century. on the annexation of Siberia // Research on domestic source studies: Sat. Art., dedicated to the 75th anniversary of Professor S.N. Valka. M.; L., 1964. S. 383-390).
The author of the Esipov Chronicle, which reflected, although official, but still only a local point of view on events, could not operate with the same system of evidence as the Moscow diplomats; he put the question of the regularity of the annexation of Siberia to Russia in a form accessible to him. Such a system of evidence was traditional for Russian historical writings and, apparently, corresponded to the views not only of Esipov, but also of his readers.

Esipov highlighted the reasons for the fall of the Siberian Khanate in the introductory part to his work, talking about the reign of Kuchum. Pointing here to "God's will" as the main driving force events, in the future, when talking about specific events, he only occasionally reminds the reader of this in separate phrases. The very definition of the causes that caused "God's wrath" in Esipov is clearly moralistic in nature: among them he names Kuchum's "unbelief" and his "pride", that is, those qualities of a human character that were most sharply denounced by the Christian church.
A moral assessment of events accompanies all further presentation. The actions of the Russian detachment never cause any censure from Esipov: the fulfillment of the lofty mission of the "divine weapon" in itself predetermines only positive character their images. Therefore, it is much more interesting to trace the author's attitude towards the opponents of the Russians - the local Siberian peoples.
Speaking about them, Esipov uses different definitions in his work: in some cases he very clearly divides all peoples into nationalities (Tatars, Ostyaks, Vogulichi, etc.), in others he calls everyone “nasty” without distinction.
If we trace the scope of both definitions, we will see that they are closely related to the author's assessment of the actions of Yermak's opponents. The term "nasty" is used by Esipov in cases where the local population opposes the Russians - when describing battles, sudden tricky attacks: " filth but they came to the shore ... The Cossacks rose to the shore and courageously on filthy advancing, and at that time there was a mortal defeat filthy, and giving in, we will chase an irrevocable flight ”; Cossacks "seeing such an assembly filthy, like fight one with ten or twenty filthy ones ... ”(Siberian Chronicles. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 128; further references to this edition); “... the guard is firmly established from filthy, let it not be like snakes grabbing repentance” (p. 133); “Yermak, with his retinue, chase after filthy and having reached them, and be with filthy war of greatness for many hours; let us drive on the run rushing ”(p. 135-136).
Another area of ​​​​use of the term “filthy” are official documents retold in the Esipov Chronicle: Cyprian “ordered to ask the Ermakov Cossacks, how did they come to Siberia, and where were the fights, and where were they killed filth on the fight. Well, the Cossacks brought to him writing, how they came to Siberia and where they filthy there were battles, and where were the Cossacks and what was their name they killed” (p. 163).
In all other cases - when describing the life of local peoples, their relations with the Russians (including preparations for the battle, but not the battle itself), even when describing their religious beliefs, when paganism and Mohammedanism are opposed to Orthodoxy - Esipov does not use the term "filthy ", each time speaking about specific peoples or, in general, about "many people": "... I came to the city of Siberia Ostyak prince named Boyar with many ostyaks, brought Yermak and his comrades many gifts and supplies, even if needed. According to him, the same began to come totarovya many with wives and children and start living in their first houses” (p. 134-135); Kuchum “sends to all his power, so that troops of people would go to him in the city of Siberia and anti-Russian warriors took up arms. In a little time, many gathered to him Tatars And Ostyaks And vogulich and other pagans, those under his authority” (p. 126); “Along the same rivers of residence, many tongues have: Totarovya, Kolmyks, Mugals, piebald horde, Ostyaks, Samoyeds and other languages. Totarov[i] the law of Moamet is kept; the Kolmyks whose law or father their tradition [keep] do not know ... Piebald w horde And Ostyaks and Samoyed do not have the law, but they worship an idol and offer sacrifices, as if to God, but by magic cunning they rule their houses in vain ”(p. 111).
Thus, Esipov can evaluate the opponents of Russians both positively and negatively, depending on how in this moment they act in relation to the Yermak detachment, representing Russian state, - harm him, help or neutral.
The specificity of Esipov's assessments, which depends on the context of the story, finds a correspondence in the methods of chronicle assessments that can be traced in the analysis of early chronicles. The attitude of the most ancient chronicler to the event is also always specific. Very rarely, only in a “commendatory word” after the death of one or another prince, he gives an assessment in general, as a whole. In all other cases, he considers each action separately, based on his understanding of the benefits for the Russian state. Good, according to the chronicler, is only what benefits Rus', bad is what harms it. From this point of view, he considers every act of this or that prince, without thinking about the discrepancy between his own assessments. (Eremin I.P."The Tale of Bygone Years" as a literary monument. \\ Eremin I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus'. M., 1966. S. 52-54)
The inconsistency of estimates in the chronicles that have come down to us is most often explained by traces of the work of various editors. The fragmentation of the chronicle, created by the system of presentation of material by “years”, allows the later writer not only to attribute new, contemporary news to him, but also to edit the text of his predecessor, replacing individual articles, supplementing them from other sources, or completely removing what does not satisfy him. The text surrounding the editable parts does not change significantly. Then those “junctions” of different editions are obtained, reflecting the movement of the annalistic text, which make it possible to single out chronicles that have not come down to us in the composition of the vaults. It is on this path that the historians of our chronicle writing continue the work of A.A. Shakhmatova.
However, those traces of editorial work of different times that scientists noted in the annalistic codes could be preserved, apparently, primarily because the orientation towards the tasks of a separate story, fragment, and not the entire large work, was not characteristic of any one writer. , but in general for the artistic method of ancient Russian historical writings until the 16th century.
