The Russian historiography of Russian-Japanese relations is dominated by the statement that the first information about Japan received from its inhabitants was the "sketch" of the Japanese Dembeei Tatekawa, recorded in Moscow in early January 1702 in the Siberian Order ¹ . It is believed that Tatekawa was the first Japanese person to visit Russia, who reported information about Japan, which was used by the Russian authorities to try to establish official political and trade relations with ^it2 . This point of view is preserved in our historical literature up to the present time.

However, back in 1966, the Soviet Japanese scholar S. N. Markov wrote that the "Indian" or Hindu companion of the Portuguese Catholic monk Father N. Melo mentioned in Catholic sources was a Japanese brother Nicholas of the Order of St. Augustine. However, he did not express the opinion that this Japanese had an influence on the formation of the legend of the "Opon (Japanese) state" among the Russian Old Believers-Pomors as the promised " land of ancient piety "(legend of Belovodye)³ . It should also be mentioned that in 1971, the Catholic Hubert Chislik (born in Germany in 1914), who has been living in Japan since 1933, published a biography of the aforementioned Nicholas, including during his stay in Russia, in which he consistently carried out the idea that Nicholas was the first Japanese person known to us to visit in our country ⁴ . In his review of the Japanese edition of E. J. Feinberg's monograph "Russian-Japanese Relations in 1697-1875" (Tokyo, 1973), Akira Takano supported X. Chislik, contrasting his view with the traditional point of view of Russian and Soviet historiography.

Characteristically, however, in 1975, due to the lack of written documents belonging to the Japanese Nikolai himself, as well as the inconsistency of information concerning the last few years of his life, Yu .V. Georgiev questioned the reliability of these data and proposed to return to the traditional version ⁵.

Nevertheless, in 1976 I also mentioned that already in 1599 (or 1600) a Japanese man appeared in Russia under the Christian name Nikolai Augustinets (his Japanese name remains unknown), who reported the first information about Japan. This conclusion was made based on the study of materials related to the stay of the Japanese Nicholas in Russia, in particular in the Solovetsky Monastery. At the same time, I admitted that no accurate, more or less detailed information about Japan obtained from this Japanese person has yet been discovered. ⁶

What data does historical science currently have on the still controversial issue of Russian-Japanese contacts in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries?

Brother Nicholas was born on one of the southern islands of Japan during the Tensho period (1573-1591). The exact date and place of his birth are unknown. At an early age, he moved to Manila, a Japanese colony in the Philippines conquered by the Spanish in 1567, and in 1594 was baptized by a Portuguese priest of the Order of St. Augustine, Nicolaus Melo.

In 1597, Brother Nicholas was sent by the Philippine Congregation of the Order of St. Augustine to attend the next council of the Catholic Church in Rome as an attendant of Father Nicholas. The two envoys traveled through the Portuguese colony to Goa, India, but it turned out that the ship going to Europe would not arrive until next year, and the messengers of the Order of St. Augustine decided to reach Rome through Persia and the Muscovite state. In Persia, they launched an active missionary effort, seeking to draw it into a broad alliance against the Ottoman Empire and thus prepare a new crusade against the Muslims. After the victory of the Holy Roman Empire over the Turks in 1571, this alliance was supposed to include the Muscovite state together with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, reconciling the Russians and Poles and strengthening the influence of Catholicism in these states.

The idea of an alliance with European states against the Turks was close to the Persian Shah Abbas II (1571-1629). He therefore graciously received the two Augustinians, and at his suggestion they agreed to join the embassy to the courts of the European monarchs, with a view to discussing the future of the empire.-

Kirill Cherevko, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

page 140

a request for such an alliance. An Englishman, Anthony Shirley, was appointed head of the embassy, and Father Nicholas was appointed an emissary with equal rights for representation in Rome and Madrid. In the autumn of 1599 (or 1600) the embassy reached Astrakhan by sea. By the winter of the same year, having sailed to Nizhny Novgorod, it then reached Moscow by dry route ⁷ .

In the capital, the Japanese man and his mentor appeared in the Kremlin at the home of the Milanese Catholic physician Paolo Citadini. Here they performed divine services and christened the newborn daughter of the owner according to the Catholic rite, which was forbidden by law. The head of the embassy, A. Shirley, who constantly did not get along with Father Nicholas, considering him his rival for the leadership of the embassy, informed Tsar Boris Godunov about this through English merchants. The Augustinians ' homes were searched and secret letters of Abbas II and letters to Pope Clementius of USHA and King Philip III of Spain were found, which also raised suspicions that the denunciation accused the monks of spying for non-believers. As a result, the Japanese brother Nikolai and the Portuguese father Nikolai were exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery, and A. Shirley and his companions soon left for Europe via Arkhangelsk.

In the charter of 1600, it is reported "about sending to the monastery under the leadership of the Gishpansky lands of chernets Nicholas with his man." From Catholics living in Moscow, information about their exile to Solovki was leaked to the Krakow nuncio Rangoni, who in 1604 appealed to the Polish government to petition the Moscow authorities for the release of these two gentiles. Such a representation was sent to Moscow through diplomatic channels. In addition, Clement VIII, who also learned of the incident, asked the Carmelite monks who were traveling to Persia via Moscow to petition the Russian government for a pardon for the aforementioned Catholics ^.8 These petitions were granted in 1605, when a protégé of the Vatican and Polish magnates, False Dmitry I, came to power in Moscow ^.9

"As soon as the news of this arbitrariness reached Dimitri, he ordered both of them to be brought to Moscow," writes Catholic priest P. Pirling. "Unfortunately, they didn't arrive in time to negotiate with the tsar. However, Nicholas de Melo was warned that a mission to Philip III of Spain was awaiting him. " ¹⁰ It is possible that in the future, the Japanese Nikolai could also be used to establish ties with Japan and other countries of the Far East. But the Japanese and Portuguese returned to Moscow after the expulsion of the Poles led by False Dmitry I and the accession of Vasily Shuisky. The latter, preoccupied primarily with internal affairs, reacted very coolly to the idea of an anti-Turkish alliance and sending an embassy to the courts of European monarchs. In addition, during the conversation with the Augustinians, which took place with the participation of English translators, who made a lot of efforts to quarrel between Catholics and Orthodox, distorting the meaning of what was said and the purpose of Father Nicholas ' arrival in Moscow. As a result, on August 14, 1606, Father Nicholas and his Japanese companion were exiled to the Borisoglebsky Monastery near Rostov, ¹¹ from where Father Nicholas corresponded with False Dmitry II ^.12

According to E. Nakamura, the data contained in Catholic sources about the mistreatment of two exiled Augustinians in Russia are exaggerated, as can be seen from three messages sent by Father Nicholas to the Polish authorities. Nakamura is inclined to believe that Father Nikolai "took part in a political conspiracy directed against the Moscow state." ¹³ It is known that he established friendly relations in the monastery with the reclusive hierarch, who enjoyed great authority, who communicated with Vasily Shuisky and received for blessing one of the leaders of the people's militia against the Polish invaders. Dmitry Pozharsky. The location of the Hierarch made it possible to significantly improve the conditions of stay of both exiles in the Borisoglebsky monastery.

When Sigismund III launched an open intervention in Russia in 1609 and joined forces with the supporters of False Dmitry II in early 1610, both Augustinians were transferred to Nizhny Novgorod ^.14 This was probably due to the fact that during the intervention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hetman Jan Sapieha, who led the Polish - Lithuanian army, captured the north-eastern regions of the Muscovite state, including Rostov and the surrounding area, where the Borisoglebsky Monastery was located on the Ustye River.

Information about the subsequent fate of the Japanese Nicholas is contradictory. A. Castro claims that on November 11, 1611, on St. Augustine's Day, he was executed for refusing to convert to Orthodoxy ^.15 But N. Trigo writes that thanks to the intercession of local Poles, the Japanese was not executed and sent to Spasskaya Pustyn, and then in 1612, according to this version, he was released by the "queen" Marina Mnishek, who appeared in Nizhny Novgorod with ataman Ivan Zarutsky, and together with them fled to Astrakhan, where he finished his career. life after a new capture by Russian troops in 1614,16 Castro believes that this happened ^{in 1616,17}

page 141

But even if we assume the possibility of the execution of the Japanese Nicholas for religious reasons, then, given the fact that his patron Father Nicholas, as a member of the highest Catholic hierarchy, was released and fled together with the Polish Marina Mniszek, we can, in my opinion, assume that his death was influenced by a conspiracy between the King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Sigismund III and first by a group of Russian boyars from the Tushino camp of False Dmitry II, and then by the Moscow boyar government. It is known that on February 4, 1610, a Russian-Polish treaty was concluded, according to which, on the basis of compromises between the parties, King Vladislav was recognized as the Russian tsar, and after the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky in August 1610, under a similar agreement, Polish troops were allowed into Moscow by the Semiboyar government.

The brutal suppression of the uprising against foreigners of the posadsky "lower classes" in the Russian capital, which broke out in March 1611, caused widespread indignation at the actions of the "godless Latynians" and in order to calm the people, outraged by the savage massacre of the rebels, the Polish authorities, in collusion with the top of the Russian boyars, could compromise-save Father Nicholas himself, making him a " scapegoat"the" man of his " gentile Japanese Nicholas. The assumption is the same. Nakamura's statement that he was executed and used as a ritual sacrifice for the success of the militia's march on Moscow means that samurai customs were improperly mixed with Russian customs of the 17th century. ¹⁸

The above materials allow us to state that the version that is widely used in Soviet and foreign literature about the execution in 1611 in Nizhny Novgorod of Brother Nicholas, an assistant employee of the Persian Embassy to Western Europe and a member of the delegation of the Philippine congregation of the Catholic Order of St. Augustine, is not sufficiently convincing. There is also no proof of another, directly opposite version that the Japanese traveler safely left the Moscow state after the death of his patron, diplomat and well-known religious and political figure, Portuguese Father Nicholas (Nikolai Melo).

Although the final period in the life of the Japanese Nikolai Augustinets needs further study, the question of whether he was the first known Japanese to visit Russia seems to have been resolved. True, the possibility of establishing Russian-Japanese relations through him remained unrealized at the beginning of the XVII century, but the information received from Nicholas Augustinets about Japan served as the basis for compiling a chapter on this country in Cosmography. 1670...", which, in turn, was used in the order to the first Russian ambassador to China, Spafari (Milescu). Traces of this information can also be traced in the legend-utopia of the Russian Old Believers about the "Opon state" as a "land of ancient piety", the search for which was conducted until the beginning of the XX century. and expressed the protest of the broad masses of the Russian peasantry against serfdom. This movement of Russian people "meeting the sun" was one of the most important, but still poorly lit forms of development of Siberia and the Far East, called SV. Bakhrushin's ecclesiastical colonization ¹⁹ .

In this regard, I would like to note the following. In the book "Invisible Bridges across the Sea of Japan" (St. Petersburg, 2003), a foreign member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, E. V. Yushchenko. Nakamura writes: "K. E. Cherevko suggests that the stay of the Japanese Nikolai in Solovki may have played a role in the origin of the legend of Belovodye, which later spread among the Old Believers. However, since Nikolai left Japan with his parents at an early age and grew up in the Philippines, it is doubtful that he had enough knowledge about Japan. It seems more likely that the formation of the tradition about Belovodye was influenced by the descriptions of Japan contained in the work on geography " Cosmography. 1670...", rewritten in the Kholmogorsky monastery in the North of Russia " (p. 187).

However, in his earlier work "The Japanese in Muscovy" ("Surabu Kenkyu". 1980. N 26) Nakamura expressed a positive attitude to the validity of my hypothesis. He wrote: "I agree with him (Cherevko. - Ed.), which is that he seeks to recognize the possibility that Brother Nikolai played a role in the origin of the legend of the "Opon State", which became popular in Russia in the XIX century. The Cosmography (1670) was rewritten in Kholmogorakh from the original originally published in Moscow (in 1637, as a translation of the descriptions for the Dutch edition of the atlas by G. Mercartor in 1606), where for the first time a description of Japan was placed, dating back to the "Book of Marco Polo", containing information about Japan (and also missing in it data about this country, probably obtained from brother Nicholas Augustinets. - K. Ch.). Apparently, the legend of Belovodye originated in the same area that was the center of the Old Believers ' movement since the 17th century. In this case, there is almost no doubt that the article about Japan contained in Cosmography, as I believe, played a big role in this" (p.25). And then: "We agree with Professor K. Cherevko, a contemporary Soviet Japanese scholar, that Brother Nikolai, a Japanese, may have been the source of information that probably played a role in the war.,

page 142

a certain role in the origin of the legend of the Russian Old Believers about Belovodye, in which "Oponia", i.e. Japan, was used for a utopia excluding wars and persecution on religious grounds " (p. 30).

The first point of view expressed by E. Nakamura is also supported by his conclusion in the mentioned book that even if " Cosmography. 1670... " and it was not the only source of the legend about Belovodye, it was obviously one of them, i.e. it also admits the information received in Solovki from the Japanese Nikolai, who, although he was taken away from Japan as an infant, but later before leaving the Manila area for Russia, as an adult, could have learned about It differs from other Japanese people who came to the Philippines from his homeland.

The validity of my opinion was confirmed by a Japanese scholar at the end of his lecture on Russian-Japanese relations, delivered at the Russian State Library on November 21, 2003. This confirmed my hypothesis that the Japanese Nicholas most likely played a role in introducing the Russians to Japan in the first half of the 17th century.

Notes

¹ See: Kutakov L. N. Russia and Japan. Moscow, 1988, p. 55.

² See: Ogloblin N. N. The first Japanese in Russia. 1701-1705//Russian antiquity. 1891. N 10. ³ Markov S. N. Zemly krug [Earth Circle], Moscow, 1966, pp. 329-334.

⁴ chislikh. Sekai-o aruita kirisutan (Christians who went around the world). Tokyo, 1971. pp. 164-176.

⁵ St. George's Cathedral. Rossia-e itta saisho-no Nihonjin wa dare ka? (Who was the first Japanese in Russia?) / Konniti no Sorempo (The Soviet Union Today), Moscow, 1975, No. 17, p. 19.

⁶ Cherevko K. A. How the first information about Japan penetrated into Russia//Problems of the Far East. 1976. N 4. p. 127; Russian Pacific Epic. Khabarovsk, 1979. p. 507.

⁷ Nakamura E. Mosukoviya-no nihonjin (Japanese in Muscovy) / / Surabu kenkyu. 1980. N 20. pp. 26-27.

⁸ PirlingP. Historical articles and notes. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 74.

⁹ Ibid., p. 70.

¹⁰ of His own. Dmitry Samozvanets, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1912, pp. 275-276.

¹¹ His own. Historical articles and notes, p. 75.

¹² Diary of Marina Mniszek and the Polish ambassadors. See: Ustryalov N. Skazaniya sovremennikov o Dmitri Samozvanets. Ch. IV. SPb., 1834. p. 96.

¹³ Nakamura E. Decree. op. p. 20.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Castro A. Missionaros Augustinos en Extremo Oriente. 1565 - 1780 (Osario venerable). Madrid, 1954. P. 245 - 246.

¹⁶ Trigaull N. De christianis apud Japanis Triumphis. Munchen, 1623. P. 289 - 290, 292.

¹⁷ Castro A. Op. cit. P. 246.

¹⁸ Nakamura E. Edict. op. p. 22.

¹⁹ See: St. Bakhrushin. Nauchnye trudy [Scientific Works], vol. 2, Moscow, 1954, p. 16.

Permanent link to this publication: