The article is devoted to protoscientific concepts of ethnogenesis and early history of the peoples of Eurasia-Russians, Muscovites, Bulgars, Vandals, Goths, Polovtsians, Pechenegs, Hungarians and Tatars-created by Polish historians of the 16th century. These concepts, which summarized the rich experience of developing ethnographic knowledge in antiquity and the Middle Ages, allowed European Renaissance intellectuals to get an idea of the evolution of the ethnic map of Eurasia, determine the areas of settlement of the peoples of this region, the directions of their migration, the nature of interethnic relations, as well as identify the specifics of language, culture and life, features of political and social organization.

Keywords: Poland, Renaissance, chronicle, ethnogenesis, Eastern Slavs, Bulgars, Vandals, Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Hungarians, Tatars.

The proto-scientific works of Polish authors created at the turn of the Middle Ages and Modern times have gained a reputation in European intellectual circles as the most competent source of information about the past and present of the peoples of Eurasia. Acting in line with the advanced trends in the development of humanitarian knowledge characteristic of the Renaissance, scientists sought to understand complex ethnic processes by putting forward hypotheses that allowed them to highlight the origin of ethnic groups in this region, determine their places of settlement, migration directions, the nature of interethnic relations, as well as identify the specifics of language, culture and life, political and social features. organizations. The research of the authors of Polish historical works of the Renaissance was based on the rich experience of the development of historiography of antiquity and the Middle Ages - the Biblical tradition, the works of outstanding writers of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, the Middle East, Byzantium, as well as Old Russian chronicles and Western European annals.

The problems of the ethnic history of Eurasia are reflected in the works of Matvei Mehovsky, Martin Kromer, Marcin Velsky, Maciej Stryjkovski and Alexander Guagnini published in Latin and Polish. All of them were adherents of the so-called Sarmatian theory, in which the ancient Slavs were identified with the Sarmatian superethnos, and the ethnogeographic concept of "Sarmatia" acquired a special cultural and historical significance-it became a universal marker of the territory located on the border of Europe and Asia. The territorial framework of Sarmatia in the views of these authors was much wider than the area of settlement of Sarmatian tribes described in the writings of ancient writers. While" classical " Sarmatia was located in the Northern Black Sea region, Polish scientists extended its borders to the Carpathians, the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Ocean, the banks of the Volga and Don (Ulewicz, 1950). This vast territory was divided by them into two zones: European and Asian. This division was first justified in the" Treatise on two Sarmatians " by M. Mekhovsky, published in Latin in 1517.-

The article was prepared during the author's internship at the Center for the Study of Ancient Tradition at the Artes Liberales Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Warsaw.

page 92
Pei Sarmatia was inhabited mainly by Christian peoples - Lithuanians, Russians and Muscovites, while Asian Sarmatia was inhabited by "barbarian" Tatar tribes. The author calls the Volga and Tanais (Don) rivers the borders of two Sarmatians (Mekhovsky, 1936, p. 47, 61). Mechowski's treatise marked the beginning of the study in Renaissance Poland of the history of the peoples of Eurasia, among which the greatest attention was paid to the Russians and Muscovites.

Key to the" Sarmatian theory "of Polish Renaissance historiography was the belief that the" Russian peoples " were descended directly from the Sarmatians. Doubting the authenticity of the ethnogenetic legend widely spread in medieval chronography, which derived the Russians from their" first ancestor "Rus (brother or descendant of the Czechs 'and Poles' progenitors Czech and Lech), the authors of Polish historical works of the second half of the XVI century, among which M. Kromer enjoyed the greatest authority, put forward and justified an alternative hypothesis. According to their ideas, the ancient ancestors of the Russian people were the Sarmatian Roxolani tribes mentioned in the writings of Ptolemy, Tacitus, Pliny and a number of other ancient writers; this name was eventually transformed into the name "Russ" (Cromer, 1555, p. 17). An additional proof of the reliability of their conclusions, the authors considered the approximate similarity of the area of settlement of modern "Russ" and ancient Roksolans. Such a close attention to this issue in the Polish tradition of historical representations is not accidental: the" Sarmatian " genesis of the Russian people was also prestigious for other Slavs (in vol.ch. polyakov), because it made it possible to significantly "age" their history. On the one hand, it made it possible to "enter" the Slavs through the eponym of the Sarmatians, a descendant of the Old Testament Sim Asarmot/The Sarmatians were included in the biblical genealogy [Stryjkowski, 1582, p. 91], and on the other hand, he extended to them the valor of the warlike Sarmatians, who at one time opposed the powerful Roman Empire and other states of the ancient world [Bielski, 1551, 1. 35-35 v.].

A similar technique of proof was used to justify the antiquity of the origin of the Muscovites. Their name was associated with numerous variations of the ethnonym denoting the people who inhabited ancient Cappadocia - Moskov/ Moskhin/Modok/Amaksobit-references to which were discovered by Polish historians in the works of Ptolemy, Josephus, Pliny and Strabo [Cromer, 1555, p. 15], and also derived from the name of the Old Testament Mosoch [Bielski, 1564, 1. 6 v.], which made it possible to directly connect the Slavic peoples with the" forefather " Noah through Japheth.

Despite the cultural and historical prestige of the" Sarmatian "and" Mosokhov " hypotheses that explained the origin of the Eastern Slavs, these ethnogenetic constructions were characterized by a general constructive flaw due to the fact that the genealogy "from Mosokha" in the framework of the biblical genealogy was not combined with the Sarmatian eponymic legend (the Slavic-Sarmatian eponym Asarmot was a descendant of the Old Testament Sim, i.e., it was only indirectly related to the genus Japhet and Mosoch). Thus, Polish Renaissance historians were forced to reconcile these two mutually exclusive theories.

It should be noted that this problem was not immediately recognized. Thus, in the historical works of the 50s of the XVI century (early editions of the chronicles of M. Velsky and M. Kromer), both concepts are presented, but no comments on their mutual inconsistency are given. Only in the third edition of Kromer's work was an attempt made to explain the clear ethno-cultural unity of the East Slavic peoples by the fact that the Moskhs "due to their close proximity" passed the name Roksolan, and then the original name was returned [Cromer, 1568, p.10]. Thus, according to the author, the Russians and Muscovites who originally had different origins due to living together on the same territory were united, which explains the inconsistency of these ethnogenetic hypotheses. M. Stryjkovsky, who agreed with the conclusion of M. Kromer, agreed with these hypotheses by directly including Mosokh and Sarmatians in the legendary plot. In his work, Sarmata is characterized as a" relative " of Mosokh on the grounds that they had a common head of the gentile hierarchy - Noah, and the relationship of these two eponyms is synchronized in time and space from the moment of the destruction of the Tower of Babel to their joint migration to the "northern countries" [Stryjkowski, 1582, p. 91]. Stryjkovsky tries to convince readers of his chronicle that the Slavs are related by blood to the "Moskh people", and by name - to the Sarmatian Roksolan tribe. And both variants of origin were acceptable and prestigious: The "Mosokhov" genesis was actualized within the framework of the parabiblical tradition, and the Roksolans-Sarmatians were mostly known from the writings of ancient historians. The achievement of such an important compromise allowed Strykovsky to consider as the ancient ancestors of the Slavs both the Moskhs (ethnonymically related to the Muscovites of his time) and the Roksolans (ethnonymically related to the "Russian people").

At the same time, it is not always possible to combine the "Moscow people" and the ancient Moskhs in the Renaissance

page 93
In his historical works, it had a positive focus. In particular, in the historical and geographical work "Sarmatiae Europeae Descriptio", the author of which was an Italian naturalized in Poland. This circumstance serves as a basis for comparing the Muscovites "because of the cruelty of morals" with the Turks and Arabs, i.e., with the help of historical arguments, the current ideas about them as a wild and tyrannical people are confirmed [Gwagnini, 1578, f. 47 v.].

Polish Renaissance scholars also paid attention to the history of a number of other peoples of Sarmatia - the Bulgars, Vandals, Goths, Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Hungarians and Tatars, information about which was borrowed from medieval sources, but interpreted by the authors of Renaissance historical works within the framework of original ethnogenetic constructions.

The question of the origin of the "Bulgarian people" was first raised in the "Chronicle of the Whole World" by M. Velsky. The author repeatedly calls the Bulgars "the people of the Slavic language" [Bielski, 1551, 1. 65, 75], he considers their ancient ancestral homeland to be the lands located "between Asia and Europe on both banks of the Tanais River, which we call the Volga", and connects the origin of the early ethnonym with its name [Ibid., 1. 79 v., 156]. Velsky writes that the Bulgars migrated from "great Bulgaria "" to the coast of the sea, which we call the Euxine Pont, and the White Lake, which we call the Meotian Lake or Lake Bicen... all the way to the Dnieper River." The author connects their subsequent migration to the Balkans with the era of the "great Caesar Justinian", describes the conquest of the provinces under his control by the Bulgarian Prince Derbal*, as a result of which the Bulgars settled "greater and lesser Mysia" and "called it Bulgaria after its paternal place" [Ibid., 1. 79 v.]. Velsky does not limit himself to stating the fact of Slavic origin and kinship of the Balkan and Volga Bulgars, he also claims that it was from them that the South Slavic peoples descended, who "occupied Bosnia, advanced far through Hungary, up to Dalmatia, Illyricum, and all the way to Istria" [Ibid.]. in the name of their people, the memory of their origin "from the Volga", according to the author's testimony, moved to Volhynia and is still called Volyntsy [Ibid., 1. 156].