Observations on the specificity of the assessments in the Esipov Chronicle allow us to conclude that their dependence on the context of the direct story of the event and some inconsistency are not necessarily the quality of the chronicle collections and an indispensable consequence of later editorial work. Written by one person, the Esipov Chronicle of the main edition in most lists has retained all the details of presentation, style, system of comparisons and assessments adopted by its author. It does not contain any traces of later editorial corrections, and this once again testifies to the orientation towards a separate story as a general principle of ancient Russian historical writings. The same orientation towards a separate story is also observed in the style of the monument, but this will be discussed later.
The “Christian” theme of the Esipovskaya chronicle is undoubtedly strengthened due to the fact that the chronicle is being created in the Tobolsk archbishop's house, under the control of the highest church authority in Siberia. It is this circumstance that contributes to the "tendentiousness" in the depiction of Yermak and the Cossacks: they are represented only by the executors of the divine mission; in their descriptions, real, life features were almost not preserved. The same circumstance largely determines the bookish nature of the entire work: its religious orientation is supported by numerous quotations from Holy Scripture, examples from biblical history etc. The author of the chronicle, as noted by M.N. Speransky, as if taking advantage of any opportunity to enlighten his readers in the basics of biblical history (Speransky M.N. Tale of the cities of Tara and Tyumen. \\ Proceedings of the Commission on Old Russian Literature. L., 1932. S. 17).
Such an explanation of the author's abundant digressions from the main narrative into the field of Christian teaching seems to be completely fair. We must not forget that the Esipov Chronicle was created in a newly colonized country, far from “enlightened” by Christian teaching, and, in all likelihood, fulfilled the task of not only a historical, but also a preaching work. (Siberian archbishops of the 17th century constantly complain about the "decline in morals" of their flock under the pernicious influence of pagan and Mohammedan beliefs of the peoples of Siberia. See, for example: Miller G.F. History of Siberia. T. 2. S. 276-282, 293- 297). In this, one can note its similarity with the early Russian chronicles: such digressions and comparisons are characteristic of the Tale of Bygone Years, where, along with historical facts foundations of Christian teaching; Of particular interest in this regard is the story of Vladimir's testing of faith, which includes an exposition of the Christian creed (The Tale of Bygone Years. \ Prepared by D.S. Likhachev's text; Edited by V.P. Adrianov-Peretz. M.-L., 1950. Part 1. P. 74-80; Sukhomlinov M.I. On the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. \\ Sukhomlinov M.I. Research on ancient Russian literature. St. Petersburg. T. 1. P. 70-77). In the future, as Christianity became established in Rus', such digressions in chronicle writings are found less and less often. For the historical writings of the 17th century, when the Esipov Chronicle was being created, they are no longer characteristic. But, apparently, the mentioned circumstances of the creation of the monument in the newly colonized and Christian enlightened country brought to life the same principles of combining secular and Christian motifs that are characteristic of the initial period of Russian literature.
In its general composition, the Esipov Chronicle at first glance resembles the Kazan history, which also begins with short description the location of the Kazan kingdom, the list and characteristics of the peoples inhabiting it; then follows the history of the Kazan kingdom itself, where the main attention is paid to the relations between Kazan and Rus'; finally, as the end of this story, there is a story about Grozny's campaigns against Kazan and about the victory of the Russians as a result of a long struggle. At the end, as in the Esipov chronicle, it is said about the spread of Christianity in the Kazan kingdom, about the appointment of archbishops and gratitude to God.
At the same time, despite the great external similarity, the Esipov Chronicle is fundamentally different from the Kazan history in terms of the type of historical narrative. If the Esipov Chronicle consistently preserves the old, “annalistic” nature of the arrangement of material in a strict chronological sequence, and each chapter in it begins with the most accurate possible timing of each event to a specific date, then the author of the Kazan History gives only the most general correlation of events in time. In most chapters, he does not give dates at all ( Dvoretskaya N.A. Archaeographic review of lists of stories about Yermak's campaign. \\ TODRL. M.-L., 1957. T. 13. S. 44, 46, 51, 54, 57).
If they are indicated, then, as a rule, not at the beginning of the chapter; they are mentioned in passing, but do not open the news, which is typical for the chronicle (Ibid., pp. 47, 48, 53, 56, 61, 67); in rare cases, the article begins with a date, but even then the chronological timing in Kazan history is very approximate, for example: 30 years ... ”(Ibid., p. 49, cf. 58, 68), the author, as it were, gives chronological marks in some cases, according to which the reader, if desired, can calculate the date of the event, but he himself does not deal with chronological calculations .
The second significant difference between the Kazan history and the Esipov chronicle lies in the principles of material selection. Esipov is interested in the history of the country as a whole, so he includes in his essay all the facts that are available to him. In the event that the facts do not correspond to his conception or, perhaps, seem to him of no importance for Siberian history proper (as, for example, the stories about the robbery of Yermak on the Volga or about the participation of the Stroganovs in the conquest of Siberia), he simply leaves them outside his own storytelling. This principle of selection of material can also be called "annalistic": it is characteristic of the most ancient chronicles, where we do not encounter "falsifications" of previous sources. The political assessments and concepts of the most ancient chroniclers, which are reflected in their writings, are formed primarily by the selection of facts - the concentration of those that correspond to the author's view, and the rejection of inappropriate ones.
