1. From an article published in Literaturnaia gazeta, July 24, 1958, cited by G. Burbiel, “Tatar Literature, ” in Discordant Voices : The Non-Russian Soviet Literatures, ed. G. S. N. Luckyj (Oakville, Ontario : Mosaic Press, 1975), p. 93.

2. From an article published in Kazan Utlary, 1968, no. 11 cited by G. Burbiel, “National Motifs Stir Controversy in Tatar Letters, ” Radio Liberty Dispatch, March 12, 1969.

3. See Lowell, Tillett, The Great Friendship : Soviet Historians on the Non-Russian Nationalities (Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Arthur, Mendel, “Current Soviet Theory of History : New Trends for Old?” American Historical Review, 72, no. 1 (October 1966) : 50–73 Google Scholar; Hans, Rogger, “Politics, Ideology and History in the USSR : The Search for Coexistence,” Soviet Studies, 17, no. 56 (January 1965) : 253–75Google Scholar; John, Keep, “The Current Scene in Soviet Historiography,” Survey, 19, no. 1 (Winter 1973) : 3–20 Google Scholar; Black, Cyril E., ed., Rewriting Russian History, 2nd rev. ed. (New York : Random House, 1962 Google Scholar; John, Keep and Liliana, Brisby, eds., Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror (New York : Praeger, 1964 Google Scholar; Samuel, Baron and Nancy, Heer, eds., Windows on the Russian Past : Essays on Soviet Historiography Since Stalin (Columbus, Ohio : American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, 1977).Google Scholar

4. Andreas Kappeler has written a long, detailed, and extremely useful overview of Soviet research on the history of the peoples of the Middle Volga region, including the Tatars. He has touched upon some of the issues to be found in this article, although his concerns are, by necessity, broader in scope. See his “Die Geschichte der Völker der Mittleren Wolga (vom 10. Jh. bis in die zweite Hälfte des 19. Jh.) in der sowjetischen Forschung, ” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 26, no. I (1978) : 70-104 and ibid., no. 2 (1978) : 222-57.

5. A helpful guide through the maze of hypotheses and complex arguments posed in a veritable sea of Soviet writing on this particular topic is provided in A. Kappeler, “L'Ethnogénèse des peuples de la Moyenne-Volga (Tatars, Tchouvaches, Mordves, Maris, Oudmourtes)dans les recherches soviétiques.” Cahiers du monde russe el soviétique, 17, nos. 2-3 (April-September 1976) : 311-34.

6. For comparative purposes, see L. Tillett, “Russian Imperialism and Colonialism, ” in Baron and Heer, eds., Windows on the Russian Past. pp. 105-21.

7. Istoriia Tatarskoi A.S.S.R., 2 vols. (Kazan' : Tatknigoizdat, 1955-60).

8. For a description and syllabus of this course, see Programma po istorii Tatarii. Posobie po spetsial'nomu kursu dlia studentov istoriko-filologicheskogo fakul'teta, 4th ed. (Kazan' : Izdatel'stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta, 1973).

9. N. I. Lobachevskii isemendage fanni kilapkhana kul'iazmalarynyng tasvirlamasy, 13 vols. (Kazan', 1958-63).

10. For example, an expedition was conducted throughout areas of Tatar settlement in 1963 by M. A. Usmanov, a specialist on Tatar historiography and historical sources of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1964, arrangements were made to convey about six hundred manuscripts from Kazan “s main mosque to the local university. Both efforts are noted in Iu. E. Bregel', ” Vostochnye rukopisi v Kazani, ” Pis'mennyepamiatniki Vostoka. Istoriko-filologicheskie issledovaniia. 1969 (Moscow : “Nauka, ” 1972), p. 360.

11. The most publicized case involving the rehabilitation of a Tatar was that of the early twentiethcentury novelist, Galimdzhan Ibragimov. For a summary of the process by which Ibragimov's good name was restored, see David Nissman, “On the Rehabilitation of Galimdjan Ibrahimov, ” Radio Liberty Research Paper, 1967, no. 14. M. Kh. Khasanov has published a study of Ibragimov and his work entitled Galimdzhan Ibragimov (Kazan', 1969). In addition, the following numbers of Kazan Vtlary have carried articles on him in recent years : 1976, no. 3, pp. 164-71; 1976, no. 12, pp. 137-49; 1977, no. 2, pp. 149-51; 1977, no. 3, pp. 108-64; 1977, no. 10, pp. 163-67; and 1978, no. 9, pp. 136-42.

12. Istoriia Tatarskoi A.S.S.R. (S drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei). Ukazatel’ sovelskoi Hteratury 1917-1959 (Kazan' : Tipografiia Tatpoligrafa Ministerstva Kul'tury TASSR, 1960); Antologiia tatarskoipoezii (Kazan', 1957); Istoriia tatarskoisovetskoi Hteratury (Moscow, 1965); Russkotatarskii slovar', 4 vols. (Kazan', 1955-59); and Tatarskie narodnyeposlovitsy, ed. N. Isanbet, 2 vols. (Kazan', 1959-64).

13. M. Gosmanov, “Miraska ikhtiram, ” Kazan Utlary, 1979, no. 12, pp. 166-69. A further sign of what was taking place was the change in name of the major Tatar literary review from Sovet Adabiyati (Soviet Literature) to Kazan Utlary (The Fires of Kazan’) with the June 1965 number. The popularity of this periodical, which has consistently been adventuresome and aggressively “liberal, ” is affirmed by the growth in circulation between 1957 (6, 000) and 1980 (94, 000).

14. The writings of the Tatar intelligentsia working just after the October Revolution have been restored to the corpus of usable sources for contemporary Tatar historians. Such names as G. I bragimov, G. Sag'di, N. K. Mukhitdinov, N. N. Firsov, G. Gaziz, and, most surprisingly, Dzh. Validi now find their way into bibliographies and footnotes. Validi's rehabilitation has resulted in at least one article : R. Mökhämmädiev, “Iugalmas miras ëzennän, ” Kazan Utlary, 1971, no. 9, pp. 165-74.

15. G. Burbiel has followed these developments in Tatar literature in a number of publications, including : “Anti-Russian Feeling Reflected in Soviet Tatar Novel, ” Radio Liberty Dispatch, June 11, 1968; “National Motifs Stir Controversy” “Like the Proverbial Phoenix, the Rich and Resilient Tatar Writing Re-emerges as a National Tool, ” Mid East, 9, no. 5 (October 1969) : 40-46; and “Tatar Literature, ” in Discordant Voices, pp. 89-125. Others who have written on the same subject are : V. Musabai, ‘ “Contemporary Themes’ and the Soviet Writer, ” Problems of the People of the USSR, 1959, no. 3, pp. 26-31 and J. Critchlow, “Tatar Nationalism in Verse, ” Radio Liberty Dispatch, March 17, 1969.

16. Kh. G. Gimadi, “Ob istoricheskom znachenii prisoedineniia Tatarii k russkomu gosudarstvu, ” Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Kazanskii filial, hvestiia 1 (1955) : 3.

17. Some of the same arguments, especially those focusing upon the presumed Ottoman threat to the region and Russia's socioeconomic and cultural superiority over its eastern neighbors, were expressed a few years earlier in a letter to the editor of Voprosy istorii (see K. Naiakshin, “K voprosu o prisoedinenii srednego povolzh'ia k Rossii, ” Voprosy istorii, 1951, no. 9, pp. 108-11).

18. S. Kh. Alishev, “Prisoedinenie narodov srednego povolzh'ia k russkomu gosudarstvu, ” in Tatariia v proshlom i nastoiashehem. Sbornik statei (Kazan', 1975), pp. 172-85.

19. Ibid., pp. 172-75. Alishev's contention would not pass unchallenged by non-Soviet historians. Ihor Ševčenko, for example, once described Kazan’ as an “imperfectly sedentary entity … absorbed … by an expanding sedentary state with superior resources, superior methods of exploiting the subject populations, and superior military technology” (see Ihor Ševčenko, “Muscovy's Conquest of Kazan : Two Views Reconciled, ” Slavic Review, 26, no. 4 [December 1967] : 543). For a more extended discussion of the sociopolitical and economic character of the khanate and the reasons for its failure to compete successfully with Muscovy, see J. Pelenski, Russia and Kazan : Conquest and Imperial Ideology (1438-1560s) (The Hague : Mouton, 1974), pp. 53-61.

20. Alishev, “Prisoedinenie narodov, ” pp. 174-77, passim.

21. Ibid., pp. 181-82.

22. Alishev acknowledges that incorporation made possible the involvement of Tatars and other Middle Volgan peoples in the progressive development of Russia. It also, he admits, opened the door to Russian cultural influence. But, having quoted Engels, he insists that another side to this story needs telling. “It is no secret, ” he writes, “that in many historical works, authors go so far as to laud and excuse Russian feudal lords and princes for the sake of proving the progressiveness of incorporation‘(ibid., p. 179).

