Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T01:12:23.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shamil and Muridism in Regent Soviet Historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Lowell R. Tillett
Lowell R. Tillett*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Wake Forest College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Shamil's activities in this period [1834-45] were directed not only against Tsarism, but against the local feudal lords, and were of a democratic, progressive character.

The mountain peoples' movement, led by Shamil, was not a national-liberation and democratic movement, but was a reactionary and nationalistic movement, which came into the service of British capitalism and the Turkish Sultan.

These quotations from two successive editions of one of the most popular Soviet history textbooks point up an issue that has engaged Soviet historians for the last decade. Numerous quotations might be added to show still further reversals of opinion reached by Soviet historians since the party called for a radical revision of the role of Shamil and his movement in 1950. Recent conferences have expressed dissatisfaction with the findings and have called for more thorough research to establish a “scientific Marxist” version of the subject.

Type
Articles
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1961 , pp. 253 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Istorija SSSR, A. M.Pankratova, ed. (Moscow, 1947), II, 175.

2 Ibid., 1950 ed., p. 178.

3 Allen, W. E. D. and Muratoff, Paul, Caucasian Battlefields (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), p. 107.Google Scholar

4 “Diskussija o dvizhenii Shamilja,“Voprosy Istorii, No. 11, 1947, pp. 134-40.

5 For example, see Tikhomirov, M. N. and Dmitriev, S. S., Istorija SSSR (Moscow, 1948), I, 373-74;Google Scholar Istorija SSSR, A. M. Pankratova, ed., English ed. (Moscow, 1948), II, 167-70.

6 R. M. Magomedov,O Dvizhenii Shamilja (Makhachkala, 1949) .

7 Gusejnov, G., Iz istorii obshchesivennoj i filosofskoj mysli v Azerbajdzhane v XIX vska(Baku, 1949.Google Scholar

8 Bagirov, M. D., “K voprosu o kharaktere dvizhenija mjuridizma i Shamilja,” Bolshevik, No. 13, July, 1950, pp. 21–37.Google Scholar

9 The review is inLiteraturnaja Gazeta, March 22, 1950, p. 3, condensed translation in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, II, No. 15, pp. 56-57; apology in Literaturnaja Gazeta,July 27, 1950, p. 1, condensed translation in Current Digest, II, No. 31, pp. 42-43. Voprosy Istorii seems to have been spared this humiliation by the plodding pace of its editors. It had not yet reviewed either the Gusejnov or the Magomedov volume. Its reviewer did catch Nechkina's textbook in time to conform to the new line (Voprosy Istorii, No. 7, 1950, p. 155).

10 Pravda, July 18, 1950.

11 Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenie literaturi i jazyka, No. 3, 1950, pp. 245-46, trans, inCurrent Digest, II, No. 48, pp. 13-14.

12 For accounts of these meetings seeVestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, No. 12, 1950, pp. 89-90; No. 1, 1951, pp. 110-17.

13 Danijalov, A., “Ob izvrashchenijakh v osveshchenii mjuridizma i dvizhenija Shamilja,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 9, 1950, pp. 3-18.Google Scholar

14 Smirnov, N., “Shejkh Mansur i ego Tireckie vdokhnoviteli,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 10, 1950, pp. 19–39 Google Scholar. See also his pamphlet“Reakcionnaja sushchnost' dvizhenija mjuridizma i Shamilja na Kavkaze” (Moscow, 1952), in which he gives Stalin a large measure of the credit for ascertaining the realities of the issue.

15 Adamov, E., Kutakov, L., “Iz istorii proiskov inostrannoj agentury vo vremja kavkazskikh vojn,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 11, 1950, pp. 101–5.Google Scholar

16 A. Fadeev,“Mjuridizm kak orudie agressivnoj turcii i anglii na severo-zapadnom kavkaze v XIX stoletii,” ibid., No. 9, 1951, pp. 76-96.

17 E. E. Burchuladze,“Krushenie anglo-tureckikh planov v gruzie v 1855-6 godakh,” ibid., No. 4, 1952, pp. 10-24.

18 Markova, O. P., “Vostochnyj krizis 30kh-nachala 40kh godov XIX veka i dvizhenie mjuridizma,” Istoricheskie Zapiski, XLII (1953), 202–37.Google Scholar

19 Shamil, —stavlennik sultanskoj turcii i anglijskikh kolonizatorov, Cagareishvili, Sh. V., ed. (Tbilisi, 1953).Google Scholar

20 Ibid., p. viii.

21 G. A. von Stackelburg,“The Twentieth Party Congress and the Soviet Evaluation of Historical Figures, Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of the USSR, IV, No. 6 (June, 1957), 30-39.

22 Current Digest, V, No. 3, p. 8.

23 M A. Danijalov, loc. cit., p. 14.

24 Nechkina, M., “K voprosu formule ‘naimenshee zlo’,“ Voprosy Istorii, No. 6, 1951, pp. 44–48.Google Scholar

25 Pravda, October 7, 1952. For a fuller discussion of the“lesser evil” formula, see Konstantin F. Shteppa's essay in Black, C. E., ed., Rewriting Russian History (New York: Praeger, 1956), pp. 107–20.Google Scholar

26 Voprosy Istorii, No. 8, 1952, p. 4; No. 11, 1952, p. 152.

27 M. D., Bagirov, “Starshij brat v seme sovetskikh narodov,” Kommunist, XXIX, No. 3 (1953), pp. 64-68.Google Scholar

28 1. V. Bestuzhev,“Oborona Zakavkazija v krymskoj vojne 1853-56 godov, Voprosy Istorii, No. 12, 1954, pp. 53-66. The unchanged view of Shamil was defended in at least one longer monograph in 1955. See Bushuev, S. K., Iz istorii vneshnepoliticheskikh otnoshenii v period prisoedinenija Kavkaza k Rossii (Moscow, 1955) .Google Scholar

29 See note 16, above.

30 Fadeev, A. V., “O vnutrennej social'noj baze mjuridistskogo dvizhenija na Kavkaze v XIX veke,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 6, 1955, pp. 66-77.Google Scholar

31 At Bagirov's trial in April, 1956, he was accused of falsifying many documents. It is not clear whether his documentation for his articles on this subject falls into this category.

32 "Konferencija chitatelej zhurnala Voprosy Istorii,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 2, 1956, pp. 199-213.

33 Pravda, February 22, 1956, trans, in Current Digest, VIII, No. 12, pp. 9-11.

34 Pikman, A. M., “O bor'be kavkazskikh gorcev s carskimi koloniiatorami,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 3, 1956, pp. 75-84.Google Scholar

35 Vestnik Moskovshogo Universiteta. Serija Obshchestvennykh Nauk. No. 4, 1956, pp. 143-50.

36 Danijalov, G. D., “O dvizhenii gorcev pod rukovodstvom Shamilja,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 7, 1956, pp. 67-72 Google Scholar, condensed text inCurrent Digest, VIII, No. 40, pp. 3-5.

37 Quoted in Uchitelskaja Gazeta, September 22, 1956; trans, inCurrent Digest, VIII, No. 38, pp. 3-6.

38 O dvizhenij gorcev pod rukovodstvom Shamilja. Materialy sessii dagestanskogo filiala akademii nauk SSSR, 4-7 oktjabr, 1956 goda (Makhachkala, 1957). An earlier and shorter version was published under the same title in 1956. It is interesting that R. M. Mago-medov, who had lost his position in the Dagestan branch of the Academy of Sciences on this issue in 1950, turned up at these conferences as a delegate from the Pedagogical Institute of Makhachkala. No mention was made of a restoration of his earlier honor, and Gusejnov's name does not seem to have been mentioned.

39 “Obsuzhdenie voprosa o kharaktere dvizhenij gorskikh narodov severnogo Kavkaza,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 12, 1956, pp. 191-98.

40 It is a curious fact that the two reports of the Moscow conference differ considerably in tone. The earlier report (Voprosy Istorii , No. 12, 1956, pp. 191-98) went to press on January 24, 1957; the latter is inVestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, No. 2, 1957, pp. 121-23, and went to press on March 5. The latter report omits the sharpest criticisms and gives the impression that more definite decisions were reached. The latter substitutes“anti-colonial movement” for“national liberation movement,” and does not report a paper on Tsarist colonial policies. This undoubtedly represents a hardening of the party line during these months, the probable cause being a sensitivity to the events in Hungary and Poland or a foreknowledge of the party rebuke in the March number ofKommunist(see note 45, below).

41 “K diskussii o kharaktere dvizhenija gorcev Dagestana pod rukovodstvom Shamilja,” Voprosy Istorii, No. I, 1957, pp. 195-96, complete translation in Current Digest, IX, No. 16, pp. 33-34.

42 Bugaev, E., “Kogda utrachivaetsja nauchnyj podkhod,” Partijnaja Zhizn', No. 14, 1956, pp. 62-72.Google Scholar

43 Bushuev, S. K., “O kavkazskom mjuridizme,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 12, 1956, pp. 72-79.Google Scholar

44 M. V. Pokrovskij, “O kharaktere dvizhenija gorcev zapadnogo Kavkaza v 40-60kh godakh XIX veka,” ibid., No. 2, 1957, pp. 62-74.

45 “Strogo sobljudat' leningskij princip partijnosti v istoricheskoj nauke,” Kommunist,No. 4, 1957, pp. 17-29. It is strange that G. D. Danijalov's article (see note 36, above), which had gone further than Pikman's, was not mentioned.

46 “Za leninskuju partijnost' v istoricheskoj nauke,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 3, 1957, pp. 3-19.

47 Ocherki istorii Adygej, Bushuev, S. K., Autlev, M. G., Kobzhesau, E. L., eds. (Majkop, 1957).Google Scholar

48 Istorija Kabardy s drevnejshikh vremeni do nashikh due], Smirnov, N. A., Angavadze, Z. V., Gurevich, N. E., Krikunov, V. P., Kumkov, T. Kh., Muzhev, I. F., Sabanchiev, Kh. M., eds. (Moscow, 1957) .Google Scholar

49 Ocherki istorii Dagestana, Kosven, M. O., Magomedov, R. M., Gidzhiev, V. G., Danijalov, G. D., Khashaev, Kh. O., Omarov, A. S., eds., (Makhachkala, 1957).Google Scholar

50 Ocherki istorii Adygej, p. 341.

51 Ocherki istorii Dagestana, p. 224.

52 Ibid., p. 225. The changing role of Shamil may possibly be reflected in a curious note in the errata section of the Dagestan volume. The reader is asked to amend the topic head“Struggle of the mountain peoples against Tsarism and the local feudal lords” by adding the phrase“under the leadership of Shamil.”

53 Istorija Kabardy, p. 85.

54 Fadeev, A. V., “Vopros o social'nom stroe kavkazskikh gorcev XVIII-XIX vv. v novykh rabotakh sovetskikh istorikov,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 5, 1958, pp. 130–37.Google Scholar

55 Gusejnov, G., Iz istorii obshchestvennoj i filosofskoj mysli v Azerbajdzhane XIX veka, Izdanie Vtoroe (Baku, 1958), p. 6.Google Scholar The writer is unable to compare the two editions, being unable to locate the first edition.

56 Dvizhenie gorcev severo-vostochnogo havkaza v 20-50 gg. XIX veka. Sbornik dokumentov (Makhachkala, 1959).

57 N. A. Smirnov, who remained on the editorial board ofVoprosy Istorii, is probably most responsible for the journal's treatment of the issue. See Henze, Paul B., “Unrewrit-ing History—the Shamil Problem," Caucasian Review, No. 6, 1958, pp. 7-29.Google Scholar

58 Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, No. 3, 1958, pp. 232-36.

59 mIstorija Severo-Oselinskoj ASSR (Moscow, 1959), pp. 174-77.