The author of the Kazan history does not seek to create complete history Kazan Khanate; his main goal is to prove the legitimacy of the accession of Kazan to the Russian state, therefore, from all history, he selects only the facts of Russian-Kazan relations; connections of Kazan with other states ( Crimean Khanate, Nogai Horde, etc.) are not covered by him in any way, if they do not directly affect the attitude of Kazan to Rus'. In addition to the purposeful selection of material, the author of the Kazan History subjects it to processing, as a result of which the material receives tendentious coverage.
Setting as his goal to prove the rights of Rus' to the Kazan lands and to describe the history of the struggle between Rus' and Kazan, the author of the Kazan history quite naturally ends his story with the victory of the Russians and the establishment of Christianity in the Kazan kingdom. The story does not continue beyond this. After the annexation of Kazan to Rus', there can be no talk of its independent history, much less of its special relations with the Russian state. The accession of Kazan is the main result of the entire work; that is why the continuations of the main text found in the manuscripts of the Kazan history are always connected with the theme of the conquest of Kazan and the time of Ivan the Terrible (Kazan story. L., 1954. S. 20-39 (archaeographic review)).
In order to verify the conclusion about the typological closeness of the Esipov Chronicle to the most ancient chronicle, let us consider more specific features that also reflect the specifics of the chronicle narrative. The principles of depicting a person are most indicative in this regard, since “a person in the image of a writer is the center to which all the threads that control the artistic mechanism of the work are drawn, the focus in which the “writer's style” receives its most vivid embodiment. ( Eremin I.P. The latest research on the art form of Old Russian literary works// Eremin I.P. Literature ... S. 239).

Yermak at Esipov is not actually separated from the squad. Everywhere where Russians in Siberia are discussed, Esipov uses the term "Cossacks" or "Yermak and comrades." The leading position of Yermak is emphasized only by the fact that from time to time the author calls him by name, and a faint allusion to a special award to Yermak in the story about the royal salary to the Cossacks: the tsar “granted Yermak with his royal salary in absentia; the sovereign granted the Cossacks with his royal salary, money and cloth, and again the sovereign let them go to Siberia to Yermak with his comrades. Yermak and other chieftains and Cossacks sent the sovereign his royal salary a lot ... ”(p. 138); what kind of award Yermak received, Esipov does not specify, but other Siberian chronicles, for example, in Remezovskaya, speak of Yermak's "royal armor".
Ermak and the Cossacks always act as a single entity. Even the letter to the tsar about the conquest of Siberia, judging by its retelling in the annals, was written on behalf of the entire squad; This is evidenced by the consistent use of verbs in plural: “... the same summer Yermak with his comrades sent to Moscow [soundch of ataman and cossacks] and writing to the pious Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich ... that by the will of the all-merciful ... God ... the kingdom of Siberia taking and Tsar Kuchum and with his howl victorious, under his royal high hand led many foreigners living there...” (p. 136-137). In those few cases when the Sychevsky list of the Esipov Chronicle, taken as the main one in the publication of the Archaeographic Commission, mentions only Yermak, options from other lists give the combination “Ermak and comrades”: “... come to the city to Yermak (K: with comrades ) Totarin, with the name of Senbakht, and telling him that Prince Mametkul ... is standing on the Vagayu River ... Ermak (option: with comrades) is the ambassador of some of his young and skillful comrades in military affairs ... ”(p. 138-139 ).
Only two episodes in the annals tell about Yermak separately from the squad. First of all, this is a story about the death of Yermak, when the Cossacks were killed and he was left alone: ​​“Yermak, when you see your soldiers from the filthy beaten and have no form of help for your stomach, and run into your plow and cannot reach, I’m more clothed [without] iron, I’ll sail away from the shore with a plow, and I didn’t reach the drowning ... ”(p. 148). The circumstances of Yermak's death are described in the same way in all Siberian chronicles (regardless of their stylistic design); in all likelihood, this description is true or reflects a well-established folk legend. In addition to this story, Yermak speaks independently only in the episode that tells about the reception of Prince Mametkul. Here he is depicted as the full-fledged ruler of Siberia, the plenipotentiary representative of the Russian state; this circumstance is especially emphasized by the fact that the story about Mametkul follows the chapter about the embassy of the Cossacks to the tsar and about the royal award to Yermak: “... having brought this (Mametkul. - E.R.) to the city to Yermak with his comrades. Yermak is pleased with this, he will tell him the royal great salary and pleases him with kind words ”(p. 139).
Throughout the story, Esipov never once gives the author's characterization of Yermak. Even after the death of Yermak, there is no “commendation” usual in these cases. The author's assessment is given only to the actions of the Cossack detachment as a whole; not only Yermak, but the whole detachment is depicted as an instrument of God in the fight against the infidels: “God is chosen not from a glorious man, the royal command of the governor, and arm the ataman Yermak Timofeev’s son and with him 540 people with glory and combat. Forgetting this light of this honor and glory, but death [into] your stomach, accepting the shield of the true faith and asserting yourself courageously and showing courage before the wicked, not grieving for the vain, sweet and peaceful life, rejecting the cruel and shaven deed, weapons and you will love shields, not giving rest to your fears, nor to the apples of slumber, until God, by the help of God, has given [overcoming] to the accursed busormen ... ”(p. 122-123). And in this case, as we see, Yermak is inseparable from the squad.