23. Ibid., pp. 180-83. Alishev's position compares well with that of P. G. Galuzo, a specialist on Kazakh agricultural history, as discussed in L. Tillett, “Russian Imperialism and Colonialism, ” pp. 114-16.

24. For example, see R. I. Nafigov's preface to S. M. Mikhailova's Formirovanie i razvitieprosvetitel'stva sredi Tatar Povolzh'ia (1800-1861) (Kazan', 1972), especially p. iv.

25. K. F. Faseev, “Bor'ba dvutch mirovozzrenii v natsional'nom voprose (na materialakh tatarskoi obshchestvennoi mysli i kul'tury), ” avtoreferat dissertatsii, Kazanskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, 1971, p. 25. Some of the early works that helped formulate these views are : Gubaidullin, G. S., Iz proshlogo tatar (Kazan', 1925)Google Scholar; G., Ibragimov, Tatary v revoliutsii 1905 goda (Kazan', 1926)Google Scholar; and Arsharuni, A. and Gabidullin, Kh., Ocherkipanislamizma ipantiurkizma v Rossii (Moscow, 1931)Google Scholar.

26. Kh. Kh. Khasanov, “Iz istorii formirovaniia tatarskoi natsii, ” in Tatariia vproshlom inastoiashchem, pp. 186-96.

27. Ibid., pp. 195-96. The hostile reaction of the Russian bourgeoisie is discussed on page 190.

28. la. G. Abdullin, Tatarskaia prosvetitel'skaia mysl’ (Sotsial'naia priroda i osnovye problemy) (Kazan', 1976), pp. 14-15.

29. Ibid., pp. 15-18.

30. Ibid., p. 25.

31. Paper on eighteenth-century Tatar literature delivered to a conference held in November 1974 in Kazan’ on problems relating to the historiography and sources of the peasant war under Pugachev. Usmanov's contribution, as several of the others, is reported without title by V. S. Rumiantseva, “Problemy istoriografii i istochnikovedeniia krest'ianskoi voiny 1773-1775 godov v Rossii, ” Istoriia SSSR, 1975, no. 4, p. 230.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. Usmanov, M. A., Tatarskie istorkheskie islochniki XVII-XVIII vv. (Kazan', 1972), p. 197 Google Scholar. We can also take note of Ostroumov, V.'s “XV1II-XIX gasyrlarda Kazanda Tatar korylmalary arkhitekturasy, ” Kazan Utlary, 1973, no. 6, pp. 123–28Google Scholar, wherein the author argues for the modernity of Kazan’ architecture as a result of Tatar bourgeois patronage.

35. Among A. G. Karimullin's many publications, note should be taken of : “Vozniknovenierossiiskogo knigopechataniia arabskim shriftom, ” Narody Azii i Afriki, 1969, no. 3, pp. 95-103; “lz istorii tatarskoi knigi XVTIl-pervoi poloviny XIX v., ” Kniga. Issledovaniia i material﹜; 18 (1969) : 126-54; “O dorevoliutsionnoi tatarskoi knizhnoi produktsii, ” Tezisy dokladov itogovoinauchnoi sessii za 1970 god. Akademiia Nauk SSSR (Kazan', 1971), pp. 84-89; “O knige i natsional'noi knige, ” Voprosy tatarskogo iazyka i literatury, yo\. 4(Kazan', 1969), pp. 103-10; U istokov tatarskoi knigi (Kazan', 1971); “lz istorii izdaniia na tatarskom iazyke proizvedenii russkoi literatury, ” Vzaimovliianie i vzaimoobogashchenie natsional'nykh literatur i iskusstv v razvitom solsialisticheskom obshchestve. Tezisy dokladov nauchno-teoreticheskoi konferentsii (Kazan', 1973), pp. 45-48; and Tatarskaiakniga nachala XX veka (Kazan', 1974).

36. These questions form the heart of an important contribution by Karimullin entitled “O roli tatarskoi knigi v dukhovnoi zhizni naroda v XIX veke, ” in Tatariia v proshlom i nastoiashchem, pp. 197-207. Earlier works by others that offer important information include : B. Dorn, “Chronologisches Verzeichniss der seit dem Jahre 1801 bis 1866 in Kasan gedruckten arabischen, türkischen, tatarischen und persischen Werke, als Katalog der in dem asiatischen Museum befindlichen Schriften der Art, ” Bulletin de I'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Sl.-Pétersbourg, Series 3, 11 (1867) : 305-85; Smirnov, V, “Musul'manskiia pechatnyia izdaniia v Rossii,” Imperatorskoe Russkoe Arkheologicheskoe Obshchestvo, Zapiski vostochnago otdeleniia, 3 (1888) : 97–114 and 395-98; 5 (1890) : 139-45; 6 (1891) : 389-96; 7 (1892) : 389-93; 8 (1893-94) : 195-201 and 391-98Google Scholar; and N., Katanov, Katalogknig otpechatannykh v lipografii imperatorskago kazanskago universiteta s I800po 1896 god (Kazan', 1895).Google Scholar

37. M. A. Usmanov, Tatarskie istorkheskie islochniki, pursues much the same line of argument to explain the retarded development of Tatar historical writing.

38. A. G. Karimullin, “O roli tatarskoi knigi v dukhovnoi zhizni, ” p. 200. In his book U istokov tatarskoi knigi, pp. 12-37, Karimullin addresses this issue at great length with fuller argumentation.

39. A. G. Karimullin, “O roli tatarskoi knigi v dukhovnoi zhizni, ” pp. 200-203. The issue of censorship, both of books and periodicals, is taken up in greater detail in Karimullin's two monographs : U istokov tatarskoi knigi, pp. 188-205 and Tatarskaia kniga nachala XX veka, especially chap. 3. A brief treatment of the difficulty Tatars had even with efforts to publish translations of Russian literature can be found in O. Kadyirov, “Tärjemälär häm tsenzura kirtäläre, ” Kazan Utlary, 1978, no. 9, pp. 143-48.

40. Interest in this subject has run high among specialists from many of the Soviet ethnic groups. Studies by Tatars include : Mikhailova, S. M., Formirovanie i razvilieprosvetilel'stva sredi Tatar Povolzh'ia (Kazan', 1972)Google Scholar; I. Z., Nurullin, “Mäg'rifätchelek realizmy turynda,” Kazan Utlary, 1968, no. 4 Google Scholar; idem., Put’ k zrelosti (Kazan', 1971); Khalitov, G, “Tizlätelgän ädäbi üsesh häm ijat metodlary,” Kazan Utlary, 1971, no. 9 Google Scholar; idem., “Ädäbiiatnyng tep üzänen häm üzenchälegen kurep, ” Kazan Utlary, 1973, no. 5; and Saiganov, A. D., Problema tipieheskogo v tatarskoirealisticheskoi literature (Kazan', 1972)Google Scholar. These are decidedly different in approach from such a typical Stalinist work as Z. A. lshmukhametov, “Iz istorii ateisticheskoi mysli v Tatarii kontsa XIX i nachala XX veka, ” avtoreferat dissertatsii, Kazanskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, 1953.

41. Abdullin, Tatarskaia prosvetitel'skaia mysl'. Pursuing this subject for more than a decade, Abdullin has published a number of articles in addition to this monograph : “Tatar mäg'rifätcheläre filosofiiaseneng kaiber mäs'älälare, ” Kazan Utlary, 1972, no. 12, pp. 159-69, “Voprosy vzaimovliianiia kul'tur v nasledii tatarskikh prosvetitelei, ” Vzaimovliianie i vzaimoobogashchenie, pp. 13-15; “Dini täglimatka häm sufichylykka karshy, ” Kazan Utlary, 1974, no. 2, pp. 149-59; “Ijtimagyi iangaryshny iaklap, ” Kazan Utlary, 1974, no. 10, pp. 89-99; “Kaium Nasyiri ijatynda moral'-ätik mäs'älälär, ” Kazan Utlary, 1975, no. 2, pp. 150-57; and with Ä. Khäirullin, “Märjani mirasyn ölränü iulynda, ” Kazan Utlary, 1976, no. 10, pp. 150-59.

42. Abdullin, Tatarskaia prosvetitel'skaia mysl', p. 3.

43. Ibid., pp. 3-4; Abdullin's emphasis. This passage had already been employed by A. G. Karimullinin Uistokov tatarskoi knigi, p. 5. Its value to historians such as those discussed in this article ought to be apparent.