It is important to note that this ethnogenetic hypothesis, which justified the Slavic origin of the Bulgars, was not widely used in Latin-language historical works - we find a response to it only in the work of M. Stryjkovsky, who, like M. Velsky, published his chronicle in Polish. Stryjkovsky reproduces with minor changes the description of the early ethnic history of the Bulgars presented by Velsky [Stryjkowski, 1582, s. 97 - 98, 100 - 101, 105], and confirms the authenticity of the main thesis about the origin of the Slavic-Bulgars from the Moscow lands by pointing out that "even now the prince of Moscow is written as the Bulgarian Gospodar" [Ibid., s. 97].

Velsky's hypothesis about the" Bulgarian " genesis of the Slavs did not contradict the "Sarmatian" theory. He repeatedly points out the common Slavic origin of the Slavic-Bulgars and the Slavic-Sarmatians (Roksolans), the approximate coincidence of their areas of settlement (common ancestral homeland), believing that discrepancies in names should be explained by the toponymic specifics of the specific area inhabited by these peoples.

Extremely contradictory information in Polish historical works of the Renaissance period is found about the origin and history of the vandals. They are given special attention due to the fact that it is this people that many medieval authors identified with the Poles (Vandal - the ancient name of the Vistula). Polish historians of the 16th century did not deny the territorial affiliation of the Vandals to the Sarmatian lands, but not all of them were ready to recognize the Sarmatian, and therefore Slavic, origin of this people.

M. Mekhovsky's treatise contains two mutually exclusive statements concerning vandals: on the one hand, the author writes that the vandals "came out of the Kingdom of Poland, received their names and nicknames from the Polish localities where they lived, and their language was Polish", and on the other, he calls them Germans, denies the ancestral connection of vandals with Poland. Sarmatians and Scythians [1936, p. 77].

M. Kromer categorically rejects the very idea of the relationship between Slavs and vandals, devotes an entire chapter of his chronicle to refuting such "conjectures", which has the characteristic title "Why Slavs are not vandals". He argues his conclusion with rationalistic arguments, in particular, writes that, according to ancient sources, the vandals used the German language, and also points to the" Germanic etymology " of the names of their princes [Cromer, 1555, p.9].

In the works of M. Velsky and M. Stryjkovski, on the contrary, vandals are included in the number of Slavic peoples, although there is a significant discrepancy in the opinions of different authors on this issue [Bielski, 1564, 1. 336 v.]. Velsky calls vandals

* Belsky refers to the Bulgarian Khan Tervel (reigned 702 - 718), a contemporary of Emperor Justinian. As a result of the agreement of these two monarchs, Tervel significantly expanded his possessions in the Balkans and received the title of Caesar.

page 94
"our people" and claims that they moved from their ancient ancestral homeland, located on the Tanais River, lakes Maeotis and Bicen, to the banks of the Vistula, "where we are now", and later came into contact with the Germans, which was the reason for the emergence of false, in the opinion of this historian, ideas about them German origin [Bielski, 1551, 1. 155 v-156]. Stryjkovsky mentions "Vandal peoples" among the ethnic groups that trace their origin "from the son of Japhet Mosokh" along with Sarmatian, Bulgarian, RUSSIAN, GOTHIC, POLISH, VOLHYNIAN and Czech, thereby verifying the Slavic roots of the Vandals [Stryjkowski, 1582, p. 109]. He also uses it when trying to slavize an old Russian dynastic legend, claiming that " Russians... from the Vagras or Varags and Vandalites [who originated] from their Slavic people, princes were chosen for themselves and handed over to them the supreme power over the Russian states " [Ibid., p.116]. Thus, vandals / vandalites add to the list of peoples who are "assigned" a Slavic origin with the intention of providing a heroic past to modern Slavs.