Esipov's portrayal of the positive hero fully complies with the principles of the "monumental historicism" style that characterizes the ancient Russian chronicles. The hero of the chronicle is always a representative of "a certain environment, a certain step in the ladder of feudal relations" ( Likhachev D.S. Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus'. M., 1970. S. 28 ); in the same way, Yermak in the Esipov Chronicle personifies the estate of the Cossacks - that is why for the author he is inseparable from the squad. One might think that in such a unity of the leader and subordinates, the peculiar democratism of the Cossack "circle", which elects chieftains and preaches the equality of its members, is reflected; this democratism can be traced in the works created in the Cossack environment, for example, in the stories about the Azov capture and sitting. However, there is no reason to talk about Esipov's attention to the democratic traditions of Cossack literature. His work, on the other hand, is strictly official; the difference between the Esipov (official) and democratic (folklore) assessments of Yermak's campaign was convincingly shown by N.A. Dvoretskaya in a special article ( Dvoretskaya N.A. Official and folklore assessment of Yermak's campaign in the 17th century. // TODRL. M.; L., 1958. T. 14. S. 330-334).
The official nature of the image of a positive hero (primarily a prince) is also characteristic of ancient chronicles. The chronicler is not interested in the private life of a person, the traits of his character. The basis of the characteristic is not the personality of the hero, not his individuality, but his actions, actions, deeds. The person himself, as it were, dissolves in the description of these actions, the personality is obscured by great historical events. Following this principle, Esipov tells only about the actions of the entire detachment of Cossacks, their campaigns, battles, clashes with local residents. We will not find any portraits or psychological characteristics Cossacks and Yermak. It is possible that Esipov's diligent silence about the private life of the Cossack detachment (he does not even have those details that we find in other Siberian chronicles - Stroganovskaya and Remezovskaya) is connected precisely with the official assessment of the campaign and the image of Yermak; otherwise, details of the democratic characterization of the hero would certainly have penetrated into the chronicle, which happened in the widespread edition of the Esipov Chronicle.
The absence of a “commendatory word” to Yermak after the story of his death is hardly connected with the content of the sources of the Esipov Chronicle. The posthumous praise of the princes in the annals rarely reflected the actual character traits of the hero and were, in fact, the result of a purely literary creativity. Their authors did not need special historical sources, using as a model firmly established stylistic canons ( Eremin I.P. Kyiv Chronicle. \\ Literature of Ancient Rus'. pp. 114-123). Thus, Esipov's refusal to "praise" Yermak is not connected with the content of his source, but with a certain literary manner. Most likely, in this case, Esipov followed the tradition of Novgorod chronicle writing, for which praise of the princes is not typical ( Likhachev D.S. Man ... S. 58-59).
The “praise” to the princes in the annals is distinguished by “hagiographic stylization” and most clearly testifies to the penetration into the annals of the “hagiographic style” ( Eremin I.P. Kyiv Chronicle... S. 114-123; Adrianov-Perets V.P. Tasks of studying the "hagiographic style" of Ancient Rus' // TODRL. T. 20. S. 41-46). Having considered the possible connections of the Esipov Chronicle with hagiographic literature, we can verify the opinion of S.V. Bakhrushin that "Esipov's work met the need for a literary composition of the life of the new patron of the Siberian Department" ( Bakhrushin S.V. Essays on the history of the colonization of Siberia in the 17th and 17th centuries. \\ Scientific works. T 3, part 1. S. 29; Andreev A.I. Essays on the source study of Siberia. M.-L., 1960. Issue. 1. XVII century. S. 218). His statement about the closeness of Esipov's image of Yermak to hagiographic literature is apparently based on the assessment already given by the author to the entire detachment of Cossacks, God's "tool" in the fight against infidels. It is really connected with hagiographic literature, but not with the hagiographic genre, but with the Synodic, from which it is borrowed.

In contrast to the image of Yermak, "dissolving" in the actions of the entire Cossack detachment, the image of Kuchum appears much more clearly in the Esipov Chronicle. Here you can see the author's attempt to psychologically explain his bad deeds; attention to the motives of the enemy’s actions is also characteristic of the style of “monumental historicism”, while a limited set of human qualities acts as “reasons”: pride, envy, ambition, greed ( Likhachev D.S. Man ... S. 37).
Kuchum in the Esipov Chronicle, like the Tatar khans in ancient Russian historical stories (Tokhtamysh, Batu, Mamai, etc.), is first of all a “proud king”: “Tsar Kuchum, Murtazeev’s son, came along the steppe and the Cossack hordes, with many military people , and reached the city of Siberia and took the city and killed the princes Yetiger and Bekbulat and called him the Siberian king. And thou shalt make many tongues to thyself, and exalted thyself in thought, and for this sake perish, according to him that says: The Lord opposes the proud, gives grace to the humble” (p. 117-118). It is precisely this feature that the author emphasizes throughout the entire work: “... they are more cursed with rage, preying on them and proud of more than a centaur and like Antey” (p. 124).
If Yermak is one with his retinue, then Kuchum, on the contrary, is always depicted separately from those close to him. It is impossible to specify a single combination of "Kuchum and the Tatars" similar to the already cited combination of "Yermak with comrades." The verbs describing the actions of Kuchum are always in the singular, even in cases where it is not his personal act that is meant, but the deeds of the Tatar detachment: be offended green and pack your thought offers, soon sends to all his power, so that troops of people would go to him in the city of Siberia ... Ambassador and the king of his son Mamet-kul with many warriors and command... I will mark the river Irtish near Chuvashev ... ”(p. 126); "Tsar Kuchum form their fall, out with many people [and one hundred] on a high place on the mountain...” (p. 128); "Whenever defeated quickly King Kuchum and running out of the city and out of his kingdom into the field and doide And gain place and one hundred the one with the rest of the people ... Once upon a time encroach on go and sobra the rest of the howl, how fast, and poide to Siberia ... not many villages of Agarian captive And running, where stay. It was told in the city of Tobolsk, like King Kuchum captive the Totar villages, and the Russians howled and drove after him ... ”(p. 159-160); "Tsar Kuchum leak not with many people doide to his ulus and the rest of the people taken And idea sneak into the Kolmyk land and uluses, and peeping herds of horses and attackers, otgna"(p. 160).
