The humble charm of modern stereotypes about fo­reigners and yasak in Russia during the 16th–17th centuries

Research objectives: The main purpose of the study is to consider some fairly actively used stereotypes and their validity. Research materials: The reason for writing the proposed publication article was the work of A.Yu. Konev “The phenomenon of ‘foreignism’, yasak and gift exchange: the peoples of the Volga region, the Urals and Siberia in Russia at the end of the 16th – beginning of the 18th centuries.” Published and newly discovered archival materials were its source basis. Results and novelty of the research: Within the framework of this article, we can distinguish two plots about stereotypes, quite different in nature, but relating, to a large extent, to one group of the population of Russia in the 16th–18th centuries – yasak people or yasak foreigners. According to the first stereotype, the unbaptized non-Russian population of the Russian state were not among the subjects of the Russian tsar, or at least not to the full extent. The authors usually do not provide any real justification for this point of view, but if they try to do so, they point to restrictions regarding unbaptized yasak and service people and to baptism as a way to obtain additional preferences (implementing a rise in social standing). At the same time, if we turn to the documents of the middle of the 18th century, we will see that officials and scientists of that time had no doubts that the yasak unbaptized population were Russian subjects from the moment their territories became part of this state. With a high degree of probability, we can admit that the formation of this stereotype dates back to the period of the predominance of the ideologeme “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality” and is the result of extrapolation to the situation of the 16th–17th centuries representations of the second half of the 19th century. The second stereotype is less obvious, but quite serious. It consists of ignoring the information contained in a huge layer of documents of the 16th–17th centuries, namely, indications that yasak was collected from estates, and the presence of patrimonial lands was the basis for paying yasak. The reverse is also true – the payment of yasak gave rights to patrimonial lands. This information is contained in tsars’ decrees, orders to governors – that is, legislative documents. But until now, the bulk of specialists dealing with the history of the Volga region, the Urals, and Siberia simply did not notice these places in the documents. This is a kind of stereotype of ignoring the obvious. Meanwhile, based on the text of these documents, it is obvious that yasak can be considered only bearing in mind the status of the lands from which it was paid, indicated in the sources. This is true for territories from the Volga region to Central Siberia. Obviously, the time has come to change approaches to these issues. The scientific novelty of the study lies largely in the attempt to read and translate sources (often long published and well-known) as they were, discarding the “filters” formed by the historiographical tradition.