Among the ethnic groups of Sarmatia that were not considered Slavs by Polish Renaissance historians, the greatest attention was paid to the Goths, Polovtsians and Pechenegs, who, as a rule, were recognized as part of the same people, known by different names. For the first time, this version was put forward by Mekhovsky, who testified that " the Goths were called Polovtsians by their neighbors." He notes the similarity of the customs and way of life of the Goths and Polovtsians, in particular, points out that both of them "like hunting dogs, attacked neighboring peoples, oppressed and robbed them", and were also formidable rivals of "Roksolans, Ruthenians* and vandals", i.e. the ancient ancestors of the Slavs [Mekhovsky, 1936, pp. 68-69]. The author insists on the Eastern origin of the Goths, and does not mention the alternative hypothesis of the sixth-century Gothic historian, which is widely spread in the historical literature of his time. Jordan, who produced his people from Scandinavia. The main source of Mechowski's knowledge of the history of the Goths, most likely, was the chronicle of Paul the Deacon (720-799), according to which the Polish author reproduces in his treatise evidence of their stay in Asian Sarmatia, relations with the Byzantine Empire and the peoples of this region.

Followers of Mekhovsky did not doubt the Scandinavian origin of the Goths. Velsky writes that initially these people moved" in search of more fertile lands " to the south to the Pontic Sea and only then moved west to France, Germany, Italy and Spain [Bielski, 1551, 1. 63]. The author of the Chronicle of the Whole World was familiar with the work of Jordan, but he was skeptical about the description of the "deeds" of the Goths presented there, believing that the Gothic historian, who wanted to glorify his people, "attributed to him everything that was done both in Europe and in Asia, either by Tatars or Sarmatians" [Bielski, 1564, 1. 337].

Polish historians of the second half of the XVI century. Velsky, Kromer, and Stryikovsky agreed with Mekhovsky's opinion about the relationship between the Goths and Polovtsians, but they did not so clearly accept his ethnonymic hypothesis, according to which the name Polovtsians in the language of Russians and Muscovites means "predators and robbers" (Mekhovsky, 1936, p.68). Velsky considers the Polovtsians to be descendants of the Goths, along with the Prussians and Lithuanians, and, appealing to some "historians", identifies these peoples with the Gepids. He casually mentions the relocation of Polovtsians to the Black Sea regions, but does not name the region where they lived before. The ethnonym of the Polovtsian people, according to Velsky, is of Russian origin and is interpreted in two ways: on the one hand, it is made "from captivity, since Russia calls captivity full", on the other - it is associated with hunting, catching animals. According to a Polish historian, the Hungarians called this people Khums. This variant of the nomination is explained by the fact that the Polovtsians were "cronies" with Russia, i.e. they closely interacted [Bielski, 1551, 1. 177].

Kromer derived the Polovtsian ethnonym from the Slavic word "field", apparently based on the opinion of the Austrian diplomat Sigismund Herberstein, author of the famous" Notes on Muscovite Affairs " [Herberstein, 1551, p.86]. According to a Polish historian, the Polovtsians were so named by their neighbors, the Russians and Slavs, because they inhabited areas located "in the fields near Tanais and Lake Maeotia", just as the Poles got their name from the same word [Cromer, 1555, p.186-187]. Kromer was aware of some "alternative" names of the Polovtsian people: in the first edition of his chronicle, "Huns or Cumans" appear [Ibid., p. 186], and in the 1589 edition - "frags or fragii" [Cromer, 1589, p.128]. However, there is no explanation for the identification of Polovtsians and "Frags".

According to the ethnogenetic concept presented in Stryjkovski's chronicle, the Goths, Gepids, Polovtsians, Pechenegs, Lithuanians, Yatviags and Alans were all parts of the same "warlike and chivalrous people".-

* Rutheni - a form of Russian nominationism characteristic of medieval Latin-language chronography, later replaced by the ethnonymic term Russi (Karnaukhov, 2006, pp. 265-272).

page 95
of the Russian people". Relying on the potential of the parabiblical tradition, the historian calls the progenitor of this people "Togormu, the third son of Homer, the grandson of Japheth, the great-grandson of Noah." He writes about the division of the people into many tribes after the migration "from Assyria to the northern countries" and claims that some of them began to be called Cimmerians (as well as Kimerians or Tsymbras), and among others points out those who were called Goths, Gepids, Pevchins or Pechenegs and Polovtsians: they partially remained near the Black Sea and oz. The Maeotis partially moved further north and settled "in what is now Volhynia, Podolia, and Lithuania "(Stryjkowski, 1582, p. 24-25). As you can see, the Polish author relied on already proven concepts (for example, he was a proponent of the hypothesis about the "Gothic" origin of the Polovtsians). At the same time, the idea of the kinship of the Polovtsians and Pechenegs with the Balts is the result of independent ethnogenetic research by Stryjkovsky. It was justified in Chapter 8 of the 5th book of his work, where we find a description of the defeat of the Polovtsians by a coalition of Russian princes on the Sule River (1107), borrowed from the Latin chronicle of a Polish historian of the late 15th century. Jan Dlugoss [Dlugoss, 1615, p. 335], who, in turn, almost literally repeated the story of the Russian chronicler about these events. Stryjkovski reports that after the victory, the Russians drove the Polovtsians "all the way to Khorela". But since Dlugosz does not explicitly state what exactly "Chorela" is, Stryjkovski interpreted the place name at his own discretion.: "Khorela, or Korola, where the Rusaks beat the Polovtsians, is a land adjacent to Finland, in the north beyond Novgorod the Great, where the inhabitants speak Latvian and Igovsky, a language close to Lithuanian." Based on this false territorial connection, he concluded: "... the Polovtsians, who at that time lived in Korel, were one people with Lithuania." The author considered the fact that "even now the remnants of the Polovtsians are still mixed with Moscow to be a weighty proof of the correctness of the hypothesis put forward by him... they speak their old Polovtsian language, are subordinate to the Prince of Moscow, and Moscow calls them igovyans and Vosks" [Stryjkowski, 1582, s. 201-202].