This "isolation" of Kuchum, which began with his pride and exaltation, over time turns into complete loneliness as, after the Russian victories, his former allies leave him. Already on the fourth day after the capture of the city of Siberia, the Ostyak prince Boyar brought tribute to Yermak (pp. 134-135), then the Duma Karacha departed from him (pp. 140-141); finally, Kuchum dies at the hands of his former allies, the Nagai, who declare to him: “Like a Russian howl they will know, like you were here, and they will do the same to us, as well as to you” (p. 161). Loneliness, impotence, an inglorious death constitute the punishment of the proud king - a punishment that began with the arrival of the Cossack detachment. It is interesting to note that the increasing loneliness of Kuchum is similar in situation to the position of the shaman Pam in the Life of Stefan of Perm: having been defeated in a competition with Stefan of Perm, Pam was abandoned by his compatriots who had converted to a new faith.
A distinctive feature of the image of Kuchum in the Esipov Chronicle is the "weeping" attributed to him by the author. So, having heard about the departure of duma Karachi, the tsar “cryed with a great cry and said: God will not have mercy on him, and his friends leave him and be like enemies” (p. 140-141). Kuchum’s “lamentations” after the Russian victory near Chuvashev are much larger in volume: “Tsar Kuchum saw [the kingdom] his deprivation, saying to those who dry with him: Let’s run without delay, we ourselves see all the deprivation; the strength of the exhausted, the brave beating of the former. Oh grief! oh dear to me, alas, alas! What will I do and I will run away! Cover my face with fear! Who will defeat me and in vain me from the kingdom of exile? From ordinary people Yermak did not come with many and do a bit of evil, beat me howling, shame me. And that, lawless, do not know that for the sake of their children, their parents guard the ovo with fire, the ovo smoothness and nakedness, and from the beast to the livestock to be devoured. Lawless, for your filth, God does not even see you, and someone else's disease has turned on your head, and your iniquity is on your bottom! So he himself spoke to this river, to which he said: Behold, I won the princes Etiger and Bekbulat in the city of Siberia and acquired much wealth; but I came and conquered, sent from no one, but self-proclaimed I came for self-interest and greatness ”(pp. 131-133).
Lyroepic laments were widespread in ancient Russian literature ( Adrianov-Perets V.P. Essays poetic style Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1947). Diverse in content, they are used in style artistic techniques biblical lamentations and oral lamentations. "Laments" of Kuchum in the Esipov Chronicle have been preserved only individual elements typical style - emotional exclamations (“Oh woe! about the cruelty to me, alas, alas!”), rhetorical exclamations and questions (“What will I do and how will I run! Cover my face with strait! Who will defeat me and in vain me from the kingdom of exile?”) . For the rest, these are actually not “crying”, but the hero’s speeches, characteristic of the expressive-emotional style. As shown by D.S. Likhachev on the example of the Life of Stefan of Perm, such speeches are abstract, bookish, devoid of "speech characteristics"; they do not differ in style from the author's speech ( Likhachev D.S. Man ... S. 89-90). Esipov, for example, is not embarrassed by the fact that the Mohammedan Kuchum not only appeals to the authority of the Christian God (“God will not have mercy on him, and friends leave him in love ...”; “...for your filth, God does not even see you”) , but even quotes from the Psalter: "... and the whiteness of another's turned on your head, and your iniquity is on your side" (Ps. 7, 17). Kuchum's speeches actually express the author's characterization and assessment of the hero, so here there is a mixture of pronouns and verbs in the first, second and third person ("Ermak ... howling my beat, me put to shame. And that lawless, don't know that even the children of their parents for the sake of guarding it with fire, its smoothness and nakedness ... Lawless for filth yours not even though God cha see...”), indicating a mixture of authorial and direct speech.
It is interesting to note that this characterization speech emphasizes not only the “pride” (greatness) of Kuchum, but also his “self-interest”: “... self-proclaimed came for self-interest and greatness.” But in general, the image of Kuchum in Esipov's work is associated with a widespread literary motif about the king punished for pride. This motif is very often found in Russian historical works that tell about the struggle against the Gentiles, especially the Tatars. It is present in the stories about Batu, about Temir-Aksak and is most clearly seen in the Legend of the Battle of Mamaev.
The Synod for the Yermakov Cossacks, which served as a source for the Esipov Chronicle, does not develop the theme of the proud tsar in opposition to Yermak and the tsar's governors. True, one can see its foundations in the definition of Kuchum as the “Busorman king” (p. 164), since “pride” is one of the main qualities of pagans who are not enlightened by Christianity; however, such a development and dissemination of faint hints of the monument may lead too far. Most likely, the basis of this opposition in the Synodic was its connection with the hagiographic genres of ancient Russian literature, where it is not uncommon to find exaltation of someone “from ordinary people”, especially in connection with the opposition to a pagan tsar.
It is possible that the glorification of the commoner Yermak in the church monument (Synodika) was in tune with the general direction of the Russian church in the 16th - early 17th centuries, when, for example, many holy fools were canonized (Basil the Blessed, Mikhail Klopsky, Procopius of Ustyug, etc.). As I.U. Budovnits, the canonization of holy fools revered by the people, who were persecuted and ridiculed during their lifetime (the only exception is Mikhail Klopsky), reflected an attempt by the official church to ideologically influence the masses during the period of extreme aggravation of the class struggle within Russian society: in this way, on the one hand, a concession was made popular opinion, which saw the foolish accusers of the rich and fighters for social justice; on the other hand, “the clergy countered violent actions with the idea of ​​patience, humility and forgiveness, embodied in the exploits of holy fools” ( Budovnits I.U. Holy fools of Ancient Rus' // Vopr. history of religion and atheism. M., 1964. Sat. 12. S. 192) . At the same time, only the ancient holy fools were canonized, whom contemporaries of canonization knew only from legends and traditions; they could be attributed to any feats of piety and those character traits that were important for official propaganda.