44. Abdullin, Talarskaia prosvetitel'skaia mysl', p. 28.

45. Ibid., pp. 28-29.

46. Ibid., pp. 29-30 and 59-77. See also his “Dini täg'limatka häm sufichylykka karshy.”

47. Abdullin, Tatarskaiaprosvetitel'skaia mysl', p. 32. One doubts that Abdullin and other serious Tatar scholars are inclined to reject the idea of Russian influence in Tatar history. Rather, they seem to be attempting a more objective assessment of where that influence has been strongest and most meaningful. Studies on this theme, exploring positive as well as negative features, continue to appear, and rightly so. Some examples are : Nafigov, R. I. et al., Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia mysl’ v Povolzh'e v XIXnachale XX veka (Kazan', 1977)Google Scholar; Faseev, K. and Abdullin, la., “Chernyshevskii ham tatar ijtimagyi fikere, ” Kazan Utlary, 1978, no. 7, pp. 145–52Google Scholar; O. Kadyirov, “Tärjemälär häm tsenzura kirtäläre” Mikhailova, S. M., Kazanskii Universitet i prosveshchenie narodov Povolzh'ia i Prirual'ia (Kazan', 1979)Google Scholar; Monasyipov, Sh, “Tatar skripka sangate,” Kazan Utlary, 1979, no. 2, pp. 149–54Google Scholar; S. M., Mikhailova, “Tatar khalkynyng mäg'rifätche uly,” Kazan Utlary, 1980, no. 2, pp. 171–74Google Scholar; and Mahdiev, M, “Rus orientalistlarynyng äshchänlege häm tatar vakytly matbugaty,” Kazan Utlary, 1980, no. 3, pp. 170–75.Google Scholar

48. Abdullin, Tatarskaia prosvetitel'skaia mysl', pp. 34-36. Such “eastern” influences are discussed further in : L. Mäkhsümova, “Tatar-Uzbäk ädäbi mönäsäbätläre, ” Kazan Utlary, 1974, no. 6, pp. 141- 48; G. Tahirjanov, “Tatar ädäbiiatynyng katlauly mäs'älälare, ” Kazan Utlary, 1975, no. 7, pp. 143-54; idem., “Ädäbiiat tarikhynda ijtimagyi-mädäni mönäsäbätlärneng role, ” Kazan Utlary, 1975, no. 8, pp. 146-54; idem., “Ädäbi baglanyshlar häm alarnyng nätijäläre, ” Kazan Utlary, 1975, no. 10, pp. 125- 35; L. Mäg'sümova and A. Säläkhetdinov, “Nävoi häm tatar ädäbiiaty, ” Kazan Utlary, 1978, no. 1, pp. 158-61; N. Sh. Khisamov, Poema “Kyssa-ilusuf” Kul'ali (Moscow, 1979); V. Khakov, ” Mäkhäbbätname äsäre häm tatar ädäbiiatynda anyng traditsiialäre, ” Kazan Utlary, 1980, no. 3, pp. 161-67; and la. Abdullin, “Kurenekle fiker iiase, galim häm adip, ” Kazan Utlary, 1980, no. 9, pp. 171 -75. The whole question of Tatar relations with other Russian Muslims is fraught with political implications to which the Soviet regime is acutely sensitive. Pan-Islamic and Pan-Turkist sentiments, although hardly formulated explicitly, clearly represent a contemporary intellectual and emotional undercurrent nurtured by many seeking to defend either religious or ethnic identity against the multitude of twentieth-century challenges.

49. Abdullin, Tatarskaia prosvetitel'skaia mysl', pp. 39-58. See also his “Tatar mSg'rifatchelegeneng iizenchaleklarena karata, ” Kazan Utlary, 1969, no. 10, pp. 158-68 and N. Khalitov, “Kazan tatarlary arkhitekturasynda milli Uzenchalekler, ” Kazan Utlary, 1980, no. 9, pp. 167-70.

50. Abdullin, Tatarskaia prosvetitel'skaia mysl', p. 302.

51. As far as I have been able to discover, none of the works analyzed in this article has been reviewed or discussed in all-Union forums. From this fact we could argue with some justification that the new Tatar historiography has remained an epiphenomenon with little or no apparent national impact. On the other hand, what has come to characterize Tatar historical writing has found similar expression in the historiography of other non-Russian peoples, especially the Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians, and the three Baltic eponymous groups.

52. See especially la. G. Abdullin, “Rukhi asylybyz, ” Kazan Utlary, 1980, no. 6, pp. 150-55, which echoes the themes of his earlier studies.