Stryjkovsky attributed the appearance of the Polovtsians in the Northern Black Sea region to their migration "from north to east", after which the Polovtsian people occupied the lands "near Lake Meotis and Pontus Euxinus", settled "in the fields near the Tanais and Volga rivers and in Taurica", captured Mankop, Kirkel, Crimea, Azov, Kafu, Monkastrum, or Belgorod [Ibid., p. 186].

Polish historians of the 16th century paid considerable attention to the origin and early ethnic history of the Hungarians. This issue was actively discussed in the medieval and Renaissance historiography of Europe - authors of medieval annals, Hungarian chroniclers, as well as Renaissance historians Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, Julius Pomponius Let, Peter Ransan, etc. showed interest in it. Two points of view were expressed about the roots of the Hungarian people. As a rule, scientists identified the Hungarians with the Huns, and much less often there are assumptions about their "Scythian" origin. However, it was the "Scythian" hypothesis that was proved by Polish historians of the XVI century.

In the treatise of M. Mekhovsky, the ancient homeland of the Hungarian people is called Ugra - "the northernmost and coldest Scythian land near the Northern Ocean", which "is now subordinate to the Prince of Muscovy". It was from Ugra, according to the author's testimony, that the peoples who later came to be called "Gugni or Ungars" emerged; after greatly multiplying, they descended to the Euxine Sea, crossed the great rivers near the Maeotid marshes, and only then penetrated into Pannonia, where they remained. Mekhovsky also writes that during their wanderings they proved to be an aggressive people-they ousted the Goths from Scythia (Asian Sarmatia), defeated the Ruthenians in European Sarmatia [1936, p. 79, 118]. The main argument in favor of the authenticity of his ethnogenetic version, the author considers the similarity of the language of the inhabitants of Ugra and the Hungarians settled in Pannonia, explaining the small differences by the fact that"our Hungarians added some words from the Slavic dialect to denote things that are not present in Scythia and Ugra."

M. Kromer did not write about the origin and early ethnic history of the Hungarians. M. Velsky, although he addresses this issue (even devotes an independent section to the history of the Hungarian people "Chronicles of the whole world"), gives extremely contradictory data. Referring to the "Hungarian chronicles", the author draws the ancient population of modern Hungary-the Pannonians-from the eponym Bannon of the Sima family, whose descendants settled on the Danube and named their country after him Pannonia [Bielski, 1551, 1. 121 v.]. At the same time, he reports that due to the conquest of Pannonia in 410 by the "Tatar people of the Huns" who came from the northern countries, this land "from the Huns" received the name "Ugrians" and therefore is called Hungarian [Ibid., 1. 122]. Velsky only casually mentions the confrontation of the Huns, Goths and Slavs on the territory of Sarmatia, but, unlike Mekhovsky, does not connect the contemporary Hungarians with the peoples of Ugra.

* The chronicler was referring to the Khorol River (in the Russian source literally: "gnasha to Khorol"), which was located on the border of the Russian and Polovtsian lands (now the territory of the Poltava region. Ukraine).