In the church commemoration of Yermak, traces of the same trend can be noted. His glorification was possible only 40-50 years after his death; if during his lifetime he was an “outcast” of Russian feudal society, a state criminal who was threatened with execution if caught, then after a few decades the official church found it possible to glorify him as a Christian hero. This, as in the examples of the canonization of holy fools, is connected with the popularity of Yermak among the broad masses of the people, especially in Siberia; in addition, by recognizing and glorifying Yermak as a bearer of Christian virtues, official propaganda sought to neutralize his fame as a fighter against the feudal elites and the rich (See for more details: Dvoretskaya N.A. Official and folklore assessment...). It was not possible to do this before, while his comrades-in-arms and contemporaries were alive, who knew the true face of the Cossack chieftain.

The Esipov Chronicle, like most Russian chronicles of the most ancient type, combines several stylistic plans: specific stories about Yermak's campaign and about the pre-Russian history of Siberia; descriptions of the battles between Russians and Tatars, approaching military stories; rhetorical digressions with a general assessment of events. The style of each such passage, as in any polymorphic genre, is determined not so much by the genre of the work as a whole, but by the purpose and objectives of a separate story.
The stories about Yermak's campaign, and especially about pre-Russian Siberia, in their type approach the simplest form of chronicle narration - the "weather record" with its characteristic external features - brevity and emphasized documentary presentation. (Eremin I.P. Kyiv Chronicle... S. 98-102).
Esipov defines the sphere of use of short documentary records quite clearly. First of all, these are stories about the history of Siberia before the arrival of the Russians - the part that talks about the old rulers of the country: "[According to him] (Taibuga. - E.R.) his son Khoja reigned; according to this Hodgin son of Map. [Mar's children Ader and] Yabalak. Prince Mar, however, was married to the sister of the Kazan king Upak... The Marov children Ader and Yabalak died a natural death” (p. 115); “According to Prince Mamet, Yabalakov’s son Agish reigned in Siberia; according to him, Mametov's son Kazym, according to him Kazymov's children Etiger, Bekbulat; Bekbulatov [son] Seydyak” (p. 117). The mention of any of the listed Siberian princes can, on occasion, grow into a separate “annalistic story” (in the terminology of I.P. Eremin), if new information of any origin is found. As an example of how Esipov uses, without missing out, the facts that have come down to him, we can cite the story of the accession of Genghis and Taibuti (pp. 113-114).
Esipov tries to include in his essay any information available to him. In the story, elements of oral folk tradition are felt (the royal son saved from murder; his further exaltation and accession; the folklore nature of the speech of King Genghis, etc.) and along with them the exact geographical timing of the scene (“... now on this place city of Tyumen). Thereby short message type of weather record develops in Esipov into a chronicle story, also documentary in style of presentation, but using the folk-epic tradition.
The second group of brief articles such as weather records is made up of news about official events after the arrival of the Russians in Siberia, mainly related to the activities of the tsarist governors: Set up the city of Tyumen, which used to be the city of Chingii, and set up houses for yourself, and erect churches as a refuge for yourself and other Orthodox Christians ”(pp. 153-154); “In the summer of 7095, under the power of the pious sovereign of the tsar and Grand Duke Feodor Ivanovich of the weight of Russia and by his royal will, the sovereign governor Danilo Chyulkov was sent from Moscow with many military people. At the command of the sovereign, reach the Irtysh River, from the city of Siberia to spot a field; deign to enlighten that place in glorification to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: instead of this reigning city, Siberia is numbered; the elder was this city of Tobolsk, because that victory and overcoming the accursed busormen was, moreover, instead of the reigning city, Siberia was counted ”(pp. 154-155).
The passage about the founding of Tobolsk is lengthy compared to others, but the increase in text in this case comes from the use of the terminology of official documents. In essence, the type of message does not change - it speaks of the arrival of voivode Danila Chulkov in Siberia and the founding of the city of Tobolsk. It was records similar to the second group that served as the basis for the later continuation of the Esipov Chronicle - primarily for the Description of the cities and prisons of Siberia, which consists entirely of reports on Siberian governors (lists are given by city) and on the founding of new cities. It is possible that the Description was drawn up largely from authentic weather records.
The stories about Yermak's campaign are distinguished by brevity, conciseness, minimal means of embellishing speech, and a business style of presentation close to the style of documents; all these features are quite consistent with the type of chronicle narrative, which is defined by the term "chronicle story" ( Eremin I.P. Kyiv Chronicle... S. 102-114) .
As an example, we can cite such stories of the Esipov Chronicle as “On the murder of Cossacks from the Totars” (p. 135-136), about the murder of Cossacks “from the wicked Karachi” (p. 144-145), “On the capture of Prince Seydyak and Tsarevich Kazachya the hordes of Saltan and Karachi and the killing of others” (p. 155-158).
They describe events in their natural sequence, that is, in the one that seems natural to the author of the work. The facts do not move in time, their alternation in the annals corresponds to how they followed each other in reality. In some cases, real facts can be combined with facts of obviously folklore origin - with oral folk tradition. So, the whole story about the capture of Seydyak, which tells about a real event, is built on folklore motifs; First of all, the plot structure of the article is connected with folklore - the story of captivity develops into a fairy tale motif about defeating the enemy with the help of cunning. Folklore motifs can be seen in the fact that there are three Tatar leaders (although in this case this is a real fact), in testing them three times with a cup of wine and in the nature of the voivode's speeches; the very belief that someone who chokes on a cup thinks evil at the owner is connected with folk omens and beliefs.
In these passages, only two elements can be noted that “decorate” the narrative: epithets and comparisons.
The main feature of S. Esipov's epithets is their inherent shade of moral assessment. Thus, the term "nasty", as we have already said, is used by Esipov only when he regards the Siberian peoples as enemies of the Russians - during battles (but not during their preparation), - or in official church formulations. Other epithets in the Esipov Chronicle have the same character of a concrete moral assessment. The mention of Karach in the story of the death of the Cossacks is accompanied by the epithet "impious"; this epithet appears only in the second part of the story, after pointing out the fact of the betrayal of the Tatars, but here it acquires a connotation of permanent. In the first part of the story, only the epithets for the word "shredding" ("godless and crafty"), as it were, predict future misfortune, prepare the reader for it; at the same time, they also have an evaluative-moralistic character.
Other cases of the use of evaluative epithets are also always associated with Esipov with a specific assessment of a person and event related to the present moment. For example, the epithet "cursed" is used in relation to the Tatars mainly at the end of the stories about the battle, when after the end of the battle the Russians continue to drive the enemy: cursed Busorman, God's wrath has come upon us for their iniquity and idolatry...” (p. 131); after the battle of Chuvashev, the Cossacks “went to the city to Siberia without fear ... and did not hear in the city either a voice or obedience, but before that they always hid in the city damnation“(p. 134). The epithet "wicked" ("wicked") is also used in relation to the Tatars only in stories about battles, when the Tatars act as enemies of the Russians: beating a lot the wicked Totar ... the rest of the Totar scattered apart ”(p. 146); “... left in the city of Siberia, seeing, like a mentor (Ermak. - E.R.) wicked Totar killed ... and was afraid to live in the city ... "(p. 149). It is characteristic that in the first example, the “impious” Tatars are beaten, the rest are said to be “other Totarov”.
Based on these observations, we can conclude that the epithets "filthy", "cursed", etc. are far from always constant even in relation to "infidels": their use largely depends on overall assessment events and context. (It is possible that in many cases the use of epithets of this type was determined not so much by the author's intention as by traditional "literary formulas", which we will talk about later). Recently, the conclusion about the relative “permanence” of epithets even in oral folk art was made by A.P. Evgenieva as a result of the analysis of northern lamentations ( Evgenyeva A.P. Essays on the language of Russian oral poetry in the records of the 17th-20th centuries. M.; L., 1963. S. 298-314); according to her observations, the permanent or non-permanent nature of the epithet in folklore is determined by the genre, theme, task of the work, i.e., by the same factors as in our monument.
Another type of constant epithets, which can be noted in the Esipov Chronicle, is fixed with certain nouns under the influence of a long written tradition, often turning a noun with an epithet into a term. Thus, the constant epithet in relation to the Ob River in the Esipov Chronicle is the word "great" : “.... this same Irtish river, we get tired in our great the river, verbally Ob” (p. 111); “... came under the town a lot of Ostyaks living along great Ob and along the Irtish...” (p. 152). It is possible that the combination "great Ob" already in the first half of the 17th century. becomes a term - just such a combination, for example, is constantly used in the Book of the Big Drawing, dating from 1627: “The river Great Ob fell into the sea, in the early summer dawn, and flows from the Bukhara land on the right side " (Book Big Drawing. / Prep. for publication and editing. K.N. Serbina. M.; L., 1950. S. 168).
A number of constant epithets in the Esipov Chronicle are connected by origin with the terminology of royal letters. Thus, the subjugation of the Siberian peoples is defined by the term “bring under the arm”, which is accompanied by constant epithets “royal” and “high”: “... under his royal high hand they brought many foreigners living there ... and to their shert according to their faith they brought many that were under his royal high hand to the eyelids ... ”(p. 136-137). Royal title ("king and Grand Duke”) may be accompanied in the annals by the constant epithet “pious”: “ ...pious Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilievich of all Russia, departed to the Lord for eternal rest; upon his own death, he commanded to raise his son Theodore Ivanovich to his royal throne pious Tsar and Grand Duke, Autocrat of All Russia” (p. 143).
A number of epithets in the Esipov Chronicle are of book origin and became permanent precisely as a result of a long written tradition in their book version; meaning combinations such as righteous prayer" (p. 136), " blissful Moses” (p. 120), etc.

Savva Esipov uses two types of artistic comparisons in his chronicle.
The most elementary comparisons are those that do not carry a qualitative assessment of the compared objects, but only clarify and explain their properties. They do not require special explanations in the form of whole artistic pictures, which is typical for metaphors-symbols, and are accessible to the most inexperienced reader: robber, with others…” (p. 113); “... the same kingdoms of Russia and the Siberian lands are surrounded by Stone (Ural. - E. R.) the most exalted one, as if reaching [beyond] this hill with a frost to the clouds of heaven ... like a wall to the city is approved "(p. 108-109); “I heard it was in the city, as if these warriors beat the bysh from the wicked Karachi, Yermak and the Cossacks ... weep for many hours, like about their children "(p. 144-145); “And yet we understand God’s Fatherly care for him, he also cares for us and covers us, like a bird of its own chick"(p. 121).
In some cases, these comparisons can acquire the meaning of symbols in characterizing the activity of higher divine powers; however, even in last example when the object of comparison is God, it does not lose its real basis; "bird" in this case represents a specific example of maternal or, rather, paternal care, which is also emphasized by the epithet "God's paternal his care"; however, the mention of God the Father also corresponds to the Christian dogma of the Trinity, which apparently determines the comparison with paternal care.
Another type is represented by metaphorical comparisons (we call such comparisons “metaphorical”, since in ancient Russian monuments the comparison of objects according to one traditional feature can be made in the form of comparisons and in the form of metaphors. Compare in the Tale of Tara and Tyumen: filthy, “like an animal divi” , but: God "do not let the wild beast"), the source of which is most often the images of animals. As a rule, they give a qualitative assessment of the subject; the figurative meaning in them is reinforced by a long literary tradition, and in some cases is supported by the poetics of folklore.
The enemies of the Cossacks, acting on the sly, in the Esipov Chronicle are compared with snakes and with a viper: snakes they will grab repentance” (p. 133); “... and command them to speak to Prince Seydyak, so that he would come to the city to advise on a peaceful setting, for he still exists like a echidna breathing on Orthodox Christians and not submitting, but like snakes grab it though” (p. 156).
Such a comparison corresponds to the ancient literary tradition: following the Bible, where the serpent is the culprit of the fall of Adam and Eve, its image began to symbolize cunning, deceit and any deceit in medieval literature; usually a cunning and at the same time terrible enemy is compared with a snake ( Adrianov-Perets V.P. Essays ... S. 94). In ancient Russian monuments, first of all, the enemies of Orthodoxy are compared with snakes - pagan kings (Chronograph, Torment of George), Tatars who come to Rus' with a war - Ulu-Mahmet, Mamai ( Orlov A.S. On the peculiarities of the form of Russian military stories (ending in the 17th century). M., 1902. S. 31-32) . “These, O Lord, come closer like a snake the accursed Mamai, the wicked raw-eater, dared to the peasantry ... ".
If the serpent personifies deceit, then the echidna is an image of cruelty and malice. This is how it is interpreted in the Physiologist, in this sense Ivan the Terrible used this comparison in his messages to Kurbsky ( Adrianov-Perets V.P. Essays ... S. 92). Mamai, going to Rus', is compared with a viper: “What is the great savagery of Mamayevo? like some kind of echidna, sprinkling, having come from a certain desert, devour us desires " (Tale about the Battle of Kulikovo. M., 1959. S. 33-34).
Comparison of Tatar enemies with snakes and echidna in the Esipov Chronicle is fully consistent with the literary tradition, retaining the same qualitative assessment of the compared subject. In addition, they are directly related to the same or close verbs: “like snakes uhapiti "- cf. “like to swallow snakes” (New story); "like echidna breathe"- cf. “like a viper snake breathing fire” (The Tale of I.M. Katyrev-Rostovsky), “like a snake, breathing” (New Tale), “like some kind of echidna whistling”, “like an insatiable viper breathing with anger” (The Legend of the Mamaev Massacre). Expressions like “breathing (breathing) with anger (fire, rage, malice)” are found in military stories on their own, without comparison with a viper or a serpent” ( Orlov A.S. On the features ... S. 31); see, for example, in the Tale of the devastation of Ryazan by Batu: “The accursed Batu will die with fire from his mersk heart” ( Military story ... S. 12).
In accordance with the traditional understanding of the "serpent" as a symbol of infidelity, in historical stories the combination "serpent's nest" is used to designate the land of enemies. Under the direct influence of the Tale of Constantinople by Nestor-Iskander, a legend about the founding of Kazan was born, with which A.S. Orlov connects the expression "serpent's nest", used by the author of the Kazan history in relation to the Kazan kingdom (Kazan history ... S. 47, 75; Orlov A.S. On some features of the style of the Great Russian historical fiction of the XVI-XVH centuries. // IORYAS. 1908. Vol. 13, book. 4. S. 350-351). In accordance with the same tradition, the Cossacks in the Tale of the Azov Seat call the Turkish Azov "serpent's nest": "... we ruined serpent's nest, they took the city of Azov, - we beat all the Christian tormentors and idolaters in it ” (Military story ... S. 76); in turn, the Turks also call the Cossacks "serpents", and Azov taken by them - "serpent's nest".
Esipov, on the other hand, defines the enemy land through the image of a beast, and not a snake: “God sent to clear the place and defeat the Busorman king Kuchum and ruin the Mersky gods and their unholy temples, but also life fire by the beast and the placement of Sirin "(p. 122, the same - Synodik, p. 164). The comparison of enemies with beasts is characteristic above all of hagiographic literature; in contrast to it, in historical writings, such a comparison can refer to both enemies and goodies ”(Orlov A.S. On features ... S. 28-30).
In this case, talking about the influence historical literature S. Esipov, apparently, does not have to: he borrowed this image directly from the main source, Synodik, the style of which meets the requirements of hagiographic monuments.
Our observations on the genre and artistic specificity The Esipov Chronicle allows us to conclude that this monument is typologically close to the early Russian chronicle writing of the 11th-13th centuries, the period when the chronicle was formed and affirmed as literary genre. The similarity of the Esipovskaya chronicle with the stories, noted by a number of researchers, can be explained primarily by the fact that it was written by one person and is an author's work - in contrast to the oldest chronicles that have survived to our time only as part of chronicle collections. In fact, the Esipov Chronicle reflects that First stage Siberian annals, when the early (author's) chronicle had not yet had time to fully become a chronicle code.