page 96
M. Stryjkovski puts forward two contradictory hypotheses about the origin of the Hungarian people. According to the first one, which is generally focused on the concept of Mekhovsky, these people come from "Yugaria", which was subordinated to its power by "Grand Duke Ivan of Moscow" [Stryjkowski, 1582. s. 91]. However, unlike his predecessor, Stryjkovski considers the Hungarians, or "Khugrovs", to be descendants of the biblical Magog, the second eldest son of Japhet, and derives their ethnonym from the name of the river" Khugri, or Ugra", located in the Moscow state. A Polish historian also writes that after crossing the Volga, they defeated the "Goths or Polovtsians, the Lithuanian ancestors who lived on the Don," after which they captured Pannonia in 383, during the reign of Emperor Gratian, and in 428 chose the cruel warrior Attila as their king [Ibid., p. 14]. Stryjkovski essentially disavows the first hypothesis: without denying the connection of the Hungarians with Ugra, the Polish historian identifies them with the Huns and, using the traditional method of searching for analogies between ethnonyms and the names of Old Testament heroes, produces these peoples from the brothers "Hunnor and Mager, or Magor, the sons of Nemroth of Babylon", believing that Hunnor was the son of Nemroth of Babylon. their eponym [Ibid., s. 61-62].

No Polish Renaissance historian has ignored the question of the origin and early ethnic history of the Tatars. Interest in this topic was initially caused by the need to explain the reasons for the Tatar invasion of Russia, Poland and Hungary, to determine the role of the "Tatar factor" in regional international relations. In the 16th century, the "Tatar question" was constantly updated in the context of the confrontation between the Tatar hordes and the Christian states of Eastern Europe and the increasingly threatening expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

The shock of the 13th-century Tatar invasion was so great that historians of various European countries demonized the Tatars and attributed to them, along with the Huns, the role of the main destroyers of the cultural values of Christian peoples (this explains why Velsky characterizes the Huns as a "Tatar people" [Bielski, 1551, 1. 122 v]). The fear of the Tatar hordes gave rise to many fantastic rumors and conjectures, which became widespread in the medieval annals, and through their mediation in the historical writings of the Renaissance. In particular, one of the most common cultural markers of the Tatars was the conjugation of their ethnonym with the Latin name of the underworld (Tartarus, Tartara), which led to the approval in the European Latin - language chronography of a slightly modified form of nomination-Thartari.

Polish historians of the 16th century, who sought to cover the past and present situation of the Tatars from a rationalistic point of view, nevertheless were also influenced by the aforementioned ethno-cultural stereotypes, which could not but affect the results of their research.

A detailed description of the Tatar people is presented for the first time in the treatise of M. Mekhovsky, who refutes the hypothesis of "modern deceivers" about the autochthonous nature of the Tatars in Asian Sarmatia and insists that this "new and alien people" moved to this region from the east of ca. 300 years ago and up to that time was not known [1936, p.46]. The author, following the hypothesis widely spread in European chronography, calls the "foothills of India" the starting point of Tatar migration [Ibid., p. 47] and ignores the opinion of his compatriot Ya. Dlugoss, who derived the "clan and tribe of Tatars from the Armenians" because of the similarity of their appearance and language [Dlugoss, 1615, p. 498].

Like Dlugosh, Mekhovsky knows about the existence of Genghis Khan, calls him Tsingos or Tsingkis (Cingos vel Cingkis)* and characterizes him as the progenitor of the "current" Tatar emperors. In this case, the author of the "Treatise on two Sarmatians" calls "Tatar legends and stories"the source of his knowledge. Mekhovsky's narrative is replete with details that he characterizes as "fictions" (for example, that Cinchis was conceived not from humans, but from the sun's rays [Mekhovsky, 1936, p. 64]). In the treatise we also find the genealogy of the Tatar emperors, where the evidence of different sources is mixed up, the sequence of epochs and deeds of the rulers is broken. Perhaps the most valuable is a detailed ethnographic description of the Tatar hordes of the present-day author, including information about their way of life and customs, which has no analogues in other sources of that time.

M. Velsky places the "Tatar kingdoms" in Asian Scythia, on vast expanses "from the easternmost ocean" to the Volga and Don. In his chronicle, Mount Imava, located across the Caspian Sea, is named as a landmark that allows you to separate Tartary from Scythia. The Polish historian considers the biblical Magog, a descendant of Japheth, to be the progenitor of the Tatars, but at the same time claims that some Tatar hordes multiplied from Ham. The author of "Chronicles of the Whole World" derives the ethnonym of the Tatar people from the name of the Tartar River, but does not indicate its location. It is interesting that Velsky is the only Polish historian of the 16th century who identifies the Tatars with the "Mongols", which occurred in the late 19th century.-

* Dlugosz has Chinchis.

page 97
Shimi" from great Asia", calls this people "real Tatars", and compares its warlike "king" Tsanguistu with Alexander the Great [Bielski, 1551,1. 116 v.].

In the chronicles of M. Kromer and M. Stryjkovski there is no new information about the Tatar people - they repeat the" toponymic " evidence of Velsky (about Mount Imava and the origin of the ethnonym from the name of the Tartar River) and explain the paucity of their descriptions by the fact that the ancient Greek and Latin authors were unknown Tatars.

The ideas of Polish historians of the 16th century about the early ethnic history of Eurasia allow us to judge the formation of a fundamentally new type of knowledge system, which was based on the process of gradual demythologization of the cultural and historical picture of the world, the birth of applied ethnography, which made it possible to obtain more reliable information about the peoples of the region,

Renaissance historians, relying in their work on a wide range of written sources of various origins, as well as practical experience of interaction with the peoples of the "Sarmatians", were able to create hypotheses that made it possible to summarize the achievements of the authors of historical works of previous eras and contributed to the expansion of the intelligible space of the enlightened European. It is also important that it was the Polish tradition that influenced the formation of ideas about the peoples of Eurasia of the East Slavic intellectuals of the early Modern period. The result of this influence were historical and ethnographic essays, which we find in the Ukrainian chronicles and chronographs of the XVII century, the Kiev Synopsis, the Scythian History by A. Lyzlov, as well as in the works of Russian scientists of the XVIII century-A. I. Mankiev, V. N. Tatishchev, M. V. Lomonosov, etc.

It is unlikely that the ethno-historical image of Eurasia created in the era we are interested in could be completely independent of mythologies and irrational conjectures. This is the nature of the attitude to ethnic history and ethnic processes, which, as the scientific worldview develops, is characterized not so much by overcoming dependence on the "mythological view" in the ideas of kinship and origin of peoples, but by its rationalization and transformation [Petrukhin, Rayevsky, 2004, p. 10]. The hypotheses of Polish authors described here are an example of such transformation. While they remain protoscientific for us, researchers of the beginning of the XXI century, balancing on the edge of myth and science, they are nevertheless able to visibly point out the obvious progress in the study of the history of peoples, emphasize the possibilities of overcoming the outdated system of ideas, replacing it with a new, more functional and methodologically mature structure of knowledge.

List of literature

Karnaukhov D. V. Development of ideas about the nomination of the Eastern Slavs in the historical thought of Wormwood at the turn of the Middle Ages and Modern times // Voprosy obshchey istorii i istoriografii [Issues of Universal History and Historiography]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University. Univ., 2006, pp. 263-279.

Mekhovsky M. Traktat o dva Sarmatiyakh [A treatise on two Sarmatians] / Vved., transl., comment. by S. A. Anninsky. - M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1936. -288 p.- (Izvestiya inostranov o narodakh SSSR).

Petrukhin V. Ya., Rayevsky D. S. Ocherki istorii narodov Rossii v drevnosti i rannem srednevekovie [Essays on the History of the peoples of Russia in Antiquity and Early Middle Ages]. Moscow: Znak, 2004, 416 p. (Studia historica).

Bielski M. Kronika wszytkyego swyata, na ssesc wyekow, Monarchie czterzy rozdzielona, s Kozmographia nowa у z rozmaitemi Krolestwy tak poganskimi Zydowskyemi yako у krzescianskyemi, s Sybillami у proroctwy ich po polsku pisana s figurami. W ktorey tez zywoty Cesarskye, Papyeskye, у thych krolow z ich Krolestwy, Asyryskich, Egipskich, Zydowskich, Greckich, Perskich, Tureckich, Wegyerskich, Czeskich, у inych rozmaitych thak Krolow, Kxyazat, yako inych przelozonych od poczatku swyata az do thego roku ktory sie pisze 1551 sa napisane. Myedzy ktoremi tez nasza Polska na ostatku zosobna yest wypisana. - Krakow: [Druk. u Unglera], 1551. -67+295+1 1.

Bielski M. Kronika, tho iesth, Historya swiata na szesc wiekow, a czterzy Monairchie, rozdzielona z rozmaitych Historykow, tak w swiejym pismie krzescijanskim, zydowskim, iako у Poganskim, wybierana у na Polski iezyk wypisana dosthatheczniey niz pierwey, s przydanim wiele rzeczy nowych: Od poczatku swiata, az do tego roku, ktory sie pisze 1564 s figurami ochedoznymi у wlasnymi. - Krakow: [Druk. u Mattheusza Siebeneychera], 1564. - 6+467+8 1.

Dlugoss J. Historia Polonica Joannis Dlugossi seu Longini Canonici Cracovien. In tres tomos digesta. Autoritate et sumptibus Herbulti Dobromilski edita. - Dobromili: Officina Ioannis Szeligae, 1615. - 18 f., 599 p.

Cromer M. De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX. Adiecta est in fine, eiusdem autoris funebris Oratio, Sigismundi, Regis vitam compendiose complexa. Cum Caes. Maiest. Gratia etPeivilegio ad annos decern. - Basileae: Officina Joannes Oporini, 1555. - 4 f., 702 p., 20 f.

Cromer M. De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX. Tertium ab autore diligenter recogniti. Funebris eiusdem autoris Oratio Sigismundi Regis vitam compendiose complexa et aliquoties iam prius edita. Accessit iudicium Francisci Robortelli Utinensis de authore et libro. Cum gratia et privilegio Caes. Maies. adnovemannos. -Basilieae: Officina Oporiniana, 1568. -6 f., 468 p., 32 f.

Cromer M. Polonia, sive De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX. Oratio funebris Sigismundi primi regis. Deque situ, populis, moribus, magistratibus et republica regni Poloniae, libri duo. Omnia nunc ultimo ab ipsomet auctore recognita, ac multis iocis emendata et aucta. His accesserunt

page 98
recens ad historiae continuationem, quae sequens pagina demonstrat et chartae geographicae cum Poloniae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Russiae etc. turn etiam Lituaniae, Liuoniae et Moscoviae, aeneis formis expressae. Cum indice rerum memorabiliumlocupletissimo. -ColoniaeAgrippinae: Officina Birchmannica, 1589. - 14 f, 846 p., 27 f.

Gwagnini A. Omnium Regionum Moschoviae Monarchae subjectarum, Tartarorumque campestrium arcium civitatum praecipuarum, illarum denique gentis, religionis et consuetudinis vitae sufficiens et vera descriptio. Adjuncta praeterea gesta praecipua Tyrannisque ingens moderni Monarchae Moschoviae Joannis Basilidis nuper perpetrata, vera fido descripta // Sarmatiae Europeae Descriptio Regnum Poloniae, Lituaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Masoviam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam, Livoniam et Moskoviae, Tartariaeque complectitur. - Cracovia: Typis Matthiae Wirzbietae, [1578]. - 47 f.

Herberstein S. Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarij Sigismundi Liberi Baronis in Herberstain, Neyperg et Guettenhag. In hijs commentarij s sparsim contenta habebis, candide Lector, Russiae et, que nunc ejus metropolis est, Moscoviae brevissimam descriptionem. De religione quoque varia inserta sunt et quae nostra cum religione non conveniunt. Chorographiam denique totius imperij Moscici et vicinorum quorundam mentionem. Quis denique modus excipiendi et tractandi oratores disseritur. Itineraria quoque duo in Moscoviam sunt adjuncta. - Basileae: Officina Joannes Oporini, 1551. - 157 p.

Stryjkowski M. Ktora przedtym nigdy swiatla nie widziala. Kronika Polska, Litewska, Zmodska i wszystkiey Rusi Kijowskiey, Moskiewskiey, Siewierskiey, Wolynskiey, Podolskiey, Podgorskiey, Podlaskiey, etc. Y rozmaite przypadki woienne у domowe, Pruskich, Mazowieckich, Pomorskich, у inszych krain Krolestwu Polskiemu у Wielkiemu Xiestwu Litewskiemu przyleglych, wedlug istotnego у gruntownego zniesienia pewnych dowodow z rozmaitych Historikow у Autorow postronnych, у domowych, у Kijowskich, Moskiewskich, Slawianskich, Liflatnskich, Pruskich starych, Dotard ciemnochmurna noca zakrytych Kronik, у Latopiszow Ruskich, Litewskich, у u Dlugosza Oyca dzieiow Polskich z inszymi, z wielka pilnoscia у wezlowata praca (Osobliwie okolo Dzieiow Litewskich у Ruskich od zadnego przedtym niekuszonych) przez Macieia Osostewicivsa Striykowskiego dostatecznie napisana, zlozona, у па pierwsze swiatlo z wybadanim prawdziwie dowodniey starodawnosci wlasnym wynalezieniem, przewaznym dochcipem, у nakladem nowo wydzwigniona przez wszystki starozytnie wieki, az do dzisieyszego Roku 1582. A tu przod wszystkich ile ich kolwiek iest ludzkich na Swiecie Narodow gruntowne wywody. Z laskaj Priwilieiem Kro: J: M: - Krolewiec: [Druk. u Gerzego Ostenbergera], 1582. -20 1., 791 s., 9 1.

Ulewicz T. Sarmacja: Studium z problematyki slowianskiej XV i XVI w. - Krakow: Wydawn. Studium Slowianskiego Uniw. Jagiellonskiego, 1950. -211 s.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 03.03.09.

page 99

Permanent link to this publication: