[Dissertation] In defense of an anachronism : the Cossack question on the Don, 1861-1914

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy.

Higher quality 6* x 9’ black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

IN DEFENSE OF AN ANACHRONISM: THE COSSACK QUESTION ON THE DON, 1861-1914 VOLUME ONE OF TWO

A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty o f the Graduate School o f Arts and Sciences o f Georgetown University in partial fulfillm ent o f the requirements for the degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy in History

By

Paul E. Heineman, M.A.

Georgetown University Washington, DC November 10, 1999

T

^S'gO ; ^

'

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 9978115

UMI UMI Microform9978115 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Copyright 1999 by Paul E. Heineman A ll Rights Reserved

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES U U U tU tT

II c

The doctoral dissertationAnaster's thesis of ..........................................

entitled

In D e fe n s e o fa n A n a c h r o n is a i: th e Cossack Quest io n on th e Don. 1861—1914

submitted to the department4>rogram of

H i s t o r y ........................................................................ m partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

......................................

in the Graduate School of Georgetown University has been read and approved by the Committee: IL.

1. a

I '

....

November 1 0 ,

Department Chair^fagram Dveclor

1999

Date

This dissertationAhesis has been accepted by the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

a r

w

Forthe Dean

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

.

IN DEFENSE OF AN ANACHRONISM: THE COSSACK QUESTION ON THE DON, 1861-1914 Paul E. Heineman, M.A. Mentor: Richard Stites, Ph.D. ABSTRACT By the turn o f the twentieth century, a consensus had formed across a broad spectrum o f Russian society that the Cossacks, a martial estate that lived in quasi­ segregation from the rest o f the population, had become an anachronism. The dissertation examines the dynamics o f this issue on the territory o f the Don Host, the largest and oldest o f the Cossack Hosts, where the local intelligentsia criticized state policies toward the Cossacks and offered a reform agenda to reverse negative economic and cultural trends. Chapter 1 studies the question o f elite-formation on the Don. with an emphasis on the history o f the Don nobility, whose members would emerge as the leading proponents o f reform. Chapter 2 depicts life in late Imperial Novocherkassk, the institutional and cultural center o f Don society. Chapter 3 investigates the basket o f smaller issues which, taken in aggregate, comprised the “ Cossack question” : Don reformers endeavored to loosen the stifling grip o f War M inistry bureaucrats on the local administration o f the Don Host and to dilute the prevailing m ilitary ethos among the Cossacks. Chapter 4 examines the spirited, i f not always effectual, campaign o f Don activists to commemorate the Don past; they organized archives, erected monuments, and, chiefly, iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

wrote history. Chapter 5 describes how the narrative that emerged from their collective efforts established historical continuity between contemporary Cossacks and the Golden Age o f Cossack liberty. The Cossacks were becoming increasingly aware o f rival groups, including ethnic Russians, as competitors. Chapter 6 examines how the Cossacks viewed the other social and ethnic groups populating the Don and analyzes how these impressions o f “ others" informed Cossack identity. Traditional historiography on the Cossacks during the late Imperial period has focused predominately on their m ilitary and police functions. The dissertation invites a broader view o f the Cossacks, one which allows for the existence o f a literate, politically conscious level o f Cossack society. Moreover, it demonstrates that the Don intelligentsia was formulating a modem identity for the Cossacks as an ethnic group with historical rights, rather than as an Imperial estate endowed with privileges.

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Acknowledgements Although w riting a dissertation may seem at times to be a solitary endeavor, upon completion, one gains an appreciation for the number o f people whose contributions made the work possible. Among the faculty at Georgetown, I would like to thank my advisor Richard Stites for his patience and invaluable editorial assistance (as well as for his cheerful company). David Goldfrank has been an enduring source o f encouragement, tempered, always, by his unique brand o f enlightened skepticism. I owe a great debt to Andrzej Kaminski for sharing with me his honesty and luminous intellect. Larry Fields' arrival as administrator o f the History department has created a warm, supportive environment that has helped ease the frustrating moments in dealing with the University bureaucracy. Among my fellow graduate students at Georgetown, I wish to thank Tom Barrett. Karin Friedrich, Katya Nizheradze. Barbara Pendzich, Argyrios Pisiotis, Sandra Pujals, Steve Tamari, and Karen Taylor for all that they have done for me. The American College o f the Teachers o f Russian provided me with financial assistance to conduct my archival research in Rostov-on-Don. While in Rostov. Vera Belopolskaia, V iktor Chuchenko, and Olga Safronenko helped me to cope with the rigors o f living in a regional Russian city. Professor Nikolai Korshikov supplied me with much-needed guidance in navigating the archives in Rostov. Shane O'Rourke was kind enough to provide me with an advance copy o f his fine book, Warriors and Peasants: the

v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Don Cossacks in late Imperial Russia. My friends Gary DeThomasis, D irk Van Wie, Lindsey Clarkson, Rick Summers, and Colin Macllwain would never let me give up on myself, for which I thank them. Katya Dobrovolskaia, the love o f my life, provided the inspiration to complete this task. O f course, I cannot bypass the enormous support my family has provided me over the course o f this project. My cousin Jane Stephenson and my aunt Anne Stephenson sustained me with their unconditional love. My brother Mike was always available to help me in every way he could. My father has suffered along with me every step o f the way in writing my dissertation. I can only hope that the satisfaction he receives from this moment partially repays the caring (and financial support!) he has given to me. It is with a heavy heart that I reflect on the sadness that my mother did not live to see the completion o f this project. It is to her that I dedicate this work.

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Dedication

To the memory o f my mother, Estelle C. Heineman (1920-1995)

v ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table of Contents

Introduction...............................................................................................................

1

Chapter 1. The Don Cossack Intelligentsia: a Characterization................................

11

Chapter 2. Novocherkassk, Don Cossack C apital....................................................

67

Chapter 3. The Cossack Question(s) on the D on..................................................... 117 Chapter 4. Recovering the Past: History and Commemoration................................ 194 Chapter 5. Don Cossack Historiography................................................................. 245 Chapter 6. The Don Cossacks and “ Others” ............................................................ 307 Conclusion................................................................................................................ 347 Bibliography............................................................................................................. 357

v iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Introduction In 1855 Andrei Filonov, a recent graduate o f St. Petersburg University, was assigned to teach Latin at the classical gymnasium in Novocherkassk. In preparation for his journey to the Don, Filonov approached his imminent travel as i f it were to a foreign land: he consulted maps o f the region and scanned travel literature to gain some perspective on this distant, exotic region. His recorded impressions o f his arrival indicate that his romantic expectations were not disappointed: As soon as you stop at the station you are asked: ‘and how are things in Rus'?' Amazing! It is as if the Cossacks don't consider themselves Russians, yet at the same time whole regiments o f them are guarding Russia. They defend Rus'; they are its children, all o f them, from the ataman to the simple Cossack; they are Russian; in them is that same Orthodox faith, that same zeal for the honor o f the Tsar, but they ask: ‘are you Russian?' ‘are you from Russia?' Strange! Occupied with such thoughts, I pulled into Novocherkassk.1 There is a compelling irony in this juxtaposition: Filonov identities the Don as an alien territory but is indignant and bemused when the Cossacks identify themselves as separate from the metropole. But this paradox should not surprise us. Filonov's attitude toward the Cossacks was probably shared by his contemporaries, and has dominated scholarly opinion ever since. According to this point o f view, the Don Cossacks had long - at least since the mid-eighteenth century - ceased to exist as an independent body; although the image o f the free, w illful Cossack lived on as a literary trope, by the mid-nineteenth century any claim to distinction on the part o f the Cossacks represented effrontery,

‘A. G. Filonov, Ocherki Dona (St. Petersburg, 1859), 3-4. 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ignorance, antiquarian fantasy, or some combination o f the three. By the latter half o f the nineteenth century, centralizing bureaucrats and liberal politicians alike regarded the Cossacks as an embarrassing feudal vestige. In his pathbreaking book Tsar and Cossack, 1855-1914 Robert McNeal describes how, from the perspective o f St. Petersburg, the Cossacks had become an anachronism: in addition to a prevailing cultural and economic backwardness, the Cossacks required increased training and investment to remain an effective combat force, which contradicted the very logic o f the Cossacks, who were supposed to equip themselves at their own expense. From the Imperial capital, the “ Cossack question” was how to prevent the Cossacks' social decline from affecting their martial potential. McNeal suggests that the reason the Cossack question was not “ solved" through an abandonment o f the Cossack principle altogether was a moribund Imperial polity unw illing to relinquish the savored myth o f a personal relationship between Tsar and Cossack.2 The Cossacks themselves interpreted the Cossack question quite differently. To them the issue was not budgetary or strategic planning, but the defense o f their hardearned material and social advantages, as well as their identity as Cossacks. Clearly, they did not defend themselves qua anachronism. Rather, Don society cast a critical gaze on the economic, social, and political trends contributing to the "anachronization" o f the Cossacks and undertook a comprehensive self-examination o f their community which

2McNeal, Tsar and Cossack, 1855-1914 (Oxford, 1987).

2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

encompassed cultural, economic, ethnographic, environmental and historical study - with the latter assuming paramount importance. Underlying this whole effort was a reevaluation o f Cossack identity and interests. Through its constant iteration o f the unique characteristics and traditions o f the Don Cossacks, the Don intelligentsia resembled the guiding force o f a national minority more than a branch o f the Great Russian family and laid the ideological groundwork for a Don Cossack nationalism that would reach its apogee during the Russian C ivil War. Traditional historiography has not allowed for a critical understanding or articulation o f Cossack interests by the Cossacks themselves. Rather, the Cossacks were “ instinctive rebels" who, after the suppression o f the Razin. Bulavin, and Pugachev upheavals in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, unconsciously acquiesced to their new role as defenders o f the tsarist order.3 As one historian wrote, “ Cossack minds hardly stirred at all. When they did, the impetus came from outside."4 This study w ill challenge such reductive viewpoints. Although the image o f the Cossack as a plebeian rebel has rightfully attracted popular and scholarly interest, historians o f Russia must recognize the existence o f an educated, cultured level on the Don.

The first chapter w ill offer a prosopographic overview o f Don society, with a

3Cf. Paul Avrich, Russian Rebels, 1600-1800 (New York, 1976). ■•Philip Longworth, The Cossacks (London, 1969), 250. 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

particular emphasis on the Don nobility. Although by no means monolithic, the Don elite united behind the mission o f promoting the development o f civilian society among the Cossacks as an antidote to their decline. I w ill describe its membership in terms o f historical antecedents, education patterns, employment opportunities, and economic status. The second chapter w ill establish a sense o f time and place to show how the geographic and administrative vagaries o f Novocherkassk, the administrative center o f the Host as well as main arena for the Don intelligentsia, influenced the makeup and outlook o f the Cossack elite; and it w ill sketch the cultural and institutional climate o f the city. These two chapters w ill show that the Don nobility, despite being the wealthiest and most privileged sector o f the Don community, was frustrated in achieving its civilizing mission by an unsympathetic War Ministry. The resulting sense o f grievance reinforced their identity with the Cossack rank and file. The third chapter w ill chronicle the debate on the Don over those issues that were at the root o f the Cossack question; the sale o f land to inogorodnye (non-Cossacks living in the Host), the reduction o f Cossack military burdens; the expansion o f educational opportunities on the Don; and the economic development o f the Cossacks. In addition it w ill address the most rancorous and enduring source o f grievance for Don civic activists - the failure to implement the zemstvo reform within the Host. The fourth chapter w ill change direction and focus directly on the question o f how this intelligentsia perceived, fashioned and expressed the group identity o f the Don

4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Cossacks. In her study o f the Cossacks as a literary trope, Judith Deutsch Komblatt analyzes the liminal aspects o f the literary Cossack hero in nineteenth century Russian literature: the Cossacks o f Gogol and others seem to exist outside the framework of historical chronology and free o f geographical constraints.5 Conversely, the Don intelligentsia sought to construct a Cossack identity grounded in a concrete historical narrative o f the Cossack past within the precise boundaries o f the Don Host. This was not to undermine the greatness o f Cossack deeds but to reclaim them from the realm of myth as the rightful heritage o f the contemporary Cossacks. Given the depressed condition of the Host, reference to the past also provided the primary source o f reifying images around which to construct a positive identity. The fourth chapter w ill examine the administrative and cultural environment in which the Don intelligentsia endeavored to reclaim the Don's epic heritage and to promote historical awareness among the Cossacks. To accomplish this, the intelligentsia had to invent the historical profession on the Don. They built commemorative monuments, collected materials from central archives, recruited historians, lobbied for resources, and incessantly lamented the absence o f a definitive history o f the Don Cossacks. This effort culminated in 1899 when the Museum o f the History o f the Don Cossacks opened in Novocherkassk. Last but not least, they wrote history. The fifth chapter w ill review the historiography o f the Don from this period. The

sJudith Deutsch Komblatt, The Cossack Hero in Russian Literature: A Study in Cultural Mythology (Madison, 1992). 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Don Cossacks produced no great historians; for most practitioners, history was an avocation which supplemented a m ilitary or bureaucratic post. Their amateur standing notwithstanding, the Don historians understood that the intellectual respectability afforded by a recorded history was a prerequisite for acceptance in the modem world. Viewed collectively, their historical works comprise nothing less than a rudimentary national history, complete with mythic origins, a Heimat, traditional enemies, an ethnic heritage, and a defining mission around which all historical events are logically organized. Moreover, the segregation (zamknutost0 enveloping the Don community defined the historical enterprise as well: it was to be the specific history o f the Don Cossacks, w ritten by Don Cossacks for Don Cossacks. To justify this stance. Don writers cited previous slanders in Russian histories which ignored, distorted, or undervalued the heroic deeds o f the Cossacks. That spurts in writing national history accompanied the nationalist revivals o f the late nineteenth century is well documented, although debate persists as to whether this was a cause or effect o f the process. Invoking scholarship on the relationship between history w riting and nationalism,6 I w ill analyze their historical output with particular attention to how the politics o f the past held relevance for the contemporary situation on the Don. As the self-proclaimed guardians o f a culture o f memory among the Cossacks, the Don historians undertook responsibility for the selection o f which episodes o f the Cossacks' turbulent history to remember, and - just as

bE.g., Hayden White, Metahistory: the Historical Imagination in nineteenthcentury Europe (Baltimore, 1973). 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

importantly - which to forget.7 The sixth chapter w ill further examine expressions o f Cossack identity by describing how Don writers portrayed both the Cossacks and the various "outsiders" who inhabited the Don during the period o f study. Questions o f identity were forced upon the Cossacks by political, economic, and demographic trends which raised the presence o f outside influences - and o f outsiders, on the Don. Essentially political or economic themes took on cultural overtones; debate over what remained o f Cossack privileges translated into debate over what remained o f essential Cossack qualities. I w ill utilize a wide body o f evidence on how the educated elite understood the reality o f their Cossack brethren and o f the peasants. Kalmyks, Armenians, and others who shared the territory o f the Don, with special attention to how perceptions o f inherent traits pervaded this understanding. I w ill demonstrate that over the course o f the period in question the general tenor o f discussion o f self*identity on the Don progressed from one that demanded recognition o f the Cossacks as a constituent element o f the Russian community to one that emphasized the historical distinctiveness o f the Don Cossacks. In my conclusions I w ill discuss the.broader question o f how the Don Cossacks fit into our current historiographical understanding o f estate and regional identity in late Imperial Russia. In addition to providing insight into a little studied area o f the Russian Empire, I am proposing a fresh appraisal o f the Don Cossacks by placing them in the

7Cf. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread o f Nationalism (London and New York, 1991). 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

context o f the national revival that spread throughout Eastern Europe during the latter half o f the nineteenth century. While it would be unwise to equate the national development o f the Don Cossacks with that o f Russians during this period, comparison with the Belorussians, the Slovaks, and numerous other "small nations" is quite appropriate.1 Western scholars tend to refer to a "way o f life" rather than traditional group definitions when characterizing the Cossacks. I aim to provide some much needed semantic clarity as w ell as to give proper weight to the historical importance o f the Don Cossacks. The dissertation contributes to a growing historical interest in the Cossacks among Western historians.4 In addition, the past few years have witnessed a flood o f materials (o f greatly varying quality) published in Russia on this previously sensitive topic.10

'Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions o f National Revival in Europe. A Comparative Analysis o f the Social Composition o f Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198S). Manfred Alexander. Frank Kampfer and Andreas Kappeler (eds.) Kleine Volker in derGeschichte Osteuropas (Wiesbaden. 1991). ’Thomas M. Barrett, At the Edge o f Empire: The Terek Cossacks and the North Caucasus Frontier, 1700-1860 (Boulder, 1999); Peter Isaac Holquist, “ A Russian Vendee: the practice o f revolutionary politics in the Don countryside, 1917-1921," (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 199S); Shane O'Rourke “ The Don Cossacks during the 190S Revolution: The Revolt o f Ust-Medveditskaia Stanitsa," Russian Review 57 (October 1998): 583-599; O’ Rourke, “ Women in a warrior society: Don Cossack women. 1860-1914,” in Rosalind Marsh (ed.) Women in Russian and Ukraine (Cambridge. 1996). 45-54; O'Rourke, Warriors and Peasants : the Don Cossacks in late Imperial Russia (New York, forthcoming). l0Cf. Oleg Agafonov, Kazach 7 voiska Rossiiskoi Imperii (Moscow, 1995); M.S. Astapenko, Donskie kazaki, 1550-1920 ( Rostov-on-Don, 1992); A.I. Kozlov (ed.),

8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Some terminological explanation is in order. The term “ Host” (voisko) in the Imperial lexicon was essentially an administrative term, referring to the essentially extraterritorial management o f a m ilitary colony, populated by members o f the Cossack estate (soslovie). contained w ithin larger administrative entities. There were twelve Cossack Hosts at the time o f the Empire's eclipse. Among them, the Don Host was unique. In addition to being the oldest and - by far - most populous o f the Cossack Hosts, the territorial lim its o f the Host were contiguous w ith a territorial unit o f the Russian provincial system. U ntil 1835 their land bore the rather archaic title o f “ Territory o f the Don Cossacks" (Zemlia Donskikh Kazakov), when it gave way to the more neutral “ Territory o f the Don Host” (Zemlia voiska Donskogo). In 1870 the even more institutional “ Oblast o f the Don Host" (Oblast' voiska Donskogo) was adopted. The term Host w ill be used to refer to the land and administration o f the Oblast o f the Don Host. The Don Host covered on an enormous expanse (over 14,500,000 desiatiny) on the Pontic steppe, was ftirther divided into six okrugs: Cherkassk. Miussk. Donetsk, Khopersk, 1st Don, and 2nd Don. In 1884. Salsk okrug was created from the southern portion o f Cherkassk okrug. In 1887. Rostov uezd and the municipality o f Taganrog were annexed to the Host. Rostov uezd became Rostov okrug; Taganrog was joined to Miussk okmg, which was renamed Taganrog okrug.

Problemy istorii Kazachestva XVI - XX w. (Rostov-on-Don, 1995); R.A. Nelepin, Istoriia Kazachestva 2 Vols. (St. Petersburg, 1995);. Za Drugi svoia Hi vse o Kazachestve (Moscow, 1993). 9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The head o f the Host administration bore the ancient title o f ataman, the same title as elective leaders o f the Cossacks during the era when they enjoyed autonomy from the Empire. St. Petersburg usurped this prerogative in 1721; the title o f the position changed to nakuznyi ataman to reflect the new reality. Leaders o f the Host continued to be chosen from the ranks o f the Don Cossacks until the death o f Maksim Vlasov in 1848. In 1868 the title o f the position was changed again to voiskovoi nakaznyi ataman, at which time the position was invested with the rights and privileges o f both military-govemor and commander o f a m ilitary district. The abbreviated term "ataman” w ill be used to refer to the persons holding this position. A ll dates used reflect the pre-1918 Russian calendar, which ran twelve days in advance o f the Gregorian calendar.

10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Chapter 1 The Don Cossack Intelligentsia: a Charaterization Prosti menia, moi Don svobodnyi, Prosli menia. chto zhil ia malo, Chto mnogo dum ne doskazal! In 1907 a two-volume collection published in Novocherkassk under the title DontsyXIX veka (Don Cossacks o f the Nineteenth Century), the scope o f which is suggested by its cumbersome subtitle: Biographies and Material for the Biographies o f Don activists in the their m ilitary, civic, and social service, as well as in the fields o f Science, Art, Literature, and Others. A brief introduction conveys an urgency in promulgating this material; after proclaiming the sincere love all Cossacks feel for their community, the unnamed author claims that, owing to the dispersion o f Don Cossacks throughout Russia and the influx o f “ outsiders” (inogorodnye) on the Don.“ this affection for the [Don] and its knightly history...has noticeably waned” , thus generating “ the strict demand o f History to preserve for posterity all that deserves this attention.” 1 To this end, the introduction expresses confidence that the with these mini-biographies o f 231 outstanding figures o f the nineteenth century the contributors have "fulfilled, to the best o f their abilities, a sacred c ivil duty to their compatriots (sooichichei). as well as to

1Dontsy X IX veka. Biograjii i : materialy dlia biografii Donskikh deiatelei na porishche sluzhby voennoi, grazhdanskoi i obshchestvennoi, a takzhe v oblasti nauk. iskusstv, literatury i proch (Novocherkassk, 1907), part 1,1-2. II

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the history o f the Quiet Don."2 Considering the distinctive m ilitary obligations o f the Cossack estate, the reader might expect a collection o f blustering anecdotes celebrating the Cossack gallantry and exploits on the battlefield in their service for the Russian armed services during the nineteenth century. Those hoping to read uplifting tales o f combat valor would meet with disappointment upon turning to the firs t"donets,"J complete with photograph. Rather than finding a Taras Bulba look-alike gazing fiercely from horseback, he would confront the image o f Vissarion Grigor'evich Alekseev posing in a drawing room, elegantly dressed and coifed, peering through his pince-nez, identified as "Mathematics Professor."4 One finds entries such as "chemistry professor," "veterinarian." "writer." "geologist," and other non-martial pursuits. The very fact that the presentations list a profession is telling: why would a real Cossack, for whom the designation kazak engendered a sacred calling, have need for any other profession? It becomes clear that the term “ activist” (deiatel 1 does not refer to the Cossack rank and file: not a single Koz'ma Kriuchkov-type5 is represented.

2 Ibid.. 2. 3"Donets" was a shorthand term used by the War M inistry to distinguish Don Cossacks from Cossacks o f other Cossack Hosts. 4 Ibid., 1-3. 5Popular literary accounts o f Kriuchkov's m ilitary exploits during World War I made him an exemplar o f the loyal, w ily rank-and-file Don Cossack. See Hubertus Jahn, Patriotic Culture in Russia during World War I (Ithaca, NY, 1995), 24, 87,158, 174. 12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

How could the contributors6 consider this book an adequate representation o f “ The Don Cossacks o f the Nineteenth century” ? Assuming that the urgency expressed in the introduction was genuine, what made it so important that this material be preserved for future generations? One clue can be seen in the choice o f the nineteenth century, hardly the most glorious period o f Don Cossack history, as the focus o f attention. The introduction does not explain this boundary,7 but notes that "civilian life" (gruzhdanskaia zhizn') had only arrived on the Don in the latter half o f the nineteenth century. Perhaps the declared gravity o f the task is an expression o f frustration, both at the weakening bonds o f the Cossack community and, more importantly, at the lack o f attention accorded to the contributions made by Cossacks in the civilian realm. This latter, undeclared, frustration is reflected in the emphasis on civilian affairs: m ilitary ranks certainly

6Thc introduction names Mikhail Stepanovich Markov, Marshal o f the Don nobility, 1892-1901, as the chairman o f a "circle" that formed in Novocherkassk to work on the project, Dontsy, part 1.2; and Markov did participate with contributors in discussions on the collection before his death in 1904, Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rostovskoi Oblasti (hereafter GARO) F. 55, op. I, d. 1019.1. 29. Eleven men are credited as the primary authors o f the biographical sketches: Lev Vasil'evich Bogaevskii. Vladim ir Fedorovich Bogachev, Vladimir Vladimirovich Bogachev, Boris Matveevich Kalinin. Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Karasev, Vasilii Akimovich Kharlamov, Vasilii Mikhailovich Liutenskov, I.F. Nikolaev, N ikolai Aleksandrovich Norov, Ivan Petrovich Popov, Khariton Ivanovich Popov, and M ikhail Semenovich Zhirov. The two Popovs and Karasev were at the very center o f the Don intelligentsia. Others composed individual pieces: Dontsy XIX veka, part 1, afterword. The afterword expresses “ sincere thanks" to Kalinin for his efforts, which, considering his slim contribution (he wrote only four o f the 108 entries in the first volume), suggests his support was financial. 7An archival file on the preparation for the publication includes numerous lists but unfortunately provides no editorial commentary: GARO f. 55. op. 1, d. 47. The file refers to the volumes as the "Markov collection" (Markovskii sbornik). 13

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

outnumber civilian titles among the subjects, but the biographical entries themselves often discuss their subjects' contributions to the Don in the civilian realm at the expense o f m ilitary exploits.* Although the introduction does not announce an emphasis on any specific layer o f the Cossack community, the compendium undoubtedly represents an important expression o f the group identity o f the Don intelligentsia; it affords the Don's civic activists a chance both to celebrate their contributions to the Cossack community and to anoint themselves the vanguard o f the Cossacks. The issues that particularly animated this group and may have caused them to feel the need for such an expression at this moment in Cossack history w ill be illuminated later in this study. Suffice it to say that they had reason to experience an importunity in asserting their authority within the Don Host, both to the Cossacks themselves, and to the War M inistry, their bureaucratic overlords. It is not d ifficu lt to identify in this volume an im plicit effort at redefinition o f the Don Cossack community, one in which membership is not defined exclusively by m ilitary service. The authors invite their readers to broaden their horizons and, perhaps.

*As the entry for G avriil Bokov notes, "[Bokov] began his service in the m ilitary field, then completed it in the civilian realm": ibid., 54. The introduction mentions the predominance o f m ilitary titles as one o f the collections' deficiencies: ibid.. 3. Moreover, it is not consistent. For example, Nikolai Krasnov, perhaps the most talented Don historian from the period and a frequent contributor to national journals, is listed as a "Lieutenant General.” His son Petr, the future ataman, although holding a m ilitary rank, is listed as a "w riter": ibid., 220,228. 14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

their plans for their children. They are also encouraging a confidence in the Cossacks' ability to perform in the civilian world. This attitude is made explicit in the words that conclude the entry for artist Nikolai Dubovskii: "his works...are enduring proof that the Don Cossacks are capable o f working in all areas o f scholarship, the arts, and the workplace.”'* Recalling again the collection's prolix subtitle, these words herald a lime when "the fields o f Science, Art, Literature, and Others" w ill be a constituent element o f Cossack identity, rather than an appellation. Which leads us back to the lines quoted in the epigraph, a particularly poignant display o f this impulse. The words were written in a poem by I.P.Popov, a leading intelligent on the Don, written on the eve o f his death in 1906 at age forty-three. Roughly translated, these lines might be rendered “ Forgive me. my Don so free/.../forgive me for having lived so brietly,/for the many thoughts I could not fully articulate." The overt pathos expressed runs counter to what one might expect from a Don Cossack on his death-bed: not to have died in battle; to have let down his regiment; to have served the Tsar too briefly. But Popov here rues his lack o f intellectual output during his lifetime. As Popov's eulogist noted: M[M ]ilitary service itself did not interest I.P. - he wanted to study the way o f life and laws o f his brother Cossacks, in the past as well as in the present, and to serve the Cossacks in the field o f their peaceful development."11*

9 Ibid., p. 107. 10Andrei A. K irillo v, "Pamiati Ivan Petrovich Popova," Sbornik Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Statisticheskogo Komiteta [hereafter Sbornik] V II (1907): i, iii. 15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The very notion o f "Cossack intelligentsia" might sound strange to those who associate the term intelligentsia with Russia’s capitals. Naturally some qualification is necessary in transferring this term to the Quiet Don. The significance o f the Russian intelligentsia as a historical actor has been a recurrent theme in Western scholarship, although there is a considerable range o f opinion on how to define this group. In a classic essay titled, appropriately, "What Is the Intelligentsia?" Martin Malia notes the inadequacy o f traditional social, economic or cultural categories in describing the group and settles for characterizing the intelligentsia as a "middle group": "Whether merely 'critically thinking1or actively oppositional, their name indicates that they thought o f themselves as the embodied 'intelligence,' 'understanding.' or 'consciousness' o f the nation. In other words, they clearly felt an exceptional sense o f apartness from the society in which they lived."11 Malia excludes from membership those who served the State in any capacity, for the "real intelligentsia" was "totally alienated from the state."12 In another essay published in the same compendium, Boris Elkin is more generous, defining the intelligentsia as that part o f the "educated class...whose distinguishing characteristic was its aspiration to overcome the stagnation o f the existing Russian system o f government and secure a change o f regime. No class distinction was made with regard

11 Martin Malia "What Is the Intelligentsia?" in Richard Pipes, ed.. The Russian Intelligentsia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 3,6-7. 12Ibid., 9. 16

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

to this stratum....Not infrequently judges, civil servants, and more rarely, army officers were typical members o f the intelligentsia."13 Other descriptions o f the Russian intelligentsia stress its fixation w ith moral imperatives, its preoccupation with Western philosophical models, and its preference for discussion over action. Debate exists over whether participants in Russia's increasingly violent revolutionary comprise a radical wing o f the intelligentsia, or should be considered an entirely new animal. So in what sense was there a viable intelligentsia on the Don. that is, a group o f self conscious, highly educated, critically thinking, high-minded, self-important, cosmopolitan and verbose individuals dedicated to the cause o f fundamental reform o f the existing regime? It should be stipulated from the outset that the term "intelligentsia" did have currency on the Don. A t times it was used as a general term for those who "labored with their minds," and but others had more elevated conceptions: I f someone were to ask us what are the ideals o f our Don intelligentsia at the present time...we would not be able to find any answer... As a matter o f fact, we do not know for certain what ideals our intelligentsia lives by. We do not know this because we do not recognize an intelligentsia on the Don, an intelligentsia as a discrete, close-knit union o f intellectually and morally developed people... [I]n our world we only see an intelligentsia in a dispersed (razbrosannom) form, moving in disorder...without leaders (kolonnovozhatykh), without shepherds, pursuing goals o f the most varied quality. It seems obvious that in such a form the intelligentsia is incapable o f any cultural work, powerless not only to realize any ideal, but even to formulate one in the vivid contours that w ill be clear and comprehensible to any neophyte needing enlightenment and the direction o f his intellectual energy toward productive work. Moreover, in its present form the

13 Boris Elkin "The Russian Intelligentsia on the Eve o f Revolution" in The Russian Intelligentsia, 32. Elkin cites M iliukov as a proponent o f this view. 17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

intelligentsia itself w ill become a victim to the swirl o f everyday life, which w ill consume it and reduce its individual members to various sorts o f businessmen: railroad executives, lawyers, financiers, and so forth. Just what is it that prevents our intelligentsia from closing ranks, to move together to meet any challenge that comes up head on, to undertake together to renew society, carrying out all the necessary cultural work this entails?...14 Even though the author o f this editorial from the local press is sceptical about its condition, he im plicitly accepts the existence o f a Don intelligentsia and demonstrates a predilection for the programmatic and moral probity one normally associates with the Russian intelligentsia. Im plicit in the term intelligentsia is a sense o f mission: toward what, after all, is this group serving as a vanguard? Ostensibly the Don intelligentsia worked to defend the interests and privileges o f the Don Cossacks; but, educated Cossacks were cognizant that larger economic and social trends had rendered the Cossack "privilege" o f universal, selffinanced m ilitary service a burden. Beyond questions o f administrative reform and material support, the Don intelligentsia promoted the extension o f grazhdanstvennost' (or grazhdanstoia zhizn') among the Cossacks.15 On the surface this would appear to mirror the objective o f some o f the St. Petersburg intelligentsia to establish the foundations o f "civil society" w ithin the restrictions o f the autocratic state. Among the Cossacks,

14 "Novocherkassk, 19 lunia 1882," Donskoi golos No. 47, (1882): 185-86. l5In the entry for M ikhail Stepanovich Markov, authors A.A. Karasev and V.V. Bogachev describe him as a "purely civilian person, in the broadest and best sense o f the word"; DontsyXIXveto, part 1 ,266. 18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

however, this seemingly pallid concept obtained a more potent implication: embedded in the invocation o f this word was nothing less than a decoupling o f the term Cossack from its exclusive identification with military service as a sacred duty or preordained calling. The intelligentsia was both a product and machine o f an ongoing process in the conversion o f the Don Cossacks from a military society to a society enjoying all the fruits o f civilian life. In a speech before delegates to a commission reviewing Cossack legislation in 1866 Alexander II expressed his wish that "The Cossack population, in addition to carrying out its m ilitary obligations as in the past, can and should at the same time enjoy the benefits o f civilian well-being with all the other parts o f the Empire.'"6 Don writers invoked these words in virtually every communication with the central government supporting a reform initiative or challenging perceived encroachments. The term grazhdanstvennost' obtained a euphemistic sense when introduced against the background o f the Cossacks' historical relationship w ith the Russian empire. Reviewing those transitional moments in history when the Don Cossacks suffered ruptures o f their relative independence, it was common for Don writers to characterize the aftermaths not as the Imperial government usurping Cossack rights but rather bestowing the foundations

l6Andronik Minaevich Savel'ev, Trekhstoletie Voiska Donskago (St. Petersburg, 1870), 122. 19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

o f grazhdanstvennost' or grazhdanskaia zhizn'}1 By invoking this term, the Don intelligentsia implied an obligation on the part o f St. Petersburg to compensate the Cossacks for their loyal service by investing the resources or sanctioning the institutions necessary to benefit them economically and culturally. In his dissertation on the Don Host's absorption into the Imperial administration during the eighteenth century, Bruce Menning employs the term "socialization" to characterize the impact o f this process on the Cossacks.18 Taken literally, socialization implies the infancy o f the subject; and the Don intelligentsia o f the late nineteenth century judged that the Host had long passed its need for an initial bureaucratic tutelage and was prepared for an economic and cultural flourishing. This was a very delicate mission: by suggesting any emphasis on civilian over military priorities within the Don Host, the intelligentsia exposed itself to criticism that its members were not "real Cossacks," that they were weakening the core o f Cossack identity. Even if the rank and file Cossacks were aware o f their progressive impoverishment - which by the end o f the nineteenth century was all too evident - they still retained a pride in the Cossacks as a privileged estate and were consequently susceptible to warnings that they were being reduced to reguliarstvo (that is, regular soldiers).

l7For example, see Aleksandr Matveevich Grekov. "Voinskaia povinnost' Donskago kazach'iacgo voiska v prezhnee i nastoiashchee vremia" Voennyi sbornik I (1876): 157; and Savel'ev, 93-95, 118. 18Bruce W. Menning, "The Socialization o f the Don Cossack Host prior to the Reign o f Nicholas I" (PhD Dissertation, Duke University, 1971). 20

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Some qualification is in order when discussing the extent to which the Don intelligentsia was "critical" o f the existing regime. Most o f the individuals whom I would classify as being members attended universities on Host stipends, were published in the official press, and held positions o f responsibility in the Don Host administration. The Don intelligentsia's critical aspect was embodied in and limited to its Cossack patriotism. It by and large did not occupy itse lf with Empire-wide issues. To paraphrase the above words o f Boris Elkin, it sought to overcome the economic and cultural stagnation o f the Don Cossacks and secure for them the full benefits o f civilian life. This is not to say that the Don intelligentsia did not share in the pride Don Cossacks took in their m ilitary achievements; that they wanted the Cossacks to exchange the prominence o f m ilitary life for Cossack identity. Many o f its members had distinguished m ilitary records themselves.1" Nonetheless, a palpable sense o f grievance differentiates the Don intelligentsia from a “ Service-Elite.” 20 Although the Don intelligentsia was criticized at times for its liberalism, it was closer to the outlook o f the conservative intelligentsia, the Slavophiles. Don Cossack intellectuals remained loyal to the person o f the Tsar but worried that an intrusive bureaucracy had inteijected itself between the Tsar and his people. In fact, the terms

19DontsyXlX veka, part 1,9-12 [I.A. Andrianov); 54-57 [G.I. Bokov); 253-259 [L.M . Liutenskov); 264-268 [M.S. Markov] 20For the authoritative work on gentry liberalism in Russia, see George Fischer. Russian Liberalism: from Gentry to Intelligentsia (Cambridge, MA, 1958). 21

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

"liberal" and "conservative." as generally employed to describe political attitudes in Imperial Russia, do not transfer very well to the Don. To liberal opinion in Russia's capitals, the continued existence o f the Cossack as a separate estate was an embarrassing feudal vestige. The Don intelligentsia drew reproach for its willingness to criticize the War Ministry's administration o f the Don Host, but it did not challenge the Tsarist order as such. The "conservative" position on the Don would hold that as the loyal servants o f the Tsar, the Cossacks were duty bound to submit without question to his w ill as interpreted by his subordinates in the War M inistry. The Don intelligentsia was at variance with the Russian model in terms o f social composition. Standard historiography holds that in its first fruition during the reign o f Nicholas I the Russian intelligentsia was predominantly o f noble origin. As the century progressed, however, educational opportunities became available to a broader range o f the population and, consequently, the children o f merchants, priests, and ruznochintsy elements assumed the numerical superiority.:i Among the Don Cossacks the history o f the intelligentsia remained to a much greater extent limited to the nobility, which is not to say that the entire nobility was permeated w ith a critical spirit, however defined." In

:1Malia, 14. "F o r example, we would most likely not want to include in the intelligentsia a certain colonel Mushketov who in 1864 wrote to request that his okrug assembly not elect him to any office due to poor health, adding: "W ith regard to the business at hand before our nobility, I w ill agree w ith anything so long as it is legal." GARO f. 410. op. t,d . 177. 1.5.

22

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

describing the consequences o f the rise in national organizations in the late Habsburg Empire, Gerald Stourzh notes the advance during this period o f ambitious people who not only "belonged to an ethnic group, but who were 'nationally minded'";23 to be a member o f the Cossack intelligentsia, one had not only to have education and Cossack affiliation, but also be "Cossack-mindcd." *

Although there had always been a de facto economic and political elite on the Don, its privileged position was not codified until the late eighteenth century. This culminated a decades-long process during which the Don Cossack starshina (elders) gradually gathered the administrative, m ilitary and judicial responsibilities at the expense o f the traditional Host Krug, where in principle all Cossacks had enjoyed an equal voice in electing officials and ajudicating legal disputes.24 The semblance o f equality in the ranks eroded over the course o f the eighteenth century as. first the Posol'skii prikaz. then the M ilitary College, effectively coopted the Cossack starshina as an instrument for extending Imperial rule on the Don. On an ad hoc basis, elite Cossacks acquired Imperial titles and land grants, as well as a monopoly on administrative and judicial power w ithin the Host. There is no indication that any members o f the new elite suffered from any

23Gerald Stourzh, "The Multinational Empire Revisited; Reflections on Late Imperial Austria" Austrian History Yearbook XX1I1 (1992): 19. 24S. G. Svatikov, "Donskoi Voiskovoi Krug," Donskaia Letopis' 1 (1923): 169266. 23

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

scruples over the process. The horizons for acquisitive grandees were expanded during the reigns o f Stepan and Daniil Efremov, who took advantage o f their position to procure all the trappings o f opulence. As o f 177S Cossacks serving in Guards units in St. Petersburg were exposed to the splendors o f Court life.” Those families who attained ascendancy during the eighteenth century - Efremov, llovaiskii, Lukovkin, Denisov, Orlov, Poliakov, Krasnov, Kuteinikov, Grekov - would remain wealthy and influential actors in Don society until the fall o f the Empire.” In addition to accruing material possessions, the emerging Don aristocracy also sought the cultural attributes o f upper society. Education was extended in a random fashion on the Don in the eighteenth century and was, as in the rest o f Russia, a luxury available only to the elite. In 1776 six Don Cossacks were sent, at Host expense, to study at Moscow university.” The only local educational facility available was a short-lived

” P.N. Krasnov, Atamanskaia pamiatka. Kratkii ocherk istorii Leib-Gvardii Atamanskogo Ego Imperatorskogo Vysochestva Naslednika Tsesarevicha polka, 1775/ 900 (St. Petersburg. 1900). ” ln the most radical Cossack historical interpretations, this period would be described as one o f treachery o f the Don nobility for selling out Cossack freedom in return for Imperial titles: E.P. Savel’ev, Voiskovoi Krug na Donu: Istoricheskii ocherk. (Novocherkassk, 1908), 5-6; Ataman Platov i osnovanie Novocherkasska (Novocherkassk. 1906), 7-8. ” S.Z. Shchelkunov "Voisko Donskoe pri atamane Aleksee Ivanoviche llovaiskom" Sbornik X (1910): 50. 24

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Latin Seminary;21 otherwise nobles were compelled to hire private tutors or send their sons to schools in other provinces. Others achieved at least rudiments o f an education through early enrollment in a Guard unit or the Host administration.29 But it would be some time before the Don society would come to recognize the worth o f education, both as a cultural refinement and a professional necessity. For many an "education" consisted o f following their father on campaigns when they were still children.30 In 1790 a boys classical gymnasium was founded in Cherkassk, which was transferred to Novocherkassk in 1805.31 *

In 1812 the Host began what would become a tradition, sending a group o f ten gymnasium graduates to Khar'kov University on Host stipend.32 This policy would

2*A. A. K irillo v, "K istorii narodnago prosveshcheniia na Donu. O voiskovoi latinskoi seminarii" Sbornik III (1902): 27-33. 29K irillo v, “ Mesto rozhdeniia la.P. Baklanova," Sbornik IX (1909): 115-116; K irillov, "Voiskovoi ataman Voiska Donskogo graf Matvei Ivanovich Platov i ego administrativnaia deiaternost’." Sbornik X I (1912): 11-12. 30M. Seniutkin, Dontsy: V2-kh ch.: Istoricheskic ocherki voennykh deistvii, biografii starshin proshlogo veka, zametki po sovremennogo byla, vzgliadna istoriiu voiska Donskogo (Moscow, 1866), 36-38,47-50. 3‘For an early history o f the gymnasium, see L.B. "Aleksei Grigor’evich Popov, pervyi direktor voiskovoi gimnazii" Sbornik VI (1906): 49-59. 32In addition to its importance as the nearest university to the Don, Khar'kov was also a center o f the nascent Ukrainian intelligentsia. Cf. George S.N. Luckyj, Young Ukraine. The Brotherhood o f Saints Cyril and Methodius in Kiev, 1845-1847 (Ottawa, 1991). 25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

produce a talented group o f Cossacks who collectively formed the first generation o f the Don intelligentsia. The figure most associated w ith this progression was Vasilii Sukhorukov, the father o f the Don intelligentsia. In 1871 Don intelligent Aleksei Karasev introduced a poem o f Sukhorukov's by noting: "Not only every nationality, but every country, every comer (zakoulok)....has its heroes, its martyrs, its traitors. The names o f these individuals live on among the people - and happy is the populace that does not outlive the memory o f these people. To the list o f its hero-martyrs the Don people (Donskoi narod) include Vasilii Dmitrievich Sukhorukov, the memory o f whom has been preserved in the entire expanse o f the Don Oblast; his name is still pronounced with reverence in Don palaces and huts."33 N ikolai Krasnov observed that Sukhorukov enjoyed "unusual popularity" on the Don and was held in "adoration" by the intelligentsia.34 Sukhorukov and his cohort came o f age during a period o f political ferment and intense introspection on the Don. In 1818 Ataman Adrian Karpovich Denisov proposed the formation o f a committee to codify the institutional structure o f the Don Host. Denisov's initiative was soon usurped by General Aleksandr Chernyshev, named by Alexander I to lead the committee’ s work, who expanded the scope o f the project from

33A. A. Karasev, "V asilii Dmitrievich Sukhorukov, Donskoi pisatel"' Russkaia starina III ( 1871): 236. 34 N ikolai Krasnov, "Istoricheskie Ocherki Dona. Bofba Chernysheva s Voiskovymi Atamanami," Russkaia rech’ 8 (1881), 35.

26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

codification to reform o f the Host administration.35 One o f the ancillary directions o f the committee's work was a project to obtain an accurate statistical picture of the Don as well as to document the historical genesis o f the Host's traditions, laws, and borders. Sukhorukov, employed in the Host chancellory, attracted the attention o f Chernyshev, who assigned him the task o f collecting historical documents in St. Petersburg. There he registered in a Cossack Guard unit, but devoted his time to studying Don history while enjoying Chernyshev's patronage. In the course o f his historical work Sukhorukov met and received advice from Nikolai Karamzin. Reflecting on his work in 1823, Sukhorukov wrote to a colleague in Moscow: "the study o f Don history has become my strongest passion, so any new information about it feeds my soul."36 He expressed his intention to produce a complete history. Sukhorukov’s fortunes took a precipitous tum for the worse when he suffered a falling out with Chernyshev. The causes for this rifl are murky. In 182S he had returned to Novocherkassk to assist General Bogdanovich, then head o f the Committee. While there, Krasnov speculates, Sukhorukov. being aware that relatives o f Chernyshev were involved with the Decembrists, encouraged then ataman Ilovaiskii to challenge

35For a thorough review o f the political dynamics o f the Committee o f 1819, one very favorable to Chernyshev, see Bruce W. Menning, "A .I. Chernyshev: A Russian Lycurgus," Canadian Slavonic Papers, No. 2 (1988): 204-215.

36 Ivan P. Popov, "K biografii V.D. Sukhorukova" Sbornik I (1901): 15. Sukhorukov’s paramount historigraphica! importance for Don historians w ill be addressed in chapter 4. 27

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Chernyshev’s authority over the Don in a letter to the newly enthroned Nicholas I, and that Chernyshev, who successfully withstood the challenge, punished Sukhorukov for the affront.37 Anatolii Linin suggests that Sukhorukov attracted suspicions because o f his own intimate relations with Decembrist conspirators.31 Whichever the cause, upon returning to St. Petersburg Sukhorukov was demoted and ordered to surrender all notes from his research. He was effectively exiled from the Don, allowed to settle in Novocherkassk only at the very end o f his life, after service in the Caucasus and Finland. Sukhorukov remained the model Don Cossack intelligent for his erudition and love o f the Don. particularly its history. He was the first Don hero whose glory derived not from m ilitary valor - although he did see combat - but from suffering for his convictions at the hands o f a vengeful St. Petersburg official, a seeming victim o f his devotion to the Don. The fact that he was not merely remembered but held in "adoration" by the Don intelligentsia in the second half o f the century testifies to a festering critical spirit among this group. His epigones could embrace this Pougatchex de I'universite in a way they could not embrace Pugachev himself. The ramifications o f this episode for future generations on the Don would not have been so potent had a personal conflict between two w illfu l individuals been the only

37 Ilovaiskii fared just as badly. He was cashiered from his postion and arrested on corruption charges. 31Anatolii M ikhailovich Linin, A.S. Pushkin na Donu (Rostov-on-Don, 1941), 94102.

28

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

issue. In a letter to the tsar, Chernyshev warned that an autocratic government could not tolerate any suggestion o f local autonomy, "all the more so from...a m ilitary society." He blamed llovaiskii's impudence on the incendiary impact o f university educated Cossacks, who were "few in number and removed from society."11* The pointed judgements Chernyshev offers here may reflect a calculated effort to justify his highhanded behav ior before a high court official as much as his extemporaneous thoughts, but they also would set the tone for St. Petersburg-Don relations for the future. The experience o f the Committee o f 1819 introduced a fundamental change in War M inistry policy toward the Don: rather than rely on Don elite as a compliant tool o f Ministerial w ill, henceforth St. Petersburg would directly initiate reforms. Moreover, the Cossack elite would be viewed with increasing circumspection. *

Although the fate o f the Committee o f 1819 and Sukhorukov's persecution were seminal moments in begetting a critical impulse among the Don elite, they did not stand alone: the collective experience o f the Don nobility over the first h a lf century o f its existence produced its own sources o f corporate discontent. The awkward fit o f the Don nobility w ithin the Cossack social fabric was compounded by a lag that existed between it and the nobility o f the rest o f European Russia. This was not sim ilar to the situation that obtained in Russian expansion into the Baltic lands and the former territories o f the

3,Quoted in L.M. Savelov, Donskie Dvorianskie Rody (Moscow, 1902), 78. 29

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where the Russians recognized that their interference in the indigenous noble institutions should be kept to a minimum, recognizing them for as more sophisticated.40 Cossack officer ranks were not accepted as conveying noble status until 1798. Cossack nobles did not convene on a Host-wide level until 1828. Perhaps most dramatic, Cossack nobles were not freed from service until 1869.41 Thus all Cossack nobles bore the same twenty-five term o f service as the rank and file,42 preventing them from enjoying all the benefits o f their privileges. An important exception to this rule was made for those Cossacks who received a higher education in a specialty that offered no employment within the Host. (Krasnov, whose family’s inclinations were quite liberal, complained bitterly about those young men educated at Host-expense. but ultimately o f no benefit to the Host.) One can also posit that the onerous service requirement placed a premium on education for those for whom service in the Host administration in Novocherkassk was an attractive alternative to service in the Causcasus. Cossack nobles were not at liberty to assume civilian ranks until 1868, a development that would herald the "secularization" o f the Cossacks. Further. Cossack

40See Zenon Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy: Imperial Absorption o f the Hetmanate, 1760s-1830s (Cambridge. M A, 1988); Edward Thaden (cd.), Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, 1855-1914 (Princeton. 1981). "Stoletie Voennogo Ministerstva (St. Petersburg, 1902-1914), XI, parti, 524-26. 42Reduced to sixteen under Alexander II. 30

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

nobles endured patronization (and worse) from Court and M inistry officials.43 So despite being elevated to a position o f economic and social privilege among the Cossacks - much to the resentment o f the rank and file - the Don nobility were not permitted to forget that they were only Cossack nobles. *

Despite the privileges bestowed upon those with higher education, an appreciation for the fundamental value o f education was slow to penetrate the Don nobility at large. The gymnasium's chronicler blamed a drop in enrollment from 266 to 200 pupils in 1840 on "the prejudices o f many parents, who....seldom allow their children to finish the course o f study at the gymnasium and. in the hopes that enrolling them in a civilian or m ilitary position at a young age w ill gain them accelerated promotion, remove them from the gymnasium for the most trivial reasons."44 But a steady increase in the number o f university graduates among the Cossacks, a waning m ilitary mission, and economic factors combined to undermine these prejudices. As an indication o f the burgeoning interest in education, in 1862 the Noble Assembly successfully petitioned for the opening o f a second classical gymnasium in Ust'Medveditsk for the benefit o f those nobles from the upper okrugs, for whom sending their

43 Kh.I. Popov, "Zapiski I.S. Ul'ianova" Sbornik II (1901): 80-81 presents the plight o f a Cossack Guards officer taken prisoner during the Polish uprising o f 1830 who describes the slights o f his fellow Russian prisoners toward the Cossacks. 44I. A rtinskii, Ochherk islorii Novocherkasskoi Voiskovoi Gimnazii (Novocherkassk, 1907), 104. 31

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

sons to study in far o ff Novocherkassk constituted a burden.45 This institution was closed, however, in 1888 as part o f Alexander Ill's campaign to re-emphasize m ilitary training among the Cossacks.46 Another male gymnasium was opened in Donetsk okrug in the first decade o f the twentieth century. During the brief, stormy history o f elected zemstvo institutions on the Don, in 1878 the Khoper and 2nd Don zemstvos were criticized for the devoting the lion's share o f the educational funds at their disposal, seventy-two percent and forty percent respectively, not to promote primary education, as was prescribed, but to fund stipends to classical pro-gymnasiums.47 Those nobles who wished to educate their sons especially for military were forced to send their children out o f the Host until 1886 when a Cadet Corps was established in Novocherkassk. U ntil then the War Ministry reserved 100 vacancies for Don children in other cities, primarily in

45GARO f. 46, op 1, d. 665 outlines the nobles' arguments for the new facility. An article marking the opening o f the gymnasium emphasizes the crucial role o f local initiative, whereas several unnamed journalists credited the Education Ministry with the founding spirit. D.. "Ust'-Medveditskaia Gimnaziia." Donskie Voiskovve Vedomosti 13 (1863): 94. 46The strenuous objections o f the Noble Assembly delayed, but could not prevent this action o f the "m ilitary authorities"; GARO f. 162, op. I, d. 2 0 ,1. 41. At the same time, pre-gymnasiums in Nizhne-Chirskaia (1st Don okrug) and Kamenskaia (Donetsk okrug) were closed; Stoletie.XI, part I. p. 681. v Sbornik Oblastnago voiska Donskago Zemstvo (Novocherkassk, 1879), 191. The text notes that the figures "would lead one to think that the general population o f [2nd Don] okrug is satisfactorily provided for in primary education"; then cites figures o f 1.47 percent o f boys and 0.30 percent o f girls o f school age who are receiving education. 32

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Voronezh'.4* The education o f Cossack girls was not neglected, even i f nothing resembling the "Woman Question" seems to have reached the Don during the nineteenth century. The M ariinskii Institute for Noble Maidens was opened in 1853 in the Don capital, funded in part by the patronage o f the Dowager Empress. As with other such institutes for noble girls, emphasis was on behavioral refinement rather than intellectual development.44 Some o f the wealthiest families sent their daughters to Moscow and St. Petersburg for their upbringing, but for most nobles the M ariinskii institute was their lone prospect for providing some cultivation for their daughters, as well as for introducing them to the eligible young men o f Novocherkassk. The facility was more than an affectation for the otherwise idle; a letter to the Host newspaper in 1863 complained o f the fact that the Institute consistently hired inogorodnve women as classroom monitors and proposed that new regulations be implemented to give preference to Don graduates o f the institute for these positions: ...otherwise the education o f our girls w ill bring absolutely no material benefit, especially to the daughters o f poor officials, who return to their parents' home with nothing to do that corresponds to their education, and don't know what to do w ith themselves: to traipse about the city and search for a position as a governess is not in the spirit o f Don girls. It is

4* "Osviashchenie khrama donskago kadetskago korpusa. (23 November 1886)" Kazachii sbornik, I (1887): 23. 49On the "institutka" stereotype see Richard Stites. The Women's Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism. Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 (Princeton, 1978), 4-6. 33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

strange to think that inogorodtsy are reaping the benefits o f this Host and noble facility.50 The proprietary relationship claimed here had a basis in reality: Don nobles paid a supplemental land tax o f 1.5 kopecks per desiatina that funded the M ariinskii Institute directly.51 This tax, as well as an initial pledge o f over ninety thousand rubles to fund the institute, caused the Noble Assembly to petition on a regular basis for more guaranteed stipends and positions for the daughters o f Don Nobles. An initiative from 1884 argued that the current cost o f stipends for noble girls was 21,960 rubles per year, while the annual noble contribution amounted to 27,161 rubles.5* Ataman Sviatopolk-Mirskii rejected this petition on the grounds that the admissions policy for M ariinskii institute were codified by an 1871 law and that, the large sums contributed by the nobility notwithstanding, the institute was supported by all the estates o f the Host.55 In 1906 the Noble Assembly achieved official designation o f thirty-six stipend vacancies for the daughters o f Cossack nobles (over the objections o f the Ataman) to be designated by the Assembly. Significantly, this latter petition appealed not only to the scale o f Noble

50M. Pravdin. "Neskol'ko slov o vospitannitsakh Donskago Mariinskago Instituta" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosli 5 (1863): 38-39; I.M . Sulin, "Ob uchrezhdenii v Novocherkasske publichnoi biblioteki." Sbornik II (1901): 125-131. 5lThis led to some confusion when, as the century progressed, noble land increasingly fell into non-noble hands, and the new owners would petition to have this assessment lifted: GARO f. 304, op. 6, d. 16,11. 103-4. 52GARO f. 304, op. 3. d. 725, II. 140-143; f. 410, op. 1, d. 425, II. 1-2. 53GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 425, II. 5-6. 34

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

contributions but to the progressive impoverishment o f the nobility as well.54 Opportunites for higher education also steadily increased through the century. The number o f Host stipends to Khar'kov grew to thirty by 1861, and in 1862 ten stipends were alloted for Moscow University.55 On top o f that, the prestigious Nikolaevskii M ilitary Institute in St. Petersburg reserved twenty-four slots per year for Don Cossacks.56 As the century progressed Don Cossacks could be found in myriad higher education facilities throughout the Empire. To determine the number o f Don natives receiving higher education, the Host Statistical Committee dispatched questionnaires to thirty facilities, throughout the Empire, exclusive o f Khar'kov, St. Petersburg or Moscow universities.57 There were enough Don students at St. Petersburg university to maintain a small social club.5" In 1905,406 children o f the Don were receiving higher education.

54GARO f. 162. op. 1, d. 20, II. 5-6. 55A rtinskii, 196. An article from the local press in 1868 rued the lack o f a history o f Don students at Khar'kov: "The Don Host...is very much indebted to Khar'kov University which, until most recently, alone supplied us with material for the moral successes o f our land." "Piat' let iz zhizni Kharkovskogo universiteta." Donskoi Vestnik 20(1868): 79-80. 56Kh.I. Popov "Priem molodykh liudei v klass donskikh uriadnikov," Donskoi Vestnik 8 (1867): 3. Popov expresses satisfaction here that the incoming class included three non-noble young men. 57GARO f. 353, op. I, d. 333, II. 1-36. Unfortunately, most o f the responses are letters merely confirming that the requested form had been returned, with no indication o f what the totals were. Several indicate that there were no natives o f the Don studying at the facility. 5*G. Rytikov, "Donskoe zemliachestvo," Golos Kazachestva 18(1913): 270-71. 35

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

forty-seven on Host stipends.59 Around the same time, the Don intelligentsia agitated for the foundation o f an institution o f higher learning on the Don. This w ill be discussed in chapter 3. Nor was evidence o f intellectual cultivation and ambition limited to the classroom. In his description o flife in Novocherkassk in the 1850s, Andrei Filonov laments the absence o f a viable book trade and the low standards o f the theater, but does not attribute these shortcomings to the inhabitants; rather, he portrays a local society starved for a richer cultural scene.6" A letter to the local press around the same time expresses satisfaction and surprise that libraries are opening in unexpected places throughout the Host for the "many people thirsting for education, for whom reading is an essential need."61 Wealthier noble families maintained impressive libraries on their estates, both for their own edification and to provide for the education o f their children. It was possible for a Don noble educated on his estate to receive fu ll exposure to the rudiments o f classical learning. For example, Aleksei Kriukov was forced by chronic illness to spend most o f his youth on his native estate in Ust'-Bystrianskaia stanitsa (1 st Don okrug)

59Pamiatnaia knizhka oblasti voiska Donskago na 1906 goda (Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia voiska Donskago tiografiia, 1906), 32. “ A. G. Filonov, Ocherki Dona (St. Petersburg, 1859), 63-65. 6lA.Iu.."Publichnyia biblioteki v stanitsakh Voiska Donskago: Ust'-Medvedtskoi, Nizhne-Chirskoi i Uriupinskoi," Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 20 (1861): 99-100:.

36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

"which had a wonderful library, where he gave all his energy to his favorite pastime: studying classical literature and history." With this background he became a neoclassicist poet o f minor renown, publishing poems and books in Moscow.62 We can form some judgement on the material available to Don nobles from the libraries o f two leading society figures that were donated to the Don Historical Museum. Semen Filipovich Nomikosov served in various positions o f social prominence in the Host after graduating from Khar'kov university, including teaching at M ariinskii Institute and the Novocherkassk gymnasium, serving as secretary o f the Host Statistical Committee, editing publications, and sitting on the board o f the Don Noble Land Bank.63 In 1917 his son Sviatoslav donated over one hundred books from his father's library to the Don Museum.64 The selection reflects Nomikosov*s prominence in the Host Statistical Committee: there are numerous Committee publications and reports on various sectors o f the Don economy (including several by Nomikosov himself). There are also protocols from Committee sessions and Don Cossack histories. From the world outside the Don. his library included Herodotus' account o f the Scythians, works on the English Parliament and on political economy (all in translation), as well as a healthy dose o f

b2Donisy XIX veka, part 2, 143-46. 63Ibid., part 1, 308-312 (Nomikosov's biographer notes that he entered the university against the direct wishes o f his father, who had planned a m ilitary career for his son); GARO f. 353, op. 1, d.305, II. 1-2. wGARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 709,1. 1. 37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Russian m ilitary history. In contrast, the donation made by Ivan Efremov to the museum in 1900 from his illustrious fam ily's library was much smaller, though much more esoteric. The twenty-four volumes, most o f which date from the eighteenth century, range from Jesuit Latin grammars to German dictionaries to an original copy o f the Kalmyk Donduk Omba’s submission to Russian suzerainty in 1736.65 The favored form o f philanthropy among the Don nobility was to establish stipends for the education impoverished children.66 The Don Noble Assembly was aggressive in organizing such funds.67 In 1904 the Assembly created a fund in honor o f the late General Aleksei Korochentsev. a former artillery officer, to establish a stipend for pupils o f the Novocherkassk real’noe uchilishche.68 Upon his death in 1904 Mikhail Markov, the former Marshal o f the N obility, left 8,000 rubles to fund a stipend in his name at Khar'kov University, "intended for the sons the most needy nobles and officials

65G AR O f. 55. op. I, d. 5 5 ,1. 1 “ In the 1860s, one noble was prepared to single-handedly finance the construction o f a parish school in Mechetinskaia stanitsa and establish a 10.000 ruble to pay teacher salaries. Robush, S.S.. "O narodnom obrazovanii v voiske Donskom" Trudy I (1867): 122 . 67In 1898 the Marshal o f the N obility solicited a donation from a certain Iakov Solomonovich for a proposed hostel in Novocherkassk for poor noble children, mentioning that the Cherkassk okrug Marshal o f the Nobility, E.G. Bokov, had already donated 5.000 rubles to the cause. GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 640, II. 6-8. 6(The fund was created with an initial contribution o f four hundred fifty rubles from the Assembly (GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 2 0 ,1. 5) but by 1907, the account had grown to three thousand seven hundred rubles, and funds were first distributed (GARO f. 410, op. l,d . 899,1. 2). 38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

from the Don Host, with priority for those fully or h a lf orphaned."61* The archive file for the above-mentioned Korochentsev stipend indicates that its existence was not very well publicized, and that connections with school or noble officials could be essential. The facilities themselves recommended deserving students.7" There is an interesting request for assistance from a Viktoria Leonova, whose son was the initial recipient. On file is her handwritten letter dated 7 September 1911. very poorly organized as well as obsequious and melodramatic in tone, making a general request for tuition support and "provisions" for her son.71 Dated just three days later the Assembly received a typed letter from the same Viktoria Leonovna that outlined the exact costs o f her son's education and specifically identified the Korochentsev fund as a possible source o f funds.7* It is clear that someone in the know came to her assistance in formulating her petition.73

6s Obviously the number o f students at all these educational facilities had some corrective impact on the gray bureaucratic m ilieu so often commented upon. An officer passing through the city in 1912 was overwhelmed by the number o f students present at an officers' party: “ It made a strange impression on me. it was more like a student picnic than an officers' gathering....The cadets were dancing, the high-school boys were

“ Artinskii, 133-44,211. “ Ibid., 237-238. This anecdotal evidence carries more gravity than Artinskii's opinions on the school's proficiency, which he bases almost exclusively on rises and falls in enrollment levels. 104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

dancing, the realisty were tw irling, and the university students were joining in. Among the ladies there were more school youths, and a few ladies who were apparently recent graduates o f the institute and gymnasium.''116 *

Another vital institutional center o f the Don intelligentsia was the Host Statistical Committee. Throughout the Empire provincial statistical committees provided a venue for civic-minded individuals to congregate and examine local problems with a degree o f immunity from official circumspection. The Novocherkassk Statistical Committee was established in July 1839 under title o f under Imperial instructions promulgated in 1834. Fifty-seven members were "elected" at first meeting, including Sukhorukov. Aleksei Kushnarev, and Vasilii Posnov.®7 At the committee's second meeting, also in July 1839, the members requested permission to make copies from manuscripts o f historical and statistical description o f Don composed by Sukhorukov and his cohorts, then in the possession o f I.F. Bogdanovich. Senator and chair o f committee on surveying Host lands The Committee noted in its request "that statistical information inevitably is based on historical facts; and these facts regarding the Don Host, being spread throughout various

®6V. Dobrynin, “ Na Donu” Voennyi Sbornik 11 (1912): 113. ,7Kushnarev and Posnov were Sukhorukov's main collaborators: A.M. Savel’ev, "O sostavlenii istoricheskago i statisticheskago opisaniia voiska Donskago," 17(1866): 66-67. 105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

sites in the Empire, are inaccessible to the members o f the committee..."11 Important early figures in the Committee were Lt. Colonel A.A. Popov, A.A. Leonov (a Novocherkassk teacher-poet), and S.S. Robush, director o f the gymnasium. In August 1865 the Committee was reformed as the Statistical Committee o f the Don Host Oblast on the basis o f the 1860 law on Provincial and Oblast Statistical committees.'"' The Don Host was the only o f the Cossack Hosts to have its own Statistical committee.1*0 The Host atamans officially chaired the Statistical Committee, but there is no indication that any took an active role in its work in the post-Reform era. Most sessions were chaired by the ataman's Assistant for C ivilian Affairs. "Permanent" members held their spots by virtue o f their positions in the Host administration while "active" members were presumably elected as a mark o f their contribution to the study o f the Don1*1although nepotism sometimes entered the equation also.4* From 1866 through 1916 the

“ Ivan Popov "Oblastnoi voiska Donskogo statisticheskii komitet v pervye gody ego sushchestvovaniia (Istoricheskaia spravka)." Sbornik I (1901): 5. wlbid., 3-12. ■*°Vsepoddtmeishii otchet...za 1865 £.. 65. ’ ’The protocol for the 17 June 1897 Committee meeting notes: "By a motion o f members o f the Committee Collegiate Secretary Ivan Avilov and Collegiate Councilor Or [sic] Dubiaga were selected as active members for their work in describing wine production in the Don Host Oblast." GARO f. 353. op. 1, d. 379,1.98. ^Fedor Trailin implored Khariton Popov to intercede on behalf o f his son's nomination for membership in 1909: GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1025, II. 9-10. 106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

number o f active members fluctuated between twenty-one and fifty-three.43 Although a loyal core consistently appeared at the Committee's sessions, in the 1890s attendance declined. A low point may have come on 4 June 1890 when only five o f the Committee's thirty-nine active members appeared. (This low turnout did not prevent those present from selecting a new member and removing two others.)44 The day-to-day affairs o f the Committee were the responsibility o f the Committee secretary. The occupant o f this elective post was automatically a central figure in the Don intelligentsia, owing to its important editorial and liaison functions. Moreover, the secretary also received a rather substantial salary for an essentially part-time duty. In 1889, 750 rubles out o f 2,000 rubles in Committee expenditures went for this.45 The fact that none o f the secretaries were o f aristocratic pedigree testifies to the fact that this was not an honorary position. The most notable figures to serve as secretary were Andronnik Savel'ev and Ivan Popov, whose biographies shared distinctive parallels. Both were graduates o f the Novocherkassk gymnasium and Kharkov university - Savel'ev from the Historico-Philological Faculty and Popov from the Legal Faculty; neither performed

,3These figures are from a random sampling o f membership rosters published in the Host Pamiatnaia Knizha for those years. ‘MGARO f. 353, op. 1, d. 379, II. 2,8. They also voted to discuss, in the future, what stance to take with those members who absent themselves from Committee work for years at a time. ,5GARO f. 353, op. 1, d. 379,1. 3. 107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

m ilitary service;1* both were involved with Karasev and Khariton Popov in private newspaper ventures; and both died at a very young age - Savel'ev was forty, Popov fortythree. Savel'ev, the first secretary o f the reformed Statistical Committee, held the post o f senior instructor o f Russian literature at the Novocherkassk gymnasium in 1859-1872. In 1870-1873 he edited the unofficial section o f the Donskie voiskovye (later ablastnye) vedomosti. At the time o f his death in 1875 Savel'ev had just been appointed senior advisor in the Host Administration. His biographer credits him with raising the level o f the Committee's work to a "proper high level" and recruiting "active contributors" in his role as Committee secretary,47 during which time he also published a collection o f Cossack songs, an index o f Cossack settlements, and a history o f the Host to commemorate its three hundredth anniversary’, no doubt taking advantage o f the Committee's resources to produce these volumes. Popov was selected as acting Committee secretary when fresh out o f Khar'kov university, and was subsequently elected to three terms. He was awarded the order o f St. Stanislav for his contributions as secretary in compiling the 1897 census.41 In his brief life Popov made his mark as an energetic social figure active in numerous fields. In

%Popov’s service record indicates that he was enrolled in a regiment but was released from service almost immediately to assume the secretaryship: GARO f. 55. op. 1, d. 1447,1. 5. 47Dortlsy XIX veka part 1,418. 4,GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1440,1.4. 108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1887-1898 he edited, along with Karasev, a local newspaper, Donskaia r e c h In 18931902 he served as pochelnyi mirovoi sud o f Cherkassk okrug, from 1902 until his death, in Rostov okrug. From 1897 through 1901 he headed the Host Department on Peasant Affairs. From 1901 through 1904 he edited the newly reopened, unofficial section o f Donskie obiasinye vedomosti.'00 in recognition o f his contribution to Don historical research, in 1904 he was selected to write a "definitive," War Ministry-subsidized history o f the Host.lul In addition to his publicist work and historical research, Popov was a driving force behind the movement to restore the zemstvo on the Don. As for the ostensible purpose o f the Committee - to collect statistics - financial lim its kept them from attempting any comprehensive statistical overview until the 1870s when the War Ministry, concerned over the lack o f reliable data on the Cossack Hosts, devoted resources to this end.102 In 1880 the Committee was tasked by the ataman with compiling the official statistics for Host submission for the War M inistry's annual report

‘"In this capacity Popov attended the 1896 coronation o f Nicholas II in 1896: GARO f. 55, op. I.d . 1440,1. 5. looThe unofficial section o f the paper, which published local opinions on current issues, had been suspended in 1883 because o f official dissatisfaction with the critical tone: “ Khronika.” Donskoi golos 35 (1882): 139. 101A. K irillov, "Pamiati Ivana Petrovicha Popova" Sbornik V II (1907): iii-iv ; GARO f. 55, op. I, d. 620, II. 2-3. l02Nikolai Putyntsev, "Nashi kazach'i voiska (Neobkhodimost1izucheniia ikh trekhvekovogo istoricheskago proshlago)" Voennyi sbornik 1 (1900): 53. 109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

(although it received no additional funds for this).103 Among other publications the Committee issued three statistical compendiums.104 Nonetheless, the statistical work o f the Committee was criticized; and it is clear that members never established reliable local networks for providing data.105 Grekov singles out the committee in his 1912 description o f the city: "The local statistical committee leads a vegetating existence, having been bureaucratized like all the [other social organizations). Don Cossack historians have never enjoyed much advantage with the authorities, but the volunteer-statisticians, for publishing their painstaking efforts in the 'collections' o f the statistical committee can expect to receive an honorarium o f 18 rubles a page.""**

103GARO f. 353, op. 1. d. 379, II. 4-5. I(MA.M. Savel’ev (ed.), Statisticheskoe oho:renie Voiska Donskogo za 1868 god (Novocherkassk, 1869); S.F. Nomikoskov (ed.) Oblast' Voiska Donskogo poperepisi 1873 goda (Novocherkassk, 1879); and Nomikosov (ed.) Statistichekoe opisanie Oblasti Voiska Donskogo (Novocherkassk. 1884). l05"Po statistike" Donskoi Vestnik 28 (1868): 111-112. In describing the difficulties o f a project studying the level o f indebtedness in the Host, committee member I.N. Efremov suggested that the Committee was ultimately at the mercy o f the number o f educated people who can be found in remote stanitsas: GARO f. 353, op. 1, d. 411.1. 2. The Committee published harvest figures for 1909 (not an unimportant piece o f data) based entirely on information gathered from "voluntary correspondents." with no commentary on its reliability: M. Zubrilov. "Urozhai khlebov v Oblasti Voiska Donskogo v 1909 godu po svedeniem dobrovol'nykh korrespondentov," Sbornik X (1910): 140146. '“ Grekov, Priazov'e i Don, p. 92. The honorarium represents a raise from the fee o f fifteen rubles per page offered in 1900; GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 745,1. 1. Grekov was a member o f the Committee who had previously contributed articles to the Sbornik. He may have had in mind the tenure o f secretary Feofktan Dement'ev, the only secretary to hold military rank, who was subsequently posted as ataman o f Sal'skii okrug.

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

On the Don the committee helped to fill the void o f civilian and municipal organizations. In the absence o f an institution o f higher education the Committee assumed responsibilities that transcended a narrow statistical mission. In particular, it directed the historical enterprise in the Host: it oversaw the collection, classification, and storage o f documents; it provided financial support for research; and its members submitted their work for a quasi-peer review. The most important Don historians were all members o f the Statistical Committee at some time. The Committee's authority in the historical realm o f Don Cossack history was recognized by the War Ministry in 1867 when it turned to the Committee for confirmation o f 1570 as the "official" date for the origin o f the Don Cossacks - a matter o f no small consequence.107 The Committee produced an impressive trail o f publicist efforts, including fifteen books from 1868 through 1915, which were primarily historical. Its proudest achievement was the 1903 issue o f Sukhorukov's Historical Description o f the Land o f the Don Host, the most complete edition o f the Sukhorukov's research efforts, produced in the 1820s. (earlier, the Committee had published the work in two parts in 1867 and 1873.) The Committee published two volumes o f the members' works in 1867 and 1874 under the title Trudy Donskogo Voiskovogo Statisticheskago Komiteta, which included

>07GARO f. 353. op. I , d. 133,1. 1. Correspondence continued on this question until 1869. In his response, Savel'ev appended an exerpt from Sukhorukov's history, which suggests an earlier genesis o f a community on the Don. Ibid., II. 4-19. I ll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

impressive ethnographic and sociological portraits of the Host.101 From 1900 through 1915 the Committee published thirteen volumes of the Sbornik Obiasinogo voiska Donskogo Statisticheskago Komiteta which featured a variety o f historical articles, statistical analyses, and archival discoveries. From 1866 through 1915 the Committee assembled the Pamiainaia knizhkaa. an annual index o f I lost officials and organizations, which was sometimes supplemented with historical documents or commercial announcements. *

The Don intelligentsia was unable to benefit from the economic or intellectual vitality o f a vigorous, indigenous commercial element. Almost all references to the state o f trade and industry in Novocherkassk during this period emphasize that it was primarily in the hands o f inogorodnye.lw But there was a native Cossack merchantry. dating back to a tsarist charter o f 1615 which granted the Cossacks the right to duty-free trade on the Don. In 1804 Alexander I approved the establishment o f the Society o f Cossack Merchants (Obshchestvo donskikh lorgovykh kazakov). Members were exempted from their m ilitary service requirements in lieu o f a payment, while retaining other Cossack

l0>A third edition o f Trudy was under preparation in the early 1891; money was appropriated for its publication; but it was never produced: GARO f. 353, op. 1, d. 379, II. 7,15,21. ,WA recently published history o f commercial activity on the Don does not even mention the role o f Cossack merchants: N.V. Samarina. Donskaia Burzhuaziia v periode imperializma (1900-1914) (Rostov-na-Donu, 1992). 112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

privileges. These terms were confirmed in the Charter o f 1835, which established a Board o f Trustees to administer the society and a special court (kommercheskii sud) to settle disputes. The charter specifically forbade non-Cossacks from owning property in the Host, as well as proscribing Cossack merchants from owning property outside the Host."1' During the Reform period when Alexander II prescribed the lowering o f barriers separating the Cossacks from the rest o f the population, the argument that an influx o f outside commercial capital and know-how was necessary for the economic growth o f the Don gained wide currency.1,1 1865 legislation made it possible for Cossack merchants to leave the Cossack estate to enroll in the merchant guild. “ : Changes in laws in 1867 cleared the way for inogorodnye to own stores and conduct business within the Host. At the same time laws simplified the process for entering-and leaving-the Cossack estate; a flurry o f inogorodnye businessmen who were already established in the Host enrolled in the Cossack estate to escape taxation.113

“ “Savel'ev. Ocherki po istorii torgovli na Dony, pp. 40-43. ' “ Severianin, “ Nashe Proshedshee i Nastoiashchee" Donskoi Vestnik 15 (1868): 58-59; GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 821, II. 6-9; "Zapiska o Voiske Donskom" in I.S. Koshkin and 1.1. Zubkov, (eds.) Donskoe Torgovoe Obshchestvo i Ego znachenie v zhizni Donskogo Kraia (Rostov, 1915), 57. The latter two references discuss the idea to oppose it. “ 2"Prigovor" in Ibid., p. 47. “ 3ln 1864, all o f 744 new Cossacks were enrolled; the corresponding figure for 1867 was 16,570: Vsepoddaneishii otchet.za 1864 g., 12; Vsepoddaneishii otchet.za 113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In his initial charter establishing the Society, Alexander I set a lim it o f 300 Cossacks who could be excused from m ilitary service. In 1827 this figure rose to S00; in 1859, the level was set at 1.500, and in 1869 the cap was eliminated-membership hit a peak o f 3,921 in 1875.114 In that year, however, the Society received a crushing blow when the War Ministry abrogated the exemption from m ilitary service for Society members, arguing that this exemption violated the spirit o f the 1874 military reform establishing the standard o f universal conscription; at the same time the merchant court was abolished. How ironic that a reform normally interpreted as "progressive" in the context o f nineteenth-century Russia had such a regressive impact on the Don Cossacks by reinforcing their identity as a military colony. An exception was soon granted for those who had been members before 1875, but the damage was done; membership plummetted to 203 by 1895.'15 The Society's historian argued that technological advance had as much to do with its demise as ministerial caprice: many o f the Cossacks who swelled the rolls o f the merchant Society at its peak were boatmen whose function was rendered obsolete by the introduction o f steamships on the D on."6 Even at its nadir, the

1867 g., 11. The War M inistry quickly implemented tighter restrictions for entrance into the Host, the thrust o f which intended to insure that applicants prove their worth for the m ilitary preparedness o f the Host; Stolelie II. part 1, pp. 524-526. 1MAII membership was contingent, however, on the Host being able to man all its regiments; Savel'ev, 40. 53-56. U5lbid., 70-71. 1“ Ibid., 99. 114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

merchant society did not lose its ceremonial place in Don society. During the first day o f his 1887 visit, Alexander III appeared at the Home o f the Don Merchant Society for a breakfast, where "[i]t was noted that everything offered to the royal guests were exclusively local, Don products..."117 With all these disadvantages, the Cossack mcrchantry was never in a position to challenge the nobility for the pre-eminent position in Don society. Moreover, the dominance o f "aliens" and "outsiders" over trade and industry on the Don further contributed to a consciousness o f grievance among the Cossacks. *

In a broad survey o f urban life in Russia under the Old Regime. Daniel Brower identifies two processes o f a "revolution" that took place: "urbanization," by which he means a demographic explosion and economic growth; and "urban activism." or the interaction o f the diverse social, political, and ethnic groups which fought amongst themselves, but sometimes joined to oppose the autocracy."1 Novocherkassk missed out on both ends o f this equation. A patrician elite lived in a pleasant, though not splendid, isolation in the Host city; they worked in austere buildings and enjoyed an impressive level o f intellectual life for such a remote location. Nonetheless, the same forces that guaranteed this modicum o f cultural finery stifled spontaneous growth, leaving

ll7Minaev, 38. 1“ Daniel Brower, "Urban Revolution in the Late Russian Empire," in Michael Hamm (ed.) The City in Late Imperial Russia (Bloomington, 1986), 319-353. 115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Novocherkassk without the sheer swirl o f activity one associates with the "town." Although the Don intelligentsia may not have been prepared by training or temperament to preside over a more dynamic populace, Cossack activists fretted over their powerlessness, in the absence o f organs o f self-administration, to reconstruct Novocherkassk's arid landscape. When Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog where annexed to the Host in 1887 and allowed to retain their municipal Dumas, the Don elite was confronted anew by an example of Cossack "privilege"-the ostensible reason urban reforms could not be introduced to Novocherkassk - obstructing the cause o f grazhdanstvemost' in the Host. The situation reinforced an awareness o f the "historic error" made when the Host city shifted to Novocherkassk.

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Chapter 3 The Cossack Qucstion(s) on the Don "A ll o f Russia is experiencing renewal;...only with us on the Quiet Don has nothing changed (v.ve idel po staromu).” 1

The cause o f grazhdanstvennost' on the Don can be divided into two distinct, uneven phases during the post-Emancipation era. In the decade following the pivotal decision to free Russia's serfs, the course o f Cossack legislation and reform moved steadily toward Alexander II's stated goal o f removing the administrative and cultural barriers separating the Cossacks from Russia's other estates. The trend was halted, however, in the early 1870s. The immediate reason for this change o f attitude was the reluctance of the War M inistry to implement the zemstvo local administration reform on the Don. With the ascension o f Alexander III to the throne, the Ministry retreated in full force from the earlier reform agenda with the explicit intention o f reinforcing the military orientation of the Cossacks. This chapter w ill chronicle the events and issues that framed debate on the Don over the future o f the Cossacks in general, and which challenged the Don intelligentsia's self-appointed role as guardian o f Cossack interests. Just as the emancipation o f Russia's serfs held distinct meanings for serf and serfowner and for Imperial and provincial officials, the "Cossack" question was interpreted

'Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rostovskoi Oblasti [hereafterGARO] f. 55, op. I, d. 821, 1.58.

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

differently in St. Petersburg than on the Don, and struck different chords among the various social levels o f the Cossacks. The Cossack question from St. Petersburg's perspective is the subject o f Robert McNeal's Tsar and Cossack, 1855-1914. Briefly put. War Ministry bureaucrats troubled themselves over how best to integrate this awkward socio-adminisiralive entity into the Imperial patchwork. During the 1860s, the heyday o f reform, "solutions" to the problem flowed from Alexander IPs prescription to dismantle the legal and administrative barriers isolating the Cossacks from Russia's other estates, even at the expense o f diminishing the centrality o f m ilitary service in the Cossack mission. In the early 1870s this policy shifled markedly: the Cossacks' m ilitary orientation would not only be preserved but reinforced. Henceforth "solutions" clarified chains o f command and rationalized the Cossacks' subordination to the War Ministry. For the Don intelligentsia, the "Cossack question" was intimately linked to the cause o f spreading grazhdanstvennost' among the Cossacks. The emphasis on civilian development over m ilitary discipline not only coincided w ith the intelligentsia's vision for the Cossacks, but boded well for the economic fortunes o f the Don nobility as well as promoting the ambitions o f the intelligentsia for cultural leadership o f the Don Host. Thus it heartily approved the direction o f Cossack policy in the 1860s, only to suffer untold frustrations w ith its reversal. The single issue most clearly identified with the Don intelligentsia's aspirations was the implementation o f the zemstvo refrom in the Host; nothing more symbolized the retreat from grazhdanstvennost1than the failure to

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

overcome the War M inistry’s obstinance on this point. *

At the onset o f the reform era in Russia, the fundamental piece o f legislation governing the administration o f the Don Host was the 1835 Charter, which, although written specifically for the Don Cossacks, became the model for administration o f all the Cossack Hosts. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Charter was the result o f a rancorous process initiated in 1818 when ataman Adrian Denisov proposed a review o f standing legislation for the Host. Although the veneer o f bureaucratic codification extinguished lingering vestiges o f rough-and-tumble Cossack vol'nitsa, the Charter preserved the Cossacks as a unique social estate, defined by the three fundamental privileges o f land, exclusiveness, and the elective principle: all male Cossacks o f service age were to receive an allotment (pa i) from their stanitsa (the charter went so far as to establish a standard o f thirty-five desiatinas per Cossack male o f service age), which was to be free from all taxes; the chance o f enrollment into the Don Host was practically eliminated: and Cossacks were empowered to congregate at the stanitsa level to elect their officials and resolve local administrative and legal matters. The purpose o f these "privileges" was, o f course, to provide Cossacks the means with which to equip themselves for thirty years o f obligatory m ilitary service, reduced to twenty years in 1863.3 The erection o f these

^Service for the Don Host (later adopted for all Hosts) was organized in "lines" (ocheredi). A ll male Cossacks began annual preparatory training at age eighteen, which continued through age twenty-one. A t twenty-one, Cossacks entered four years o f active service in a Cossack regiment (polk) beyond the Don's borders as part o f the first line. 119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

pillars may be interpreted as a nod to the Cossack rank and file, addressing the issues o f primary importance to them.3 Don nobles, or at least those who owned serfs, benefltted from the Charter's endowment o f permanent land allotments, the size o f which depended on the number o f serfs.4 A t the time o f Alexander IPs ascension to the throne, the condition o f the Cossack Hosts did not escape the attention o f those wishing to clean away the dry rot o f Russia's creaking institutions. Attitudes toward the Cossacks among the "enlightened bureaucrats"5 in St. Petersburg were circumspect at best. A report prepared for the War

Upon entering the second line, Cossacks had to appear at annual training camps, and were obligated to maintain their equipment and horse. In the event o f a mobilization, second line would be the first to be called up to service alter all first line units were deployed. Third line Cossacks, those from age twenty-nine to thirty-three, were obligated to maintain their equipment and horse, but did not have to appear at the annual camps. From ages thirty-three to thirty-eight, Cossacks were defined as on reserve status. The requirements o f second and third line Cossacks - the frequency and length o f training camps, equipment requirements, subjection to m ilitary discipline - were the subjects o f various minor reforms, usually in the direction o f easing service burdens, throughout the period under review. Vsepoddaneishii otchet o deistviakh Voennago Ministerstva :a 1861 god (St. Petersburg, 1863), 1-3. 3Recall that Bruce Menning considers the work o f this committee to represent a fundamental shift in St. Petersburg's strategy for assimilating the Host, presenting itself as the protector o f the rank and file against the avarice o f the Don elite: "A .I. Chernyshev: A Russian Lycurgus," Canadian Slavonic Papers X XX (No. 2. 1988). 4Landowners were rewarded at a rate o f thirty-five desiatinas per serf. This arrangement evoked the witticism that while in the rest o f Russia, peasants came to the land, on the Don, land came w ith the peasants: Aleksei Karasev, “ Donskie kresf iane,” Trudy Donskogo Voiskovogo Statisticheskago Komiteta I ( 1867): 86. 5Cf. W. Bruce Lincoln, In the Vanguard o f Reform: Russia ’.v Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825-1861 (Dekalb, 1982).

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Ministry by privy counselor Krylov portrayed the Don Cossacks as "for the most part ignorant" and proposed fundamental reform o f the administration: Not considering myself sufficiently knowledgeable in military affairs, I refrain from judgement as to the extent the Cossacks are necessary for the army...but I dare say there is no need to leave the land o f the Don Host in that backward, segregated condition in which it now finds itself. One would assume that if the Cossacks are actually necessary for Russia's armed forces, then that would be Cossacks o f the nineteenth, and not the fourteenth century, i.e., a Host more or less properly administered, not a Zaporozhian anarchy (voinitsa). He asserts further that the "so-called Cossacks" have lost all pride in their native traditions: "The very character o f the people has totally changed; the Cossack now sets out for service against his w ill, and w ith great distress leaves behind his land and domestic life." Given this sea change in fundamental attitudes. Krylov asks "Why should the state be deprived o f those benefits and profits which could be taken from the land o f the Don Host?" (The disdain that Krylov seems to show for the Cossacks themselves illustrates well Bruce Lincoln's appraisal o f the bureaucratic attitudes o f the era that interests o f state, rather than humanitarian or ideological motives, were at the root o f the reform process.) The War Ministry's overseers on the Don did not concur with the sceptical estimations o f would-be reformers. In 1861, Lieutenant-General Prince DondukovKorsakov, the C hief o f Staff o f the Don Host - not a Cossack - issued a report to the War Minister on the state o f the Host which indicated that all was well: the Don Cossacks

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

were thriving on the basis o f the three pillars o f exclusiveness, land, and elections.6 "The autonomy o f every land (strana) is obviously rooted in control over its land. The sale o f land to inogordnye would introduce a new element into the Host, independent o f its institutions. It would divide up the map o f the Host, which has been established by Tsarist decrees, with strips o f properties o f citizens who are alien (chuzhikh) to its estate."7 Moreover. Dondukov-Korsakov went so far as to suggest, vaguely, that the government could expect some unrest should it interfere with these defining attributes: "The question o f the modernity o f [Cossack] rights, and whether or not there should even be Cossacks has been raised quite often recently, both in literature and in the upper levels o f the goverment. When rumors about this reach the Don. they arouse the worst fears among the Cossacks, as well as a noticeable feeling o f anger and dissatisfaction." Dondukov-Korsakov advised that it was too early, "perhaps even dangerous." to implement fundamental changes to the Cossack principles, and that given time, the Cossacks on their own would chose to adopt reforms applied to other regions o f the empire."

6"Zapiska o Voiske Donskom" in I.S. Koshkin and I.I. Zubkin (comp.), Donskoe Torgovoe Obshchestvo i Ego znachenie vzhizni Donskago Kraia (Rostov-on-Don, 1915), 55-69. The editorial decision to include this report in a compendium celebrating the Don Merchant Society is paradoxical: at one point Dondukov-Korsakov identifies "wealthy Cossacks" o f this society as being part o f a very small minority opposing Cossack exclusiveness. 7!bid., 55. "Ibid., 59-60 122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

But how did these issues resonate among the Don Cossacks themselves, or rather, the "so-called Cossacks," from whom Krylov was so eager to "take"? An attack on any o f these three pillars drew a response that the three were inseperable. It was precisely in 1861 that the first serious challenge to Don exclusiveness arose with the clarion call o f the Reform era, the emancipation o f the peasant serfs with land. The purely legal question o f how (or if) to compensate dispossessed landowners for land grants to newly freed serfs provided a quandary to settlement committees throughout the Empire. But the issue acquired an entirely new dimension on the Don, due to the unique history by which it was absorbed into the Empire, as well as the murky history o f peasant serfdom on the Don. In 1793 Catherine the Great had issued a charter promising the Don Cossacks eternal possession o f the lands o f the Host. This general assertion o f collective ownership had already been violated by the Imperial government itself, which had made grants o f land to individual members o f the Don elite. As outlined by Menning, the general strategy pursued by the central government in reducing the autonomy o f the Host was to pamper the elite with titles, land, and rewards.4 Despite the popular legend o f the Don as a haven for runaway serfs, in fact, by the early eighteenth century, wealthy Don Cossack starshina were enserfing runaway peasants to work on their newly acquired land, despite

4See Bruce Menning, "The Emergence o f a M ilitary-Administrative Elite in the Don Cossack Land, 1708-1836" in Walter M. Pintner and Don K. Rowney (eds.) Russian Officialdom: The Bureaucratization o f Rusian Societyfrom the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century (Chapel H ill, 1980), 130-161. 123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

repeated warnings and prohibitions by the central government.10 In the absence o f any formal tradition o f property rights, a popular tradition o f a moral economy emerged by which Cossacks could lay claim to the benefits o f what land they could work themselves. As the rank and file gradually lost political or judicial power through autonomous institutions (which were not abolished, but increasingly dominated by the elite), they were powerless to prevent Don officers from installing "their" peasants on Don land. The situation only worsened, from the point o f few o f the rank and file Cossack, in 1796 when Don officers assumed noble privileges, including the right to own serfs. The allotment o f land to peasant communities w ithin the boundaries o f the Host, no matter how small (less than two desiatinas per man), thus violated a cherished myth o f exclusive Cossack ownership. The elective principle (vybornoe nachalo) tapped into the Cossack tradition o f equality w ithin the ranks. Obviously Dondukov-Korsakov did not have in mind the excesses o f the seventeenth century krug in invoking this principle, but it was at the core o f Cossack identity. Cossacks still gathered at the stanitsa level to vote for local officials and decide administrative matters o f great concern." By the mid-nineteenth century, there were two predominant issues resolved at the stanitsa level: the orderly dispatch o f

l0K.V. Markov, “ Krest'iane na Donu,” Sbornik Oblasinogo voiska Donskogo Statisticheskogo Komiteta [hereafter Sbornik] XI (1912): 1-68; X III (1915): 25-113. "Shane O’ Rourke, Warriors and Peasants: The Don Cossacks in Late Imperial Russia (forthcoming), 151-163. 124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

its members' m ilitary obligations and - more importantly - the distribution o f land. Obviously the only persons allowed to participate in these gatherings were those who carried obligations and received land. The most controversial issue for the Don nobility was a proscription on the sale o f private land to non-Cossacks. The 1835 Charter had been vague about the status o f land granted to Cossack nobles; this loophole was closed in 1848 when the War Ministry forbade the sale o f any land, privately owned or not. to inogorodnye, anticipating the negative impact on morale o f the Cossacks by introducing an element that did not carry Cossack obligations. That the issue o f exclusiveness was intertwined with the issue o f land was made clear in the 1848 instruction: [N]ot knowing the general way o f life, the needs, the interests o f the native population (korennykh zhilelei), and finally, not being bom with innate feelings o f attachment to the region, and not being tied with any o f its memories, which serve as noble inspiration for prirodnykh Cossacks to serve the Fatherland, these new landowners, even those with the best intentions, w ill not be o f benefit to the Fatherland: for that you need long­ term. comprehensive experience in the various aspects o f Cossack life and service.12 In 1859 the Cossack Hosts were instructed to convene local committees to review existing legislation and suggest appropriate revisions and improvements.13 The issue o f

i:Quoted in M. Krasnov, "O pozemel'noi zamknutosti na Donu (otvet UsfMedveditskomu dvorianinu)," Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 13 (1863): 93. ,3The three man committee named by ataman Khomutov at first met in secret, which evoked rumors that the Host was being converted to a province: N.A. Norov. "Voisko Donskoe v 25-letnee tsarstvovanie Imperatora Aleksandra II. 19-go fevralia 1855 - 19 fevr. 1880 g „" Sbornik X I (1912): 144. 125 /

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the tenability o f the sacred triad o f privileges exploded into public debate. As in other regions, the prospect o f losing their enserfed peasant labor force prompted serious discussion w ithin the Don nobility over their property rights. On the Don, the immediate cause o f discontent was not, as in other areas, the level o f compensation for their peasants, but rather, the degree to which the value o f their remaining land was limited by the restriction o f sales to other Cossacks.14 This led to demands from some quarters that the restriction on land sales to inogorodnye be withdrawn. The resultant heated debate on the issue addressed the history, provenance, and nature o f Cossack privileges and identity. Besides offending the traditions and sensibilities o f the stanitsa rank and file, the proposed liberalization position threatened the economic interests o f the lower nobility. Until the Reform era, the Host employed the rather antiquated system o f compensating its officials by granting all Cossacks who earned an official rank (chin) a temporary allotment from Host reserve lands in lieu o f a pension. In an effort to exploit these lifetime allotments, either by renting them or hiring seasonal workers, these officials were in direct competition with the great landholders. The allotment system was the subject o f a lengthy petition from a retired officer Seniutkin directed to the ataman in 1867. The allotments were generally too small to support a noble family, Seniutkin protested, and the system made no provision for the relative value o f the land. Thus nobles in Miussk

l4There seems to have been no rush to sell o ff their land, but Don nobles were acutely aware o f the low values Don estates could attract in mortgage. 126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

and Khoper okrugs (Seniutkin was from Ust-Medveditsk) derived greater profit from their lands due to their proxim ity to "working hands beyond the borders o f the Don.'"5 Any reform that promised an injection o f capital for the landed elite, through direct sales or mortgages, gave them an important edge over the fragile economies o f the temporary allotment holders. The spark which moved the issue from behind the closed doors o f committee and chancellery negotiations was the appearance in the Donskie voiskovye vedomosti o f a polemic in favor o f the idea o f fu ll property rights for landowners by Aleksandr Melikhov, Khoper okrug marshal. The article was preceded by a strongly worded disclaimer from the editors: "We do not at all share the conviction o f the author o f the present article, for it contradicts not only our own convictions, but those, as far as we can tell, o f the entire region."16 Melikhov explains that he is well-informed on the issue as a result o f his experience as a member o f the 18S8 Don Committee to improve the situation o f serf

i5GARO f. 46, op. I, d. 799, II. 1-3. In response, the ataman's chancellery inquired with the okrug marshal about Seniutkin's background, whence it was learned that he had a history o f complaining throughout his military service. Because he invoked the Emperor's name in his petition, the case came before the scrutiny o f the War Ministry. For his troubles, Seniutkin was forced to sign an acknowledgment that he was warned not to burden officials with unfounded problems again: ibid., II. 7, 16-19, 28. I6A. Melikhov, "O prodazhe zemli inogorodnim" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 44-4S ( 1862): 240. The manuscript version o f the editorial note goes further, claiming that Melikhov himself was surprised to learn his views enjoyed no sympathy on the Don: GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 821,1. S. 127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

peasants, and as the chairman o f the Host standing committee (prisutstvie) on peasant affairs. In this latter role, he began circulating a proposal to allow the sale o f land to outsiders, arguing that as a result o f the terms o f peasant emancipation, Don peasants had more freedom to dispose o f their newly-acquired land than did noble landowners. Further. Melikhov echoes the language o f nascent Russian liberalism by citing the cumbersome restrictions on Don land sales as an example o f the type o f government monopoly inherently harmful to economic growth.17 His proposal was ultimately rejected by the whole standing committee, but attracted vociferous reaction even when circulated privately. He quotes the naive - in Melikhov's opinion - criticism o f an anonymous Cossack, who wonders if those in favor o f free land sales realize that the territory of the Don Cossacks "was purchased at the cost o f the blood o f their ancestors."1* Melikhov rebutted these objections by referring a tradition o f private property on the Don that dated back to the eighteenth century. In the process, he fulminated against those elements o f Cossack society who oppose this view, accusing them o f jealousy or worse. He singled out landless, or land-poor, officials in Novocherkassk for criticism since they "w ill feel no effects i f the owners o f Don estates are deprived o f their rights and suffer harm to their interests as a result." He even hinted that these officials favored

,7Dondukov-Korsakov had singled out "young landowners" as being prominent among the liberal party, which suggests the role o f education in the formation o f their views: "Zapiska o Voiske Donskom," p. 56. ''Melikhov, 242. 128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the restriction, calculating that they could use their position to monitor and exploit the condition o f financially troubled landowners.19 He concluded by angrily demanding: "What right do those boosters o f restricting the rights o f Don landowners have to make such vehement claims about land that in no way belongs to them?":o Without citing statistics or names, Melikhov referred constantly to the monetary pressures experienced by certain noble families. For the most part, he tries to extract the strictly economic question o f free trade from the phalanx o f Cossack privileges. An elegant presentation o f the liberal position in defense o f the free sale o f land came from Mikhail Krasnov, brother o f the previously mentioned Nikolai Krasnov.21 Krasnov goes further than Melikhov's limited defense o f abstract property rights, offering a comprehensive critique o f Cossack particularism and forecasting the eventual demise o f the Cossack estate. He begins with a review o f the historical genesis o f Cossack privileges: "Every true Cossack should defend the rights o f our Host, earned by our forefathers and granted to us by Imperial power—but exclusiveness, the unconditional alienation from inogorodnye, is no privilege; in fact, it is a burden (siesnenie) imposed on us by past politicians in order to mistreat the Donlsy. You can't And it in the history o f the Host; there isn't the slightest mention o f it in one o f the Tsarist decrees, in which our

l9Ibid., 243-244. 20Ibid., 245. 2IA draft version o f an article for the paper, critical o f the liberal impulse, identifies a "g. Kr—v" as the leader o f the reformers: GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 821,1.6. 129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

region justly takes such pride."" Broadening his scope to world history, Krasnov asserts that wherever exclusiveness has been imposed "it has been accompanied by despotism, cruelty, and ruin for its residents."23 In an argument that anticipates American immigration debates, he points out that most o f the Cossacks themselves had at one time fled to the Don from Russia, "therefore the Donisy themselves could be called inogorodnye." In his most controversial assertion, Krasnov takes direct aim at Cossack pretensions o f possessing innate or essential qualities: The Cossacks are in fact a particular manifestation o f a general Russian spirit, which was present not only on the Don. With us it was just preserved longer, due to accidental circumstances. And we don't think the Cossacks have differentiated themselves from those o f other provinces any more than the difference between peasants in Belorussia and those o f the Volga, or between Ukrainian and Siberian traders.24 Naturally the liberal agenda did not go unanswered. Suggestions o f modifying the exclusive military nature o f the Cossacks, o f dividing the estate into m ilitary and non­

::Krasnov, "O pozemel'noi zamknustosti na Donu", 88. 23Ibid., 89. 24Ibid., 89. Krasnov's bold views and identification as a leader o f the liberal party suggests that he was the author o f several sharply worded articles appearing in the press under the byline "K." In one such article on the opening o f the Grushevsk-Donskoi rail line, "K" comments that the "Don Host, owing to its isolation, has an extraordinary need for the means o f transportation, communication, and assimilation (sblizheniia) with the other parts of Russia” : K. "Ob ustroistve Grushevsko-Donskoi zheleznoi dorogi" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 14 (1861): 73-74. Another article appearing in Russkii Invalid which criticized the lack o f educational opportunities on the Don referred to the "continuous stagnation in the development o f the Cossacks": quoted in V., "Rychagi obrazovanii na Donu" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 5 (1863): 37. 130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

military sectors, o f selling land to inogorodnye, provoked instant and vociferous response from "Cossackomaniacs" (kazakomany), as inveterate defenders o f Cossack privileges came to be known. Some denied the stereotypes o f a prevailing economic stagnation on the Don: " [I]f the residents o f [the Don, lit. "a country"] are prospering in comparison with the subjects [sic] o f the most liberal stales, then why change these old principles?"'* More often, the self-concious Cossack guardians assailed the arrogance and opulence o f the aristocratic elite. Melikhov's manifesto drew wrathful responses from two Cossacks, identified merely as "an Ust-Medveditsk noble'06 and "a Miussk noble." Although not identical, both authors embody a resevoir o f resentment on the part o f the lower nobility at the wealth and pretensions o f Don aristocrats. The Ust-Medveditsk noble challenges Melikhov to exhibit a greater level o f solidarity with and responsibility for less wealthy Cossacks: How can you say that you serve more than us. or that our ancestors served more poorly than yours?...And you. citizen Melikhov, along with those you enjoy yourself with, throw away more money in a month, in a week, or even in an evening, on your entertainment, than our brother can expect to earn through ten years o f blood and sweat.27

:5GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 821. II. 58-59. 26The Ust-Medveditsk noble had provoked a small sensation o f his own with a strongly worded declaration against the idea o f land sales to inogordnye. :7Ust'-Medveditskii dvorianin, "O prodazhe zemli inogorodnim. A. Melikhova. Donskiia Vedomosti 1862 g., nomera 44 i 45" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti No. 13 (1863): 108-109. 131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Miussk noble is more comprehensive in his criticism o f Melikhov. He disputes the liberal view that the principle o f private landholding was firm ly established in the Host. He concedes that land was granted to individuals in Miussk and Khoper okrugs during the late eighteenth century; and, moreover, it was not uncommon before that for stanitsas to grant extra allotments to officials, even to allow them to settle peasants on stanitsa lands. But two key elements that made these practices feasible in the eighteenth century, an abundance o f land and stanitsa approval, no longer obtained in the 1860s.:* The Miussk noble adamantly opposes any sale o f lands to outsiders; The sale o f land to inogorodnye is the greatest evil, both for the integrity o f the Host, and for those noble families (rodov), whose cause you plead so persistently, Mr. Melikhov; with the sale o f land you won't be able to save them from the desperate situation in which they now find themselves. From there the Miussk noble echoes his Ust-Medveditsk counterpart in identifying the sumptuous lifestyle o f the Don elite as the root cause o f the economic peril that some were facing. It seems to us that the most expedient and dependable outlet from their most dire situation is this; immediately, without losing any time, decide to eliminate all the luxuries from your life -p u t an end to the balls and parties; sell, even for a meager price, the luxurious carriages and elegant clothes; eliminate the hunts and house musicians; in a word, at least for a time o f ten. maybe fifteen years, make Spartans out o f epicureans.34

3lMiusskii dvorianin, "Otvet g. Melikhovu na stat'iu ego 'O prodazhe zemli inogordnim', pomeshchennuiu v No.No. 44 i 45 Donskikh Vedomostei" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 23 (1863): 168-169. 39Ibid., 170. 132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This image o f Don liberals as an effete coterie had been voiced by DondukovKorsakov, who criticized a small sector of the nobility, "for the most part entirely unfamiliar with the region or popular life, [that] remains apathetic to the interest o f the masses... In St. Petersburg, understanding o f the Cossacks and their needs comes primarily from the opinions o f this minority."30 Perhaps the most tenacious defender o f existing Cossack privileges during the reform period was Ivan Prianinshikov, editor o f the Vedomosti. His biographer would describe him as "among the first o f those partisans o f the 'Don't touch me!' attitude, and in the course o f discussion o f controversial questions [Prianinshikov] would not accept any compromise, presuming that i f you give up a piece, they'll take the whole loaf."31 A sampling o f Prianinshikov's views are found in an attack he issued on the national journal Sovremennaia Letopis', which had published articles critical o f the Don. One such article belittled the arguments o f those on the Don who opposed unrestricted land sales by accusing them o f trying to build a "Chinese Wall" around the Host. Prianinshikov makes clear that for him the issue goes much beyond economics and property rights but cuts to

3u"Zapiska o Voiske Donskom," 65. Some thirty years later, in his history o f the Cossack Merchant Society, E.P. Savel'ev echoed the complaint that St. Petersburg relied too greatly on persons removed from the Cossacks for information, but mentioned Dondukov-Korsakov as an example o f just such an unreliable source: Savel'ev. Ocherki po istorii torgovli na Donu. Obshchestvo torgovykh kazakov, 1804-1904 (Novocherkassk, 1904), 88-89. i l Dontsy X IX veka. Biografti iz materialy dlia biografii Donskikh deiatelei na poprishche sluzhby voennoi, grazhdanskoi i obshchestvennoi, a takzhe v oblasti nauk, iskusstv, literatury i proch ( Novocherkassk. 1907), part 2, 225. 133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the heart o f Cossack identity. Prianinshikov asserts that rather than trying build a Chinese Wall, the Cossacks are trying to preserve there "self-government" (samoupravlenie). [T]he Don was an unconquered territory (strana), it voluntarily became part o f the Russian state with its own institutions, customs, and selfgovernment... Since that time [when the Don krug lost its traditional powers], a flood o f bureaucrats has begun on the Don, so that at the present time many high positions are held not by Cossacks, but by inogorodnye.... A great number o f these officials, having adopted the views o f capital administrators toward our structure, do not understand our structure and way o f life, and therefore do not sympathize with us. Nor do they sympathize with the peculiarities o f our native land (rodnaia zemlia), no matter how positive these peculiarities may be, and are trying to eliminate them, to centralize the Don...For our part, are we supposed to sympathize with these people?!...Should we accept a new wave o f them, when their principles are entirely incompatible with ours? So by not accepting inogorodnykh. are we building a Chinese W all, or are we preserving our self-government, our vitality, our way o f life?33 He recommends that officials serious about developing grazhdanstvennost' (he uses this word) should look toward reducing onerous field service requirements, not by admitting people "alien to our territory" (chuzhdye nashei zemli).n It is not d ifficu lt to see that Prianinshikov goes beyond reasoned argument grounded in legal principles and economic calculation; he is obviously distressed by the mere presence o f non-Cossacks as a contagion among the Cossacks. Prianinshikov

33[Ivan Prianinshikjov, "Po povodu g. Povsemestnago" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti No. 3 (1863): 19-20. 33Ibid., 21. 134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

represented Novocherkassk stanitsa in 1863 to the local committee reviewing Cossack legislation. In his proposals, he pressed for the exclusion o f inogorodnye from stanitsas on the grounds that they are "people o f unreliable behavior...Experience has shown that most thefts and other crimes are perpetrated by persons o f inogorodnoe origin."3'1 He was not alone in asserting an essenliaiisl definition o f the Cossacks. Another biller attack on liberal proposals specifically addressed the contention that Cossacks had become indistinguishable from peasants: "It would be easy to pick out the Cossack from a group o f one hundred peasants by his youthful, falcon-like bearing, even i f he is dressed exactly like a peasant."35 I f there was a point o f agreement between the reformers and kazakomany it was in their recognition that the demanding battery o f Cossack m ilitary obligations had become more taxing than the compensation derived from their privileges. For kazakomany the solution was quite simple: reduce the absolute number o f years required for servicewithout rejecting the principle o f universal m ilitary service--and tighten the net o f Cossack exclusiveness. The liberal perspective on the situation was not to abandon Cossack principle o f universal, self-ftnanced service but to move toward making this service voluntary by relaxing the process by which Cossacks could leave the estate, and

u Donisy XIX veka, part 2,227. He also recommended that those inogorodnye who had managed to purchase Don land before 1848 should be forced to sell their land to Cossacks within six years. 35"Po povodu stat'i 'golosa s Dona' pomeshchennaia v 28A Sovremennoi letopisi" G ARO f. 55, op. I, d. 821,1.61. 135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

non-Cossacks could register in the Cossacks.36 Despite the raw emotions and rancorous debate evoked by the reform issue among the Cossacks, the resolution o f these issues remained outside their control. On the national level a Temporary Committee on Cossack legislation convened in St. Petersburg under the auspices o f the Main Administration o f Irregular Forces. The committee included members from all the Cossack Hosts, who were representing the work done by local committees, to discuss revisions to the existing 1835 Don Cossack charter.37 The ostensible purpose o f the committee was not to reform the Cossack estate per se but to regularize the fulfillm ent o f m ilitary service obligations. But as seen, any review o f such a core element o f Cossack identity could hardly be limited to a particular issue.31 Guided by the rationalizing spirit o f Defense Minister M iliutin , the Committee was moving rapidly toward a bold reform o f the Cossack estate which would have divided the Cossacks into m ilitary and non-military components, w ith the latter paying a designated fee in lieu o f their m ilitary obligations. According to McNeal. Miliutin's primary concerns for undertaking this initiative were budgetary: he feared future

“ Underlying this proposal was the hope cum expectation that Cossack privileges o f duty-free trade and no land tax would attract the type o f element that would accelerate the civilian development o f the Host. 37Vsepoddaneishii oichet.za 1867 g o d , 9-10. The work o f this committee is described in Robert H. McNeal. Tsar and Cossack, 1855-1914 (Oxford. 1987), 24-41. 38I. Dukmasov (Esaul, 1-ii), "Neobkhodimost1reformy v kazach'ikh voiskakh," Voennyi sbornik 7 (1871): 50-69; S. Smolenskii. "Zametki po povodu kazach'iago voprosa" Voennyi sbornik 5-6 (1872). 136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

surpluses in manpower would prove a financial drain and thus wanted to reduce the number o f Cossacks in uniform.39 Nonetheless, he was sufficiently sensitive to possible discontent that he initially distributed his plan secretly. Opposition to the M iliutin plan came prim arily from the Don delegation, which argued that the proposed bifurcation o f the estate would irreparably cripple the martial esprit de corps o f the Cossack forces. They countered with a proposal that would have limited the number o f Cossacks on service at a given time but preserved the principle o f universal m ilitary service.40 M iliutin eventually made an about face on the issue. The stunning performances o f the Prussian army in 1866 and 1871 gave War Ministry strategists cause to re-evaluate the importance o f the Cossacks, particularly the Don Host, in bolstering Russia's potentially vulnerable western borders. The Committee eventually settled for a lukewarm compromise o f easing the terms for registering into and leaving the Cossack estate. The M iliutin proposal reflected very closely the outlook o f the liberal Cossack elite, represented here by the views o f Mikhail Krasnov.41 As such, one might assume

39McNeal disputes M iliutin's calculations; he never produced any figures to support his contention that Cossacks required greater state outlays. wStoletie Voennago Ministerstva XI, part 1.471-473. Potapov also disputed the prevailing wisdom that the surplus of military-age Cossacks would continue to grow. 41While addressing the Noble assembly in 190S Aleksei Karasev would lament this missed opportunity to redefine Cossack service: “ We are not in the same position we were in 40 years ago, during the time when the War Ministry was run by the venerable and truly enlightened statesman Count D.A. M iliutin... we, being the majority o f the Don 137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

that relations between Potapov and the Don nobility would have been frosty at best. However, at the same time universal m ilitary service requirements were being confirmed for the Don rank-and-file, the Don nobility was "emancipated": the full range o f corporate rights established by the 1785 Charter o f the Nobility were finally extended to the Don; and, in a measure that would have portcntious impact on the future o f the Host, the allimportant issue o f land sales was decided in favor o f unrestricted sale o f private property.42 Moreover, the temporary allotments given to Don officials were made hereditary in 1870. Don liberals had reason to be disappointed by the meager impact o f the "Great Reforms" on Cossack life. Although Cossack segregation had been chipped away, no fundamental redefinition o f Cossack service, one that w ould encourage Cossacks in the direction o f civilian pursuits, was forthcoming. Henceforth, Don activists would direct their energies toward the implementation o f zemstvo reform as a means for advancing grazhdanstvennost' among the Cossacks.

intelligentsia, rejected the M inistry draft-project On C ivilian Cossacks* out o f hand, naively assuming that freeing the Cossack from his onerous duties was a violation o f his rights." Chrezvychainomu Oblastnomu Dvorianskomu Sobraniiu doklad A.A. Karaseva, Mss., 2. 42This occurred in 1868. A farewell note in Karasev's paper to ataman Potapov upon his transfer thanked him for always "firm ly maintaining the principle o f fu ll property rights"; "Novocherkassk, 10 Marta," Donskoi Vestnik 36 (1868): 141. An editorial appearing in the same publication later in the year boasts that the benefits o f the measure were already "obvious for everyone." "Novocherkassk, 24 Noiabria" Donskoi Vestnik 22 (1868): 85-86. 138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The foregoing debate was presented in a surprisingly open manner in the local official newspaper, Donskie voiskovye vedomosti, first published in 1839, which through the early 1860s was edited under the tight control o f Prianinshikov. The performance o f the local press itse lf became one o f the topics o f discussion during the reform period, and merits attention as a separate topic in discussing the formation o f civil society on the Don. One o f the proposals to emerge from the work o f the local committee reviewing Cossack legislation was to introduce an "unofficial section" o f the paper, which would provide a forum for the exchange o f opinions on local and national issues. In anticipation o f the final implementation o f a new charter the committee proposed a "political section" that would reprint editorials and political articles from other publications, making them available to a local population "thirsting, no less than others, for political information."43 Ataman Potapov immediately passed on this request to the War Ministry, with provision for censorship to be entrusted to an individual personally selected by the ataman. In making the petition, Potapov cited the example o f such sections in other provincial Vedomosti to express the hope that the innovation would improve the quality o f the paper and increase readership.44 War Minister M iliutin eventually granted the request, effective

43GARO f. 46, op. 1, d. 745,1. 5. “ Ibid., II. 12-14. 139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

March 1866, lim iting the publications from which the Don paper could reprint articles.43 Almost simultaneously, Aleksei Karasev received permission to publish the first privately owned newspaper on the Don, Donskoi vestnik (first issued in June 1866). Besides being an energetic man w ith a publicistic inclination, Karasev's personal disdain for Prianinshikov's editorial direction o f the Vedomosti may have propelled him toward this enterprise.46 His paper was a consistent beacon o f liberal, reformist ideas. Censorship o f both local organs was entrusted to one individual, or rather a rotating cast o f individuals, at the ataman's request. Either Host officials avoided the assignment as unpopular or little importance was ascribed to censorship duties; whatever the reason, official correspondence shows frequent turnover in this office: between 3 February 1868 and 18 August 1869 the office changed hands no fewer than six times;47 between 28

43lbid., I. 17. The short list o f sanctioned journals was as follows: Russkii Invalid. Voennyi Sbornik, Journal de St. Petersbourg, Severnaia Pochta, and Senatskie Vedomosti. M iliutin's letter also includes a vague warning to avoid certain topics, but does not elaborate. 46ln 1863 a Don Cossack identified only as "K " complained in Russkii Invalid that Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti gave preference to partisans o f zamknutost' and the old order, blocking the appearance o f another point o f view: "Ot redaktsii" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti No. 13 (1863): 88. When Prianinshikov passed away in 1868, Karasev's obituary praised him for his industry and integrity, but also gratuitously noted that in the latter stages o f his illness, Prianinshikov "lost all reason, and was reduced to an infantile state in his speech and behavior." "Novocherkassk, 4 Fevralia" Donskoi vestnik 31 (1868): 121. 47GARO f. 46, op. 1, d. 745, II. 36-37, 38-39,43, 53, 69. 140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

March and 25 August 1872, four times.41 This haphazard approach to the censorship resulted first in rebuke from the Ministry o f Internal Affairs and then transfer o f the censorship function from Novocherkassk to Moscow. The M inistry o f Internal Affairs reprimanded the Vedomosti for a cavalier approach to the technicalities o f the censorship law: among the offences cited were announcements from private newspapers concerning such banalities as the opening o f a teachers' seminary in a neighboring province, and publishing reviews on the theater in Novocherkassk.44 The Main Administration on Irregular Forces, after consultation with the M inistry o f Internal Affairs, cited the paper for publishing "rumors" from private papers about government actions, which by being published in an otTicial organ would lend an apparent imprimatur to possibly spurious information.50 On the press issue a spirit o f cooperation existed between Don society and the Host administration as successive Don atamans defended the paper before its critics in

4*GARO f. 46, op. 1. d. 1035, II. 33, 37,40, 52. 44GARO f. 46. op. 1. d. 1056, II. 2*3. The newspaper also came under attack for printing a report o f the Novocherkassk Housing Commission that listed the names of delinquent debtors; GARO f. 46, op. d. 1270. 50GARO f. 46, op. 1, d. 1056, II. 9-10. The report made a sim ilar warning against "polemical articles...which, for all their good intentions, could attract censure, which an official organ should avoid." Ibid., I. 10. An article in Donskoi vestnik complains that many good-intentioned censors, due to their limited perspective, are to ready to allege "separatism" (but unfortunately provides no concrete examples). Gr. "Po povodu zhalkago sostoianiia provintsial'noi pressy" Donskoi vestnik 42 (1867): 165-166.

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

St. Petersburg.51 If censorship problems were disruptive for the Host's o fficia l newspaper, they were much more serious for private enterprises. The delays caused by the need to submit articles to the Russian capital for prior approval accelerated the demise o f Donskoi vestnik, which ccascd publication in 1873. It was quickly succeeded in 1874 by Donskaia ga:eta, with Khariton Popov as main editor. The censorship restrictions remained in force, however. Popov reported to the ataman that the censorship delays caused a twomonth hiatus in publication, and asked him to intercede on the paper's behalf to the Minister o f Internal Affairs to return the review to Novocherkassk: " [I]f the Donskaia gaieta can survive, then this is only because the editors can fu lly count on the local population's solicitous attention toward the paper's plight."5- R elief came in August 1874, when the Main Administration on Press Affairs, noting the new editorial leadership, returned censorship review to Novocherkassk, but w ith a warning that "with the first repetition o f the same reprehensible tricks on the part o f the paper, this privilege w ill be immediately repealed."53 In granting permission to E. Zhigmanovskii to publish Donskoi golos in 1879, the Press Affairs office refused to cede censorship to the same individual overseeing the

5lGARO f. 46, op. 1, d. 1035,1. 2; F. 46, op. I,d . 1056, II. 2-3. 5:GARO f. 55, op. 1. d. 45, II. 1-2. 53GARO f. 46, op. 1, d. 1035,1. 60. 142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Vedomosti, "in view o f the extremely careless censorship" o f the latter organ, and remanded the ataman to select someone, "who in addition to possessing overall reliability, exhibits a readiness to acquaint himself seriously with the Censorship charter."5'4 In 1882 the unofficial section o f Donskie voiskovye vedomosti was shut down, not to be revived until 1902.55 *

W riting in 1904, Don noble Sergei Kharitonov asserted in a letter to Oblast marshal Denisov that every regular session o f the noble assembly for the past four decades had expressed "the unanimous and unflagging desire o f the whole Don nobility" for the immediate introduction o f the zemstvo.56 Kharitonov's claim does not exaggerate: the failure to implement zemstvo reform in the territory o f the Host was the single most enduring source o f friction between the Don intelligentsia and the War Ministry. Traditional historiography on the zemstvo has largely ignored the topic o f the

MGARO f. 46. op. I, d. 1856.1. 1. In his reply, ataman Krasnokutskii announced that a collegiate assessor Ushakov would fill the role, and that, as a personal friend o f Ushakov's, he could guarantee his fam iliarity with the relevant censorship laws: ibid.. I. 3. 55"Khronika" Donskoi goios No. 37 ( 1882): 147. The gloating report takes the editor Semen F. Nomikosov personally to task for the intercession from St. Petersburg. Again, it seems that technical infractions rather than political unreliability was at the root o f the problem; Donskoi golos, which continued to publish, did not refrain from dissonant opinions on its pages. 56GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 793,1. 10. Kharitonov's patience had not yet expired; he goes on to advise that the recent ascension o f count Sviatopolk-Mirskii. a known partisan o f the zemstvos, to the post o f Minister o f Internal Affairs signaled an opportune moment to raise the petition anew. 143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

zemstvo on the Don.57 But for Don nobles, as for many public-spirited subjects throughout the Empire, the prospect o f meeting in elected councils entrusted with mapping budgetary priorities and implementing public works projects embodied their highest aspirations for civil reforms. The format o f the zemstvo appealed to their liberal predeliclions, while the pre-eminent status guaranteed to landowners within the all-estate zemstvo flattered the Don nobility's paternalistic attitude toward the Cossack rank-andfile. Frustrated in achieving these aspirations (except for a brief period) the Don intelligentsia grew increasingly antagonistic toward the War Ministry, the bureaucratic stewardship o f which it blamed for the retarded economic and cultural development o f the Don Cossacks. The zemstvo reform was announced in 1864 while the Don temporary committee reviewing Cossack legislation was still in session; one o f the tasks entrusted to the committee was to develop a plan for adapting the zemstvo provisions for the Host. When this committee was disbanded in 1865 without having produced such a plan, local activists petitioned the government to organize a new committee dedicated to the zemstvo

57Terrence Emmons and Wayne S. Vucinich (eds.). The Zemstvo in Russia: An Experiment in Local Self-Government (Cambridge, 1982); W. Bruce Lincoln, The Great Reforms. Autocracy, Bureaucracy, and the Politics o f Change in Imperial Russia (Dekalb, 1990); S. Frederick Starr, Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, 1830-1870 (Princeton, 1972); L.G. Zakharova, Zemskaia Kontrreforma 1890 g. (Moscow, 1969). Even V.V. Vesolovskii's encyclopedic four-volume history failed to mention the Don zemstvo: Istoriia zemstva za sorok let (St. Petersburg, 1909-1911). 144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

question.5* This second committee submitted a draft proposal to the War Ministry in 1867, which received no movement from the Temporary Committee o f the Main Administration o f Irregular Forces. The particular reason given for stalling the initiative was the indeterminate status o f towns in the Don Host. (Recall that there were no towns in the Host as defined by Imperial statutes.) A special commission undertook the question o f applying the anticipated Municipal reform to the Host in 1869. "and without definition o f the rights o f the urban estate - one o f the elements o f the zemstvo - it also w ill be impossible to resolve the problem of the zemstvo in the Don Host."54 In 1870 the ataman Chertkov convened yet another committee to review the standing proposal in an effort to jo lt the process forward. A revised proposal was returned to the Main Administration o f Irregular Forces in 1872. The major point o f contention among the various agencies participating in discussions was whether the Don zemstvo would be subordinate to the Ministry o f Internal Affairs or the War M inistry.“

5lThe inventory o f files transferred to the Main Administration o f Irregular Forces bears no evidence that the Committee even considered the issue, although discussion o f the zemstvos may have been included under such headings as "Opinions o f the Don Host nobility on various topics": GARO f. 802, op. I. d. 21, II. 38-45. 54Vsepoddaneishii otchet.za 1869 god, 10. When a zemstvo statute for the Don Host was announced on I June 1875, the particular obstacle o f the status o f Don towns was unmentioned; rather, reference was made to the "unique and segregated condition o f the Don population." Vsepoddaneishii otchet . za 1875 god, p. 61. “ "Vnutrennee Obozrenie" Vestnik Evropy 7 (1875): 361-62, 364. The author repeats rumors from these secret discussions that all the delegates from civilian ministries pressed for the jurisdiction o f the Ministry o f Internal Affairs, while the military delegates, a majority, stubbornly clung to control by the War M inistry, on the basis o f its 145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

When legislation establishing the Don zemstvo was announced on 1 April 187S the issue o f jurisdiction had been decided in favor o f the War M inistry. With that exception - which would prove portentous - there were only minor variations distinguishing the Don zemstvo from the Imperial legislation.61 From its inception the Don zemstvo experienced crippling problems, most o f which centered around hostile relations with local officials. As i f in anticipation o f failure, the Host Administration retained budgetary authority over existing public health and credit organizations, which in other regions were transferred to the jurisdiction o f the zemstvo, "until there is a clarification o f the conditions by which [they] can enter into the conduct and responsibility o f the zemstvo."62 As a result, the nascent agency was not in a position to offer those services which might yield tangible benefits to the local population. This was a crucial weakness o f the zemstvo in the ensuing political struggle. The taxes imposed by the zemstvo caused reflexive discontent among rank and file Cossacks, who saw this as a violation o f their privileged tax-free status and, receiving no immediate benefit from these new agencies, harbored suspicions over the disbursement o f the funds. Zemstvo supporters would charge that these misgivings were fueled by local officials

"centuries-long experience" in managing the Host. 6>1hc amount o f land necessary to qualify as a landowner was slightly lower and the ataman was entitled to select a member o f the oblast zemstvo board "as a representative o f Host property": Vsepoddaneishii otchet . za 1875 god, p. 62. 62Vsepoddaneishii otchet . za 1876 god, p. 57. 146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

who, jealous o f their administrative power, spread rumors among the stanitsas that zemstvo taxes collected were all being funneled toward peasant communities, or even worse, that the Cossacks were being reduced to peasant status by the new agencies.63 The economic vulnerability caused by mobilization for the Russo-Turkish war o f 1877-78 made this a particularly propitious time for such rumors to achieve resonance among the rank and file.64 Host officials further exacerbated the taxation issue by exempting profitable enterprises such as the Grushevsk anthracite mines from zemstvo levies.63 Cossack dissatisfaction over taxation reached the stage that the stanitsas o f Khoper okrug refused to pay zemstvo duties or even elect deputies for the three-year term o f 1878-1881. Henceforth, opponents o f the zemstvo would refer to this episode as proof o f the incompatibility o f the zemstvo with the Cossack "way o f life." Responding to the controversy, in 1879 ataman Krasnokutskii formed yet another

63"0 nedorazumeniiakh na Donu" Donskoi Golos 85 (1881): 339. In an ironic twist, radical propaganda aimed at sabotaging the Don zemstvo incorporated a main theme o f ministerial objections; namely, that the introduction o f zemstvo fees and taxes represented a violation o f the Cossack privilege o f tax-free possession o f the Don. E.g.. Krestianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii, 1870-1880 gg. Sbornik dokumentov (Moscow. 1968), 286-288. wFifty-three Don Cossack calvary units and twenty-four artillery batteries were mobilized, the largest mobilization o f the nineteenth century: A.A. Pushkarenko. “ Uchastie Donskogo Kazachestva v Russko-Turetskoi Voine. 1877-1878 gg.'’ in A. Pronshtein (ed.) Isioriia Dona s drevneishikh vremen do Velikoi Oktiabrskoi sotsialisticheskui revoliutsii (Rostov-on-Don, 1965), 116. 65Sbornik Oblastnago voiska Donskago Zemstva 1877 g. (Novocherkassk. 1878), 6-8; "Zemskoe Delo v stepnom prostranstve,"14-15.

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

commission o f Host officials and zemstvo deputies to resolve the difficulties. The commission was chaired by Nikolai Maslakovets, the Ataman's Assistant for C ivilian Affairs. The Committee's members recognized the zemstvo's distinct lack o f popularity among the Cossack population (w ith little prospect for change given the zemstvo's present form) but disagreed sharply over the causes o f and solutions to the situation. A majority saw the problems as partly caused by opposition from local officials, attributing the primary blame to the fact that the rank and file Cossacks simply did not see the zemstvo as being in their best interests; they recommended suspending zemstvo operations. Zemstvo supporters on the committee, a m inority, saw the problem in terms o f a lack o f trust from the Cossacks caused both by their fear o f becoming a taxed (padatnoe) estate and by their impoverishment.66 A pro-zemstvo commentary on the Maslakovets commission criticized its limited scope: rather than examining the needs of the Don population and determine the most creative way o f meeting those needs (read: expand zemstvo powers), the commission merely provided a forum for bureaucrats to catalog the deficiencies o f the zemstvo agencies.67 Future advocates o f the zemstvo

66Stolelie Voennago Xfinisterstva, XI, part 1,436. 67"Zemskoe delo v stepnom prostranstve" Russkaia rech'2 (1881): 16-18. The article does not mask the fact that the Don zemstvo had experienced a rough start, but suggests that the problems encountered were no more serious than those experienced in other provinces, and had nothing to do w ith the exclusiveness o f the Cossack estate. 148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

would bitterly recall Maslakovets' role in its demise.6* The brief and turbulent history o f the elective zemstvo on the Don officially came to a halt in 1882, when its activity was "temporarily suspended" by the War Ministry. At the same time it requested this action, the M inistry also requested permission from the Council o f Ministers to form a Commission composed o f representatives elected by the respective estates to register public attitudes toward issues o f self-government. The "Committee o f 106,"M the fruit o f this proposal, would provide some public sanction for the Ministry's decision. Despite reports o f tension between local Host authorities and the new zemstvo bodies, it seems that the primary impulse to suspend zemstvo operations came from St. Petersburg: a report o f ataman Krasnokutskii written before final approval was given for the Committee asserts that closing the zemstvo agencies would be o f the

6lPerhaps it was this transgression that caused the editors o f Donisy XIX veka to exclude Maslakovets from its roster o f noteworthy Cossacks: the other four to hold this position in the Host administration appear in the compendium. 69This rather peculiar number resulted from a "suggestion" from the Main Administration o f Cossack Hosts that augmenting the Host delegation to the Committee by six members would "prove beneficial." The distribution among the various estates was as follows: Stanitas Administration Landowners Peasants Merchant Society

40 10 27 16 13

GARO f. 46, op. 1., d. 2151,1.2; Ob"iasnitel'naia zapiska kproeklu Polozheniia o Donskom zemskom upravlenii (Novocherkassk, 1883?), 18.

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

greatest difficulty, even i f the need for a commission to review their work is "not subject to doubt." By the time the Committee was to meet, Krasnokutskii was replaced, and the preparatory report for the Committee by the ataman's chancellary presents the zemstvo in the most dire light.™ When it convened in November 1881 the Committee met not in general sessions but in smaller groups divided along estate-lines, in a clear rebuke to the zemstvo, trans­ estate spirit. According to the War Minister's annual report this step was taken simply because it was considered more expedient for persons "sim ilar in their intellectual development" to congregate together.71 An article in the local press attributed the decision to the fears o f "higher authorities" that the educated members o f the Committee - who were much more favorably disposed to the zemstvo - would dominate the discussions or formulate proposals in language "inaccessible to a majority o f the representatives."77 The stanitsa representatives, the largest bloc o f delegates, rejected the zemstvos as intrusive on Cossack traditions; the landowners stood behind the zemstvos, along with the peasants.73 But at the same time they rejected the zemstvo as constituted, the stanitsa delegates approved a petition endorsing some type o f elective self-

70Ib id .,ll. 1,23-28. 71Vsepoddaneishii doklad.za 1881 god, 81. 72"Khronika" Donskoi Golos 86 (1881): 343. 73"Novocherkassk, 7 aprelia 1882" Donskoi Golos 26 (1882): 101-02. 150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

administration: [I]t would be beneficial if an elective, civilian economic administration were instituted in Novocherkassk. Along with this institution, every year a Host krug should be convened, which would discuss and decide all issues o f self-government and present our needs to the government.74 Zemstvo enthusiasts would claim this resolution as proof that the rank and file were committed in spirit to the zemstvo principle, but were simply confused by groundless fears that the all-estate zemstvo was a harbinger o f further assaults on Cossack privileges. In the aftermath o f the zemstvo's closure, the War M inistry gloated over its prescience in doubting the institution's ultimate success. In announcing the decision, the Minister's annual report alluded to the ineffectiveness o f the new agencies. It revisited the decision not to transfer social welfare funds to the zemstvo: "This circumspection, it now turns out. was entirely appropriate, for i f these funds had been turned over to the zemstvo, then any fundamental reform o f the zemstvo agencies as presently constituted would be impossible, or at least extremely d ifficu lt."7' The historian o f the Main Administration o f Cossack Affairs attributed the decision to the administrative confusion the new institutions generated: Cossacks found themselves reporting to the zemstvo agencies. Host civilian offices, as well as the Host m ilitary command.76

74Quoted in Ivan N. Efremov, Voprosy zemskago khoziaistva v Donskoi oblasii (Novocherkassk, 1905), 21. 75Vsepoddaneishii otchet . za 1881 god, 80. nStoletie Voennago Ministerstva X I, part 1,433-438. 151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Zemstvo supporters took some heart in the supposedly "temporary" nature o f the War Ministry's intercession. The new ataman Sviatopolk-Mirskii empanelled another commission to study the question o f how to adopt the zemstvos into the Host administration. The chairman o f the committee was Major General Artem Vasil'evich Kuteinikov, who, besides holding the post o f ataman o f Ust-Medveditsk okrug, belonged to one o f the richest families on the Don.77 The Kuteinikov commission very judiciously acknowledged as valid all the grievances raised by the War Ministry and the Committee o f 106. It recommended re-opening o f the zemstvo, but with the stipulation that it must adapt in such a way that would allay the grievances o f the rank and tile Cossacks, the most important o f which was, o f course, the levy o f zemstvo taxes: It is d ifficu lt to overcome perceptions and feelings which have been instilled over centuries. The Cossack has never paid money for him self or for his land. Any monetary payments for Don services have been made from the interest on Host capital, not by the Cossacks personally.71 This might be interpreted as a sincere effort to defend Cossack interests and traditions were it not for the fact that, as McNeal makes abundantly clear in his analysis o f War M inistry policy toward the Cossacks, it did not hesitate to "overcome perceptions and feelings" in the name o f expedience. This stipulation is more accurately read as

^The ubiquitous Khariton Popov was o f course the administrator o f the committee: ()b"iasnilel'naia zapiska kproektu Polozheniia o Donskom zemskom upravlenii, 19. 7*Ibid., 14. 152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

resignation to the reality that any future zemstvo configuration would be limited in its scope and deferential to the Host administration in any conflicts over jurisdiction.74 Despite their inconclusive results, the Maslakovets and Kuteinikov commissions framed debate over the issue for decades to come. M ilitary officials, on the one hand, cautioned against a "mechanical" application o f the Imperial legislation to the Don Host, arguing that the experience o f 1876-1882 proved that the standard zemstvo was simply incompatible with the Cossack "way o f life." Zemstvo supporters countered that the strength o f Cossack tradition was no reason to foreswear any structural innovation: it was not necessary to gut the zemstvo o f its salient features to palliate the rank and file reservations-and even diehard supporters acknowledged the depth o f these concerns; rather, implementation should be accompanied by a broad, patient campaign explain the new agency's benefits, which, being so strikingly manifest, would convince the Cossack masses to embrace the new agencies, even i f they did rankle at certain traditions. Strictly speaking the zemstvo apparatus was not dismantled, but the elective zemstvo assemblies were replaced by "Executive Committees on Zemstvo Affairs" (Rasporiaditel'nye Komitetypo zemskim delam) at the oblast and okrug level. "Temporary" legislation in 1885 combined the levies collected for zemstvo functions

” "The main sector o f the population, the Cossacks, have been accustomed to submit to their Host authorities from bygone days (izstari)....They submit to this authority without complaint; they do not even recognize the agents o f the zemstvo assembly as possessing legal authority": ibid., p. 6. The War Minister's annual report made a slighting reference to the committee, noting that it suspended its work in 1882 so that its members could attend to their estates: Vsepoddaneishii otchet . za 1883 god, 73-74. 153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

with the regular payments in kind the Host collected from stanitsas. Supervision o f expenses was entrusted to Host-appointed auditors.80 The reform o f local administration did not end here. Not satisfied that the suspension o f the zemstvo had sufficiently "clarified" the lines o f local authority, in 1887 the War Ministry abolished the post o f okrug nachal'nik, who had been responsible for civilian functions at the local level, and concentrated all functions in the hands o f the okrug ataman.81 Despite the bleak climate for any reform agenda, one development that promised some movement on the issue was the annexation o f Rostov uezd and Taganrog municipality to the oblast in 1887,g;! which added 294,783 citizens to the Host's

8UGARO f. 55, op. l,d . 1414,11. 31,34. 81Vsepoddaneishii otchet.za 1888 god, p. 1. This individual confirmed all resolutions approved by stanitsa assemblies, and personally decided all issues left unsettled by the stanitsas. >:The geographical peculiarity o f Rostov uezd being cut o ff from the rest o f Ekaterinoslav province had been the cause o f numerous proposals for administrative gerrymandering. As early as 1838 Minister o f Internal Affairs Count Bludov had proposed the formation o f a new province to be comprised o f Rostov uezd, Taganrog and Miussk okrug, which was revived in I8S7, 1865, and 1866. On every occasion the War Ministry objected on the grounds that Miussk okrug was a constituent element o f inviolable Don Host lands. In 1866 the War M inistry offered a counterproposal to combine the three territories under the authority o f the Don Ataman; this time the Minister o f Internal A ffairs objected, citing the economic importance o f the Taganrog and Rostov ports. After years o f wrangling, in 1886 the Tsar personally convened a meeting o f the Ministers o f War, Finance, State Properties. Internal Affairs, and Justice, along with the Don Ataman, to discuss the question anew. He decided to form a commission in Novocherkassk chaired by the Kursk governor to review necessary details for adjoining the territories to the Host. At issue was whether there would be a complete assimilation (sliianie) o f the new territories with the Host, or would they remain separate, though under the personal 154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

population - none o f them Cossacks - who suddenly found their zemstvo agencies suspended.83 The 1890 zemstvo "counterreform," which limited the prerogative o f the elective body vis-a-vis the provincial administration, also provided some encouragement for supporters.84 A fter the work o f an 1893 committee chaired by General Aleksandr Grekov, the newly appointed head o f the Host civilian administration, all sides--Don society, the Host Administration, and the War Ministry - were in principled agreement that the 1890 Zemstvo statute could be applied to Don with only a few. slight accomodations. The War M inistry announced its intention to form yet ready to form new commission to hammer out these modifications.83 But the next major forum to discuss the zemstvo would not be convened until 1903. in their lamentations over the Don's need for the zemstvo, partisans laid out an expansive vision o f the benefit this institution would provide. Their main argument was

authority o f the Ataman as govemer-general. Only the War Minister Vannovskii was for assimilation, versus eighteen who wanted the territories separate. But Vannovskii's arguments won out; in 1887 Aleksandr III decreed: "In my opinion this is clearly the only way to resolve this interminable problem once and for all." As part o f the terms o f the restructuring, Taganrog and Rostov each retained its city administration intact, though they were transferred to the authority o f the War Ministry, and the zemstvo agencies were suspended. In a generous interpretation, the 20,000 Jews inhabiting the territories in question were exempted from an 1882 law forbidding Jews from settling in the Don Host Oblast: Stoletie Voennago Ministerstva X I, part I, 589-98. 83Vsepoddaneishii otchet...:a 1888 god, 13. MGARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1428,1. 48. 85Stoletie Voennago Ministerstva X I, part 1,721-722. 155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

economic; but underlying these arguments was a territory still mired in stagnation that went beyond ruble and kopeck considerations, marshaled in favor zemstvo: economic and social progress. Benefits would be understood i f explained to rank and file, hard sell] The social division between zemstvo supporters and detractors, so striking in the Commission o f 106, would seem to be contradictory. Despite the fact that landowners were accorded an inordinate amount o f power in the Imperial zemstvo statutes, reform advocates nonetheless ascribed a democratizing impulse for the zemstvo experiment: here was an opportunity for the "lower orders" to learn their responsibilities as conscious citizens. Two articles from the national press cited here supporting the zemstvo on the Don both see the reform as a necessary corrective for the region's unfortunate social history whereby a noble elite had captured a monopoly on influence over local issues; the zemstvo curia would provide a forum for lower Cossacks, and peasants, to advise and consent on decisions important to them. But it was precisely this same noble elite who were the most consistent - tenacious, even - supporters o f the zemstvo. The Cossack intelligentsia experienced a hard sell in convincing the rank and file o f the benefit to be gained from the zemstvo and the reform agenda. It was frustrating to try to frame their agenda as serving "Cossack" values, rather than the narrow interests o f a well-placed elite. Their task was not made any easier by frequent pronouncements from the War M inistry that it was the genuine trustee for Cossack interests. Nonetheless, the

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

nobility persevered in its self-appointed role as petitioner and Kulturtrager for the Cossack masses. Perhaps their disappointment over the lack o f mass enthusiasm for the zemstvo caused the Don nobility to undertake a certain tactical shift in their political activity. Tabling the zemstvo and other reform issue, in the late 1890s the nobility made a concerted effort to highlight the perilous economic plight o f the Cossacks. It is difficult to separate this issue from the nobility's long-standing grievances with the Host administration, and one can see the nobility's 1898 petition to the throne to authorize a commission to study o f the causes o f the impoverishment o f the Cossacks as part o f a larger strategy to push forward a broad reform agenda. The petition itself refers to the "fundamental breakdown (rasiroistvo) o f the economic life o f the Cossack population on the Dona." After a dispassionate and strictly truthful analysis o f these facts the Don nobility has come to the unpleasant conclusion that the current economic condition o f the Cossacks presents a dark picture o f progressively expanding poverty, which could lead to the most undesirable consequences in the near future. The petition goes on to propose an open ended study o f the "root" o f these trends.16 Showing a sensitivity for the new way o f thinking in the War Ministry, the petition addresses the problem from a m ilitary perspective; financial pressures made it

“ GARO f. 410, op. I, d. 640,1. 3. The proposal does make clear the economic crisis directly affects the Cossacks' ability to serve the tsar, "the most noble o f their historical callings." 157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

increasingly difficu lt for Cossacks to purchase a horse or maintain their equipment in battle-readiness. Moreover, the issue gave the nobility the chance to assert, in dramatic terms, its solidarity with the rank and file. "The Commission on the Causes o f the Impoverishment o f the Don Cossacks and on Measures for Reviving their Well-Being" convened in Novocherkassk in January 1899 under the chairmanship o f the same Lieutenant General Maslakovets who had chaired the 1879 Commission which had spelled doom for the zemstvo. Nonetheless the makeup o f the commission favored the reform agenda. The representatives o f stanitsa communities did not enjoy any numerical advantage over the nobility-both were allotted one per okrug--and their numbers included A.A. Donetskii and N.I. Efremov, two nobles who were among the most vocal supporters o f the zemstvo issue.87 The Commission was not divided along estate lines, as had been the Commission o f 106, but separated into five working groups organized around specific issues.*1 Donetskii's report set the tone for the Commission's devastating critique o f a Don Host on the edge o f ruin. He attributed the situation to a fundamental reality o f Cossack life over the course o f the nineteenth century: as m ilitary obligations became more regularized and regulated, and thus more oppressive, the main source o f income for the Cossacks, land, had steadily decreased on a per capital basis. "Under the pressure o f this

l7In fact, Donetskii had served as a deputy on the Oblast zemstvo committee and defended the zemstvo as a member o f the original Maslakovets Commission in 1879. "G A R O f. 162, op. l,d . 17, II. 1,3. 158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

economic necessity, the Cossack is either leaving for the Far East or dispossessing himself o f his honorable title and entering the ranks o f petty traders."*9 He had harsh words for local authorities who pushed the Cossacks to fu lfill - or even overfulfil! military duties that are reducing the latter to "proletarians:" Therefore [these officials] remain uninterested observers o f the process o f impoverishment that is taking place under their eyes, which could carry w ith it extremely unfavorable consequences for the government. For the crushing effects o f this process, unless quickly arrested, w ill undoubtedly result in the ruin (gibe 10 o f the Cossacks...90 The Commission recommended a reduction in Cossack service requirements and a thorough overhaul o f local administration to include introduction o f the zemstvo. On this latter point, Maslakovets now recognized the suspension o f this agency to have been an error. The case o f Artillery General Aleksei Petrovich Korochentsev provides an interesting corollary to the work o f the Commission studying the impoverishment o f the Cossacks. A Don Cossack, Korochentsev was educated in St. Petersburg and spent most o f his career on assignments in the capital or other areas beyond the Host's borders. In May 1898 Korochentsev was assigned to fill the duties o f Host ataman in the wake o f Sviatopolk-Mirskii's transfer to St. Petersburg, at which time he was ordered to report on

,9GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 17,1.289. 90GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 17,1. 290. "'Stoletie Voennago Ministerstva X I, part 1,714. 159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the battle-readiness o f reserve Cossacks on the Don. Korochentsev's low estimation o f the more than 18,000 troops he personally inspected aroused criticisms within the War Ministry that his review exaggerated negative economic trends w ithin the Host. Responsibility for the report was transferred to a General Petrovskii in 1899, whose more optimistic outlook Korochentsev challenged in a personal missive to the Tsar, thus earning the enmity o f the newly appointed ataman Maksimovich.42 In a strong sign o f solidarity, members o f the Commission studying impoverishment among the Cossacks issued a statement declaring their appreciation for the "deep and personal interest for the condition o f the Cossack population" Korochentsev displayed in his brief tenure as acting ataman.43 Almost immediately on the heels o f the Commission's report. War Minister Kuropatkin undertook a personal inspection o f the Host, as i f to verify - or more likely refute - the dire characterization. Not surprisingly, Kuropatkin's view o f the situation was much more optimistic. He found economic problems sufficient to affect the Cossacks' ability to arm themselves for service, but did not find the root o f the problem to be the welter o f Cossack obligations or overzealous officials. Rather, his conclusion was that "the Cossack population o f Don Host...does not manage the wealth o f land that has been alloted to them with sufficient energy or skill." Kuropatkin's report must have

''-Dontsy XLX veka part 1,203-04. 43GARO f. 410, op. I, d. 640,1. 15.

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

pierced Cossack sensitivities with a comment that the Cossacks were no worse o ff than the peasants o f central Russian provinces.44 Don activists refused to abandon the theme o f reducing Cossack service requirements, much to the annoyance o f Administration. In a dramatic presentation to the Noble Assembly in 1905, Aleksei Karasev equated the onerous Cossack service requirements w ith serfdom: "The question o f the liberation (raskreposhchenii) o f the Don cossacks...is more important than all other questions o f local cossack life, not excluding even the zemstvo administration." The great majority o f the nobles gathered here belong to the Cossack estate. In this family, we are the elders to whose solicitude mother-fate has entrusted our younger children. We must not remain indifferent to the condition o f the children, who even enjoy their circumstances because it gives them the chance to play at historical games. We must help them to escape from being children and to become people. Karasev proposed a fifty percent reduction in Cossack m ilitary obligations, to bring them in line with those imposed upon the general Russian population.4’ The concerns expressed by Don nobles for the economic well-being o f the Host were not entirely altruistic or tactical; they themselves were experiencing the effects o f a stagnant Don economy. Between the years 1883 and 1903 the amount o f land owned by

44Stolelie Voennago Ministerstva XI, part 1, pp. 712-16. Recall the controversy arising in 1901 when marshal Denisov received a copy o f this report without the knowledge o f the ataman. 45"Chresvychainomu Oblastnomu Dvorianskomu Sobraniiu. Doklad A.A. Karaseva," 2. For a sim ilar view, see Iks., “ Iz Novocherkasska. (Zhizn' sovremennago kazachestva)," Novoe Slovo 6 (1897): 130-136. 161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Don nobles plummeted from 2,813,897 to 1,263,584 desiatinas.96 This sense o f economic insecurity may have led Don liberals to a principled retreat from their earlier mission to establish all the civilian institutions on the Don that were found in other Russian provinces. In particular, they supported efforts to lim it the scope o f the Peasant Land Bank"7 w ithin Host and petitioned the Slate Senate to exempt the remove the property rights o f continuous tenure (davnoe vladenie) for non-Cossack landowners in the Host. *

In addressing the economic condition o f the Host, the nobility did not forget larger reform issues involving the Don's place in the Russian Empire. Zemstvo supporters would not have recognized any dichotomy between these initiatives, for their most steadfast argument in support o f the zemstvo was its promised economic benefit: The noble assembly [has come] to the conclusion that the Don Oblast. w ith it broad expanses o f land...and rich holdings o f anthracite, iron

%ln his report on his tenure as Host marshal. Denisov noted that for the years 1901 to 1903 alone the amount o f land belonging to hereditary and personal nobles in the Host dropped from 1,476,541 to 1,263,584 desiatiny, "and this unpleasant phenomenon, unfortunately, continues even until this day." Kratkii otchei Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Predvoditelia dvorianstva ocherednomu dvorianskomu Sobraniiu. Za trekhletie 1901-1903 gg. (Novocherkassk, 1904), 17; Vsepoddaneishii otchet...za 1883 god, 26. "’ Bureaucratic wrangling over this issue revealed in central importance o f the War Ministry's estimation o f the economic situation in the Host. In 1906 the Don and Kuban Hosts jo in tly petitioned the Finance Ministry to allow Cossacks the same preferential terms available to peasants through the Peasant Land Bank. The Finance Ministry replied that the purpose o f this institution was to assist landless or land-poor peasants, and according to the War M inistry the Don Cossacks were not land-poor: GARO f. 162, op. l,d . 20,1.22. 162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ore..and other minerals, has fallen far behind all the zemstvo provinces of Russian under the present administration, when the Don Oblast, w ith all o f its resources, should overtake many o f the zemstvo provinces in the economic, industrial, and all other sectors, given different conditions that would obtain with the introduction o f zemstvo administration.91 Unfortunately, their musings are generally vague on the "different conditions" that would stimulate this economic growth, aside from the expectation that decisions over the allocation o f funds would be in the hands o f enlightened officials whose first priority would be the civilian infrastructure-schools, roads, hospitals-rather than the military service obligations o f the stanitsas. Aside from alleviating the problem o f "undergovemment" in the Host,99 Zemstvo enthusiasts seem to have been under the influence o f a naive assumption by which this transition would in turn attract some type of capital infusion. One o f the sources o f discontent over the absence o f zemstos was an indignation over being excluded from the benefits available to other Russian provinces. An October 1904 report from the noble assembly barely veils its anger over the recent implementation of the zemstvo in the Empire's western borders, rejecting any possible implications o f this process for the Don, "which is composed o f a native Russian population, historically

9lGARO f. 410, op. I, d. 793, II. 7-8. "C f. S. Frederick Starr, Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, 1830-1870 (Princeton. 1972). Ivan Efremov argued that the immense size o f Host okrugs - the 2nd Don okrug was ten times the size o f the average uezd in Moscow province - rendered the zemstvo a necessary supplement to the rudimentary Host administration. Ivan N. Efremov, Kazaki i zemstvo na Donu (St. Petersburg, 1908), 12-13. 163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

devoted to the throne, while the population o f the Western region consists o f various national elements, which, moreover, arc often alien to general Russian traditions as a result of their historical past."100 In continuing its suit for the zemstvo the Don intelligentsia produced several adaptations to the Imperial statutes intended to render implementation more palatable to the War Ministry. Around the same time the second Maslakovets commission was in session, Ivan Popov, secretary o f the Statistical Committee and leader in local society, authored a proposal for a new Don zemstvo. The explanatory notes offered four reasons for the failure o f the first zemstvo: fears among the Cossacks that they were being reduced to a "taxed estate;" a conviction among the Cossacks that their zemstvo dues should be paid by the Host; poor timing, in that the appearance o f the first zemstvo coincided with bad harvests, as well as the Russo-Turkish War; and "agitation by some people against the zemstvo."101 The second o f these commands attention. In the debate surrounding the zemstvo since its suspension, a consensus had emerged that the payment o f zemstvo taxes represented an unfair burden for the Cossacks because o f their military obligations. From the Administration's point o f view, this all but precluded any further movement on the issue. But here Popov recasts that consensus in a way that presages the

l00GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 793,1. 13. See also Theodore Weeks, Nation and State in late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the IVestern Frontier, 1863-1914 (Dekalb, 1996). ,0lGARO f. 55, op. I, d. 1428,1. 35. 164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

core idea o f his proposal; namely, that the Host treasury pay all zemstvo duties assessed for the stanitsas.103 In an official response to this idea, Ivan Dobrynin, the second ranking official in the civilian administration, expressed sympathy for the general plan, but concluded that in the given state o f Host finances asking the Host to pay for stanitsa zemstvo fees would be impossible.103 In January' 1904. the Noble assembly heard an imaginative proposal from members B.P. Ianov and V.A. Remi to introduce the zemstvo partially (chastichno). Operating on the premise that there should be no obstacle to adopting the agency in nonCossack areas o f the Host, Ianov and Remi suggest introducing the Host into Taganrog and Rostov okrugs, with the exclusion o f three stanitsas, "which are in no way different from uezds in zemstvo provinces." Further, half o f Donetsk okrug could form a single zemstvo okrug. As for the remaining six okrugs, the peasant volosts and privately owned land would be organized into two or more zemstvo okrugs. The proposal minimizes the potential for disputes between zemstvo and non-zemstvo territories, arguing that such problems had already been successfully mediated in zemstvo provinces. A t no point do

l0:Popov raises the possibility o f directing stanitsas to set aside special areas, the proceeds o f which would earmarked for zemstvo projects, but immediately dismisses due to the shrinking land supply: GARO f. 55, op. I. d. 1428, II. 38-39. I03ln presenting his findings, Dobrynin acknowledges that a state o f economic crisis exists for many o f the Cossacks, but anticipates the drain on the Host budget likely to enuse from the necessity to subsidize the procurement o f supplies for masses o f impoverished Cossacks: GARO f. SS, op. 1, d. 1428, II. 19,24. 16S

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

they express any concern for the territorial integrity o f the Host.104 Not surprisingly, a panel o f noble marshals and deputies agreed with the main thrust o f the report but held the division o f the oblast to be "undesirable," and once again promised to bring up the question o f introducing the zemstvo throughout the Host at the next general assembly.105 In 1903 yet another Commission gathered in Novocherkassk, chaired by a Cossack but by N ikolai Leman, a career official o f the Main Administration o f Cossack Hosts.106 This committee would be suspended, never to reconvene, after the outbreak o f the Russo-Japanese War in February 1904. Moreover, the decree halting the work o f this committee also enjoined the Don nobility from raising the issue before the War M inistry.107 During a personal audience in February 1905 marshal Denisov presented a petition on behalf o f the nobility to Nicholas II requesting the introduction o f the zemstvo. Although Denisov's gesture succeeded in restarting discussion on the issue, any celebration was premature. The War Ministry, citing the nobility's petition as an impetus

l04GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 793, II. 2-3. I05GARO f. 410. op. 1, d. 793. II. 4, 6. l06Leman entered service with the Main Administration o f (then) Irregular Forces directly upon graduating from St. Petersburg University in 1863. He eventually rose to the position o f Assistant to the C hief o f the Administration. In 1892-93 he headed a special task force to distribute famine relief in the Host: Stoletie Voennago Ministerstva X I, part 1, 804-06; part 2,42. 107GARO f. 410, op. I, d. 793.1. 11. 166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

for its action, informed the ataman in March that any action on the zemstvo awaited the results o f ongoing discussions to reform the Imperial zemstvo statutes, and instructed him to give consideration to what measures can be taken "to clarify the opinion o f the Cossack population living in the stanitsas" w ith regard to the zemstvo.101 This latter point struck fear in the hearts o f Don liberals, raising the prospect o f another "Commission o f 106"like spectacle, pitting noble against rank-and-file. On this point, Denisov wrote to the ataman in June 190S objecting to War Ministry plans for a "survey" (opros) o f the general Cossack population on the grounds that the poor educational level o f the Cossacks and the bias o f local officials could cause the issue to be decided in an “ entirely random manner” (sovershenno sluchaino).llN Denisov pointed out that none o f the other reforms required a preliminary survey o f Cossack attitudes before being implemented on the Don. and summarized the findings o f the many commissions and conferences on the issue to stress the need for the immediate implementation o f the zemstvo with no further surveys. The specter o f some type o f referendum on the zemstvo forced Don liberals to contemplate their social isolation on the issue. Some o f their concerns must have been prompted by a lack o f confidence in the Host administration to conduct any survey in

l0,GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 793,1. 38. One o f the liberals' ancillary grievances was that the absence o f the zemstvo on the Don automatically excluded Don representatives from discussions on the zemstvo at the Imperial level: GARO f. 162, op. 1., d. 2 0 ,1. 8. ,MGARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 793., II. 46-47. 167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

good faith. More to the point, however, was a barely submerged exasperation with the Cossack masses for their low cultural level (recall Karasev's reference to "young children" diverted by "historical games"); once again the Don nobility found itself compelled to denigrate those in whose name they purportedly spoke. A letter received in the offices o f the Donskie Oblastnye Vedomosti from Vasilii Markovich Samartsev, a zemstvo enthusiast from Filonovskaia stanitsa, expresses this frustration in red letters: Any one who lives among the Cossacks for the shortest time knows that for the most part our Cossacks are barely literate, ignorant, inert, and naive as children. It would be a great mistake to ask an ignorant sick person to know how to cure himself. In such a critically important matter as the introduction o f the zemstvo it would be very risky to rely on the wishes o f the Cossacks: i f you act in accordance with the wish o f the stanitsa population, then you might go for centuries without the fruits o f modem culture.110 At the same time, its position as standard-bearer for the zemstvo and other reform issues did solidify a consciousness within the nobility o f being a vanguard within the Cossacks.111 In an overt effort to win over the "barely literate" Cossacks. Ivan N. Efremov,

ll0"O Zemstve na Donu (Zametka kazaka)" in GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1428. II. 60-63. See also S.la. Areftn, "Donskie kazaki," Russkoe Bogaistvo 12 (1906): 116-152. 11'And the constant wrangling with the State officials might also have helped shape the Noble assembly into more efficient organization. A.M. Grekov, a firm critic o f the liberal agenda, showed some grudging respect for the noble deputies as "people not necessarily wealthy but efficient, hard-working, and with developed sensibility. Among us, by tradition, up until now it has been the other way around, being rich was more important than having a developed sensibility." Aleksandr Grekov, Priazov'e i Don. Ocherki obshchestvennoi i ekonomicheskoi zhizni kraia (St. Petersburg, 1912), 193-194. 168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

scion o f the most celebrated family on the Don, wrote a series o f articles for the Vedomosti, which were published later in brochure form. Efremov infuses his prose with emotional flourish and marshals arguments calculated, seemingly, to appeal to a mass audience. For example, he appeals to the Cossacks' native pride in proclaiming that "it should be shameful to the whole Don Host that it lost that right to self-government it had enjoyed eternally (iskoni), which is now enjoyed by neighboring provinces, and which has been granted to far-off Siberia and the multi-ethnic Caucasus."'12 Efremov addresses fears that the zemstvo presages the diminution, or worse, o f the Cossacks: I remind you that i f zemstvo self-government is revived on the Don, then the Cossacks in every okrug, with the exception o f Rostov and Taganrog, will send about half o f the electors. Because o f this there is no need to fear that the needs o f the Cossacks w ill not receive attention....The zemstvo is fully compatible with Cossackdom, and reviving zemstvo selfgovernment w ill only be to the benefit o f the Cossacks."3 He is also careful to avoid any dismissive or potentially abusive language when referring to the rank-and-file - there are no "barely literate" or "ignorant" Cossacks. Rather, he repeatedly alludes to the "unfortunate misunderstanding" that resulted in broad disenchantment toward the zemstvos during its brief history on the D on."4 and credits the

1l2Ivan N. Efremov, Chto takoe zemstvo i nuzhno li ono kazakam v Donskoi oblasti? (Novocherkassk, 1905), 18. '"Efremov, Voprosy Zemskago Khoziaistva, p. ii. '"Ib id ., 3,4.9,25. He singles out retired officers and officials living among the Cossacks, who had paid no taxes until the zemstvos were implemented, and okrug 169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Cossack masses with sufficient acuity to understand the relevant political and economic issues: "Not only the Don nobility, but even the simple Cossacks are beginning to realize the benefit o f Cossack self-government."115 Efremov concludes with a stirring invocation - flattering to Cossack romanticism and to liberal aspirations - o f those previous conditions...of a free, independent life...which forged the spirit o f the Cossacks." It was only in such conditions that the resourcefulness, endurance, and energy o f the Cossack could develop into those distinguishing qualities so highly valued among the irregular cavalry. Discipline can create a good soldier even out o f a simple peasant. But discipline and militaryadministrative tutelage do not correspond to the spirit o f the Cossack. This encompasses the broad application o f the elective principle, selfgovernment, free initiative and personal action in the satisfaction o f all local needs. These conditions hold the promise for the development o f the individual, for the rising o f the level o f education and the foundation o f a conscious attitude to one's own affairs and to current events....And it is these qualities which are no less important for the soldier than blind discipline and military training. Now the soldier must be a conscious (mysliashchii) citizen, as the Cossack has always been. The development o f these qualities, which are inherent to the zemstvo self-government, w ill mean the strengthening and further development o f the core foundations o f the Cossack spirit.116 *

The introduction o f the State Duma, as in other areas o f Russia, left liberals

officials jealous o f their powers as the primary sources o f "confusion" (nedorazumenie): p. 20. ll5Ibid., 9. " 6lb id „ 28. This emotional flourish was not at all in character with Efremov's other publications on the subject. 170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

scrambling to gain a footing in this new arena.117 Even though parliamentary reform was the natural extension o f their program, the Don intelligentsia was inured to working behind the closed doors o f commissions or noble assemblies. In his trenchant survey o f the first seeds o f parliamentary activity on the Don, A.M . Grekov judged that the "average, content intelligent" thought himself above politics: "In general, among the intelligentsia the movement to jo in parties was very sluggish (vialo)."n* And the hesitation was not motivated by conviction but by cowardice, immaturity, inexperience. "Political clubs" suddenly formed in 1905. which attracted members with a sense of honor but very little political mettle; they soon took on the appearance o f social clubs.11'* In assessing the Kadet contingent. Grekov avers that "in spirit they were, like our entire intelligentsia, feint-hearted in the extreme (malodushny do krainosti)....None o f them knew anything o f the people, o f the Cossacks and their psychology." 1:0 In his recollections o f the first Duma elections Fedor Kriukov (who would posthumously enjoy fame as the most likely alternative author o f Tikhii Don) was kinder than Grekov. He describes the atmosphere in Novocherkassk as animated; rumor-mongering shared the stage with purely political discussion: "Unexpectedly, many eloquent political orators

ll7For a broader perspective on this process, see Terence Emmons, The Formation o f Political Parties and the First National Elections in Russia (Cambridge, MA, 1983). "*Grekov. 73. " ’ Ibid., 75-76. lwlbid„ 77. 171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

appeared in a land which had known silence for centuries."121 Most o f the Don intelligentsia gravitated to the moderate Progressive Party; its appeal to voters placed it squarely in the center o f the political spectrum: [Our goal is] to give the State Duma the type o f members who, in the struggle with proponents o f both stagnation and revolutionary unrest, w ill be able to keep on the path o f peaceful development which is essential for the (presledovaniia) o f the most important goals o f cultural (preuspeianiia).122 The local party's program was divided into two sections, the one outlining positions on Imperial wide issues, the other devoted to Don-specific questions. The ten planks comprising the latter section presents a slightly m ollified version o f the nobles' reformist agenda, perhaps in an effort to broaden their appeal. The very first point addressed is easing Cossack service obligations by lowering the number o f active units and phasing out the requirement that second and third line Cossacks maintain their mount and equipment. Conspicuously absent is specific reference to the zemstvo; rather, the party endorses "the establishment o f an elective economic agency to manage the all the Host's assets." Further, the charter proposes to reverse the 1887 consolidation o f m ilitary and civilian functions at the local level, and to remand the newly re-established civilian

mF.D. Kriukov, "Vybory na Donu," in K 10-letiiu l-o i Gosudarstvennoi Dumy. Sbornik statei pervodumtsev (Petrograd, 1916), 170-173. Kriukov also published vivid portraits o f stanitsa life: "Mechtaniia," Russkoe Bogatstvo 10 (1904): 165-174; "O kazakakh." Russkoe Bogatstvo 7 (1907): 25-47.

'"G ARO f. 360, op. 1. d. 32, II. 9-10. 172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

agencies to "organs oflocal self-government." Perhaps the most controversial provision would commit the Host administration to turn over all reserve Host lands (or the rent from those lands) to the stanitsas.123 The Don Cossack delegation to the first two Dumas pursued an agenda more radical than the allowed for by "traditional" Don liberalism. For example, they enthusiastically supported the left proposal to confiscate private lands, if necessary, for redistribution to the land poor. In language reminiscent o f the debates o f the 1860s. leader o f the Don delegation Andrei Petrovskii took the Duma floor to lecture the assembly on the history o f private landholding in the Host, concluding that the Cossacks never accepted the idea o f private property: "it's now time for the Cossack and peasant, who has come to the region, to say: 'Give us our land.""24 But even these would-be Jacobins could not escape the inherent contradiction between embracing democratic principles, on the one hand, and representing the Cossack masses, on the other. For example, in a manifesto o f the Don delegation, published after the dispersal o f the second Duma, the deputies proclaimed on one page that "all estate and bureaucratic privileges should be abolished, the estates themselves should be abolished so that people w ill only

l23The Imperial section asserts a very centrist, liberal platform within the framework o f a constitutional monarchy: GARO f. 360, op. 1, d. 32, II. 13-14. 124A .I. Petrovskii, Donskie deputaty vo ll- i Gosudarstvennoi Dume. Istoricheskaia spravka (St. Petersburg, 1907), 68-78 (quote from p. 75). Other proposals seriously undercut the War Ministry's control over the Host, both in m ilitary and civilian decisions, and called for an elective ataman: ibid., pp. 33, 112-118.

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

be distinguished by their personal abilities'*. On the next page they demanded special payments and provisions for the Cossacks.125 Petrovskii's reflections on the delegations' activity to some extent justify Grekov's kazakoman criticisms that the deputies were aloof to the wishes o f the Cossack masses. Petrovskii comfortably refers to petitions from stanitsa assemblies defending "ancient Cossack rights"; but how would those Cossacks react to his assertions o f common interests between the Cossacks and the peasants, or to his characterization o f the Cossacks as "debauched by false privileges"?126 The moderate Don reform agenda did not find many natural allies at the national level. Leftist politicians, w ith fresh memories o f Cossack punitive actions during the revolution, were more inclined to disband the Cossacks than to reform them. The Cossacks' most vociferous defenders, on the other hand, held fast to traditional views o f the Cossacks as a "servile m ilitary force, reduced by the ‘ reforms' o f Alexander III to the position o f a military colony a la Arakcheev."127 The highlight for Reformers came in 1908. when the Duma passed an omnibus reform b ill for the Cossack hosts that included the immediate introduction o f the zemstvo in the Don host. The War M inistry acted quickly to table this legislation on the grounds that the opinion o f the Don Cossacks had to be consulted.

I25lb id „ 11-12. At another point in his speeches. Petrovskii maintained that the Cossacks had no wish to abandon their special m ilitary identification: 36. I26lbid., 13-23, 53, 75. I27S.G. Svatikov, Rossiia i Don (1549-1917) (Belgrade, 1924), 465. 174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Stymied on all fronts in pursuit o f the sacred zemstvo issue, the Don intelligentsia, in an admirable display o f flexibility, shifted the focus o f its efforts to extricate itself from the headlock o f War Ministry administration: in the latter half o f the first decade o f the new century the Don nobility introduced a new initiative to have civilian functions and agencies within the Host transferred to the competence o f the Ministry o f Internal A ffairs.1211 Notable among the candidates presented as candidates for this transfer were the Noble Assembly itself, the Don Statistical Committee, and the administration o f Novocherkassk. The arguments relevant to the administration o f Novocherkassk, cited heavily in Chapter 2. catalogue the city's manifest administrative and physical deficiencies. There is surprisingly little verbiage describing how the Statistical Committee's work was effected by the War M inistry. fhe petition is more expansive representing the plight o f the Don nobility. Over the course o f the decade the Noble assembly grew increasingly vocal about its frustration with the tight rein o f the Host Administration and War M inistry in St. Petersburg. In (90S it complained that the circle o f issues open to noble petition on the Don seemed to be closing tighter and tighter, despite numerous rulings by the State Senate in favor o f

12,For background on this Ministry, see Daniel Orlaovsky, The Limits o f Reform: the Ministry o f Internal Affairs in Imperial Russia, 1802-1881 (Cambridge, MA, 1981). 175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

noble assemblies in cases where Governors ignored noble petitions.129 A 1906 report on the zemstvo issue judged that the Host administration "sees in the nobility not (pechal'nikov) for the needs o f their region, but a quarrelsome element.'"30 A 1908 petition gave the opportunity to register its protest over this perceived harassment, as well as to reiterate its claim to leadership for the Cossacks as the "most cultured estate" within the Host. In the absence o f the zemstvo, the Don nobility assumed a special role as intercessor before the government pursuing various projects o f "a purely zemstvo character," especially when the wishes o f the nobility and m ilitary authorities had been "diametrically opposed.” In a parting joust, the petition rued the fact that in rest o f Russia the nobility was not opposed in its economic initiatives "but in the Don oblast, with its special military regime, where the population is primarily seen as m ilitary material, things are different."131 Not surprisingly, the War Ministry was unswayed by the petition's eloquence. In October 1908 marshal Leonov requested permission for a delegation to present their proposal personally to the tsar. In November ataman Samsonov informed him that the War Ministry considered the document a "private (lichnyi) report" which did not merit

l29GARO f. 410, op. I. d. 793.1. 21. This protest arose when ataman Samsonov refused to act on three measures from the assembly's previous session; o f particular consideration was a request involving the admission o f noble children to the Host Cadet corpus. I30GARO f. 410, op. I, d. 793,1.66. 13lGARO f. 162, op. l,d . 2 0 ,1.42. 176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

"burdening" the throne, and enjoined Leonov personally from raising the issue with the sovereign.133 Leonov appealed this ruling to the State Senate, accusing the Ministry of impeding the Don nobility's access to the throne, but in 1912 the Senate ruled in War Minister Reitiger's favor on the issue.133 A side issue to the whole zemstvo dispute was the seemingly eternal intelligentsia grievances over the dearth o f educational opportunities on the Don, in particular opportunities for higher education. As noted in chapter 1, during their brief existence several okrug zemstvo councils earned reproach for allotting too many funds to classical education while the zemstvo's mandate was to expand primary education. The War Ministry picked up the theme o f the Don's skewed priorities with regard to education, as noted in the 1881 report o f the Main Administration on Cossack Hosts: [One| factor that demands serious attention is the increase in the number those attending middle and higher educational facilities among Don and Ural natives, which cannot help but reflect, and already sharply reflects on general education for the rest o f the population in these Hosts; this fact is especially evident in the Don Host, where general education, in comparison with other Hosts, finds itself in decline and in need o f enormous material support from the Host and stanitsa societies in order to reach the level o f attendance now found in the Orenburg Host.134

'“ GAROf. 162, op. l.d . 20.1.8. 'i3Kratkii otchet Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Predvoditelia dvorianstva, 1913-1915 (Novocherkassk, 1916), 33-34. 134Vsepoddaneishii otchet... :a 1881 god, p. 40. The Orenburg Host was routinely held as a counterexample to the Don as a Host where broad primary education was in place to the almost total neglect o f higher education. For that year, the Main Administration reported that there was one boy in school for every nine male members o f the Orenburg 177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The subsequent decade witnessed not only closing a classical gymnasium and two classical pro-gymnasiums, and halving the number o f vacancies at the remaining gymnasium, in 1887 the War Ministry halved the number o f stipends allotted to the Cossack Hosts for higher education.135 But hopes for educational revival lived on. In his abovc-rcfcrcnccd address to the 1899 Commission studying impoverishment among the Cossacks. Donetskii complained about the decreasing opportunities for university preparatory education, suggesting that this was a major factor in the general decline in the well-being o f the Host, rather than a special interest o f the cultural and economic elite. He describes the decade following 1881 as a period "not only o f stagnation in the area o f education, but a time o f a puzzling retreat from the results previously achieved in this field .'"36 The issue became more immediate in the first decade o f the new century. In January 1904 the Noble assembly passed a resolution expressing its desire that a university be established in Novocherkassk.137 When the M inistry o f Trade and Industry

Host, and one girl for every twenty-five females; the corresponding ratios on the Don were 1:35 for boys and 1:131 for girls.

mVsepoddaneishii otchet...:a 1887god, p. 77. ,36GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 17,1. 291. Donetskii refers to the closing o f several classical facilities during this period without mentioning the vocational and military schools which replaced them. l37GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 998,1.2. 178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

announced its intention to create a new polytechnical institute to be located in southern Russia, the Cossack intelligentsia mobilized in a campaign to place the institute in the Host. In December 1906 the Host assembly petitioned the Council o f Ministers on the issue: "Novocherkassk, as an administrative center distinguished by comparatively inexpensive staple products, as well as the center o f the Don Cossacks, should be considered the very best location for the Institute."131 Shortly thereafter, deputations from Rostov. Taganrog, and Novocherkassk (headed by Oblast marshal Denisov, in the absence o f a proper city administration) made presentations to the Council o f Ministers in support o f their respective cities. Denisov made clear in a telegram to Council o f Ministers Chairman Stolypin that more than logistic considerations should go into the selection: Over the course o f more than three centuries the Don Cossacks have fervently served the Tsar and motherland with tireless energy, not sparing life or material well-being. It would seem to be an act o f justice, at the present time, to heed the determined request o f the Don Host in providing for the opening in Novocherkassk o f a polytechnical institute, for which there has long been a need for the whole East and Southeast o f Russia.134 At this time the Finance Minister expressed great wariness about Novocherkassk's candidacy in light o f the fact that the Rostov city duma had pledged 600,000 rubles o f

13*GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 20 ,1. 10-11. l34The telegram to denigrate the candidacy o f Rostov-on-Don for lacking the graviias "which the Don Host has rightfully earned in relation to the Throne and Fatherland." GAROf. 162, op. I, d. 20,1.47. 179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

city funds to finance the endeavor.140 In response to this, the Host administration made available 1,000,000 rubles for the institute to be built in Novocherkassk. The Don capital was officially selected by Imperial decree on 2 March 1907.141 Unfortunately. Don society v)as disappointed in its expectation o f proprietary control over the Alekseevskii Don Polytechnical Institute (named in honor oflh e heir to the throne). The War Ministry evoked immediate dissatisfaction by selecting a location on the outskirts o f the city, frustrating hopes that the new educational facility would vitalize Novocherkassk's administrative and cultural center.142 A greater source o f disappointment was the Institute's policy toward Cossack admissions. The school's initial charter, drafted in the spring o f 1907. guaranteed that fifty percent o f its vacancies would be reserved for "core residents" o f the Oblast. However, the Institute's board o f trustees ruled that the term "core residents" encompassed not just the Cossacks, but peasants and

l40This turn o f events apparently caused Denisov to weaken Novocherkassk's suit and express the opinion the Rostov would at least satisfy minimal expectations that the Institute would be within the borders o f the Oblast: GARO f. 162. op. 1, d. 2 0 ,1. 9. l4lThe newly sanctioned project was threatened from the outset when the War Ministry dallied over releasing 500,000 rubles from the Host reserves for the project. On 4 May 1907 the Minister o f Trade and Industry warned that if this did not happen soon, "then the construction o f this new polytechnical institute w ill not be undertaken quickly, the project w ill have to be delayed indefinitely and. consequently, the state, and the Don Cossacks in particular, w ill be deprived o f a higher technical school": GARO f. 162, op. 1. d. 20.1. 10.

l42As Denisov complained to Stolypin: "The goal o f the institute should not only be to train the youth...it should also serve the residents o f Novocherkassk with a library, museem, popular adult courses, a botanical garden, an orangerie. and other things." GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 2 0 ,1. 50. 180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

townsman who had long settled in the Oblast. Moreover, in 1908, the Ministry o f Trade and Industry lowered the percentage o f reserved spaces to twenty-five percent. These developments prompted an emotion-laden petition from the Novocherkassk stanitsa assembly that expresses a strong consciousness o f both state's debt to the Cossacks and the lack o f educational opportunities on the Don: [I]t needs to be reiterated what a sad and insulting phenomenon it is for us, that far from all o f our children w ill find a place in that Institute, which calls itself 'Donskoi,' just as there has been no place for them in the past. And so they are forced to search for education in far-off cities and w ill not only be separated from the motherland, but w ill be subject to all the pernicious influences o f big cities. We therefore empower [our stanitsa officials] to request the Cherkassk okrug ataman to petition the Ataman o f the Don Host to establish in the charter o f the Don Polytechnical Institute that first priority (preimushchesivennoe pravo) for admission be granted to Don Cossacks, as the core population o f the Oblast, since only in this way w ill the enormous need for specialized technical knowledge among the Don Dossacks be satisfied.143 Perhaps in frustration over the polytechnical institute's lim ited contribution to cultural life on the Don. in August 1911 the Noble deputy assembly raised anew the petition to open a university in Novocherkassk, setting a rather unrealistic goal o f a groundbreaking for 1912 to mark the one hundredth anniversary o f the War o f 1812.144

l43GARO f. 162, op. I , d. 2 0 ,1. 57. A polemic in the local press against the renewed effort to open a university in Novocherkassk, discussed below, used the example o f the Institute as evidence against this idea, claiming that it was staffed exclusively by Poles and Germans, and was attended by many Caucasian "peoples," Armenians. Poles, "and so far no Jews, but we think that's only 'so far.'" S. Az. "Pervaia lastochka" Golos Kazachestva 19 (1912): 231. l44The deputies requested that ataman Mishchenko relay the appeal to the War M inistry; he replied that in his judgement the Oblast marshal should make the appeal 181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The issue was periodically revived in the years prior to the outbreak o f the First World War, but received no further movement. The university issue provided fodder for Cossack conservatives, who questioned the motives o f the city intelligentsia advocating the use o f funds for a university at a time when the general education was in such a poor state, not to mention the generally depressed economic situation o f the stanitsas. Their main line o f argument was that the average Cossack could not expect to benefit from this institution. An editorial in the local Golos Kazachestva argued that the money intended for the university - 100.000 rubles were earmarked for this project - should be spent on expanding the local school system so that a future university w ill be attended not only by the children o f officials, property owners, and the city proletariat, but by sons o f the people, healthy in spirit and body, thirsting for knowledge not only to fatten their wallets, but to bring enlightenment to the Cossack agricultural masses, with whom they are linked by unbreakable ties o f blood and spiritual kinship.145 Kazakoman criticisms o f plans fo r the University generally paralleled War Ministry

himself: GARO f. 410, op. I, d. 998, II. 1-4. The idea o f a university on the Don had been discussed as early as the 1860s: M. Seniutkin. Dontsy: V 2-kh ch.: Istoricheskie ocherki voennykh deistvii, biografii starshin proshlogo veka, zametki po sovremennogo byta, vzgliad na isturiiu voiska Donskogo (Moscow, 1866) part 2. 1OS-106. UiGolos Kazachestva No. 3 (1911): 31. A less pertinent contribution to the debate argued that previous intellectually gifted Don Cossacks had prospered at "alien" universities and conjectured that "this Novocherkassk university w ill most likely be a nest o f momma's boys, i.e., worthless." V. Puzanov "Zemlevladenie Dontsov" Gobs Kazachestva 8 (1911): 96. 182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

prescriptions o f Cossack educational policy, emphasizing general, vocational training over classical education. A more pointed attack against a university took aim at the pretensions o f Don society. This love for Novocherkassk, this pride in it and its future university, is a touching phenomenon, but at the same time is it that patriotism which Karamzin called national (nuroJnuiu) pride?....In general, the patriotic surge among the Novcherkassk intelligentsia and high society, coinciding with the anniversary o f the patriotic war, it seems, is not moving in this direction [i.e. fostering kind o f love for region that would merit a university], and the sudden appearance o f so many 'patriots' is actually rather suspicious.146 The many reform issues swirling about the Don. as well as the struggle between the Host Administration and Don intelligentsia received a public hearing in a Land Conference (Zemel'noe soveshchanie) beautifully orchestrated by baron von Taube, the freshly appointed ataman. Upon arrival on his post in the spring o f 1909 Taube personally inspected all okrugs o f the Host. While such an undertaking was in keeping with Taube's populist style, it is quite likely that his barnstorming tour was intended to counter the sour effect created by Kuropatkin's inspection o f the Host in 1900. Without indulging the most pessimistic characterizations o f the economic situation. Taube took the opportunity to give movement to a 1907 directive from the War M inistry giving permission to the Don ataman to convoke a meeting o f stanitsa representatives to discuss

l46Grekov, Priazov'e i Don, 101-103.

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the distribution o f reserve Host lands.147 The tone o f the proceedings was unremittingly triumphant and selfcongratulatory. The representatives, whose numbers included "more than a few" stanitsa atamans,141assembled in Novocherkassk in December 1909. In his welcoming speech, Taube commended the assembled Cossacks for reclaiming control over their land. The usurper, in his presentation, was not to be found in the confines o f the War Ministry in St. Petersburg but behind the "secretive white walls o f the Oblast administration." The scope o f the session's work was strictly lim ited to the question o f how to dispose o f the approximately one m illion desiatinas o f reserve lands held by the Host. The burgeoning effects o f a land squeeze on the Don, which reduced the standard allotment in some stanitsas to fewer than ten desiatinas per Cossack, led some to suggest that all arable reserve lands should be made available for settlement by Cossacks from land-poor regions.144 However, the administration was loath to relinquish these lands, the rental income from which constituted an important part o f Host revenues.

I47A published record o f the Krug, in its introduction, blamed the fact that this conference had languished for two years on Host officials who had not shown the requisite seriousness in organizing the conference: Voiskovoi Krug na Donu 8 - 20 Dekabria 1909 goda. (voiskovoe soveshchalel'noe sobranie) (Rostov-on-Don, 1910), 4. I4*lbid., S. The figure o f the stanitsa ataman was a frequent target for ridicule on the part o f the intelligentsia, usually portrayed as backward or corrupt or both. It was precisely this first rung o f the Host administration that many zemstvo supporters held culpable for the w ildfire o f Cossack hostility to this institution. 149E.g., Ivan Efremov, Voiskovoi kapital izemskoe oblozhenie kazach'ikh zemeF (Novocherkassk, 1905). 184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The results o f the Land Conference could not have been more to Taube's, and the War Ministry's, preferences. Speaker after speaker praised Taube for his personal role in organizing the event, and reiterated their main grievance that competition from outsiders, not traditional Cossack service requirements, constituted the primary cause o f their economic plight.1’0 The Krug modestly committed itself to the principle o f immediately disbursing 423,513 desiatinas to land poor stanitsas, while keeping 533,687 for lease, with a provision that the revenues be held in a special fund for purchasing privately owned estates in the Host that became available for sale. The Krug also voted to create an elective body to manage the disbursement and leasing.151 The work o f the conference, in both its style and content, openly challenged Don nobility initiatives . As characterized by Taube. the committee had soberly and judiciously negotiated an essential element o f Cossack life without antagonizing St. Petersburg by upsetting Cossack traditions or service patterns.15* By receiving a patina o f mass approval for committing Host land revenues to a Cossack Land Bank, the Krug

,50The animus against inogordnye reached such an extreme that one speaker attacked the Novocherkassk orphanage for having enrolled 430 children "mainly o f non-Cossack parentage" into neighboring stanitsas, without the approval o f those stanitsas: Voiskovoi Krug na Dorn, 53. 151When the issue arose o f who would chair this body, Taube coyly asked the delegates i f they would prefer that an elected official or the ataman have the responsibility; "The conference unanimously voted for the chairmanship o f the ataman." Ibid., 45. 128. I5:ln his closing remarks, Taube expresses gratitude that the stanitsas selected not "inexperienced little boys” but for the most part "gray-bearded, sensible old men," which allowed their work to proceed without incident: ibid.. 141. 185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

undercut an important provision o f intelligentsia zemstvo proposals which, in order to avert repetition o f Cossack tax protest, demanded that the Host administration pay all zemstvo duties. The clash between populist and intelligentsia was in clear display in the valedictory evening of the conference. V.M. Markov, a representative o f Novocherkassk stanitsa and one o f the Krug's more active participants, openly scorned intelligentsia pretensions to speak for the Cossacks. [VJarious unwanted patrons (radeteli-dobrovol'tsy), who are totally unfamiliar with our way o f life and who do not understand the spirit o f the Cossacks, and who freely (naviazyvali i naviazyvaiut) the government with their proposals on the Host administration, which are not only unwanted by us, but sometimes are outright harmful. This is in no way surprising, since these unwanted (radeieli) have not bothered to learn that we have heads on our shoulders and are able to think as well as they, and that our needs are more apparent to us than to them.[emphasis in the original] Markov took aim at one o f the pet issues o f Don reformists, the transfer o f civilian functions w ithin the Host to the jurisdiction o f the M inistry o f Internal A ffairs.1” Markov was followed to the podium by the Marshal o f the N obility Leonov who. while complimenting the performance o f the conferees, had trouble sharing in the blustering tone. Leonov cautioned that the land issue was only one o f several serious economic problems threatening the Host, referring to the 1899 Maslakovets commission convened on petition o f Host marshal Markov. Without mentioning the zemstvo directly, he

l53lbid., 143. 186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

praised the concept o f elective bodies solving essential economic problems.154 Perhaps fearing that Leonov's reproach, no matter how subtle, might dampen the celebratory atmosphere, Taube immediately retorted: [Sjince his excellency Oblast marshal alluded to my efforts in the future I feel compelled to respond: I love to play games, but at the card table (liubliu igrat'—karty na stol). I have a single motto which is quite simple, the Don for the Dontsy [capitalized in the original] and for no one else.155 *

The 1909 Land Conference provided ample evidence that the liberal, reform agenda o f the Don intelligentsia did not stand unchallenged. The kazakoman current o f Cossack society alluded to earlier did not perish with the decision to allow the free sale o f Don land. Just as when the issue was the sale o f private lands, the kazakoman critique o f the reform agenda combined principled argument on the issues, social antagonism, and ethnic exclusiveness in resisting any efforts to wean the Cossacks from their special

l54lbid., 144-46. Leonov also used the moment to correct the previous speaker, who claimed that transferring civilian functions to the Ministry o f Internal Affairs would be the "ruin" o f the Cossacks; Leonov points out that several functions had been so transferred in the past. The unnamed, pro-Taube editor interjects a footnote on this point: "Historically this is not accurate..." ,55The editor describes the ensuing scene as follows: "It is d ifficu lt to imagine the instant triumph that these words evoked. The walls o f the hall trembled from the unending hurrahs o f the stanitsa representatives, who saw the imminent realization o f their historically cherished dream." Ibid., 146. According to Grekov, who heartily approved o f the conference's work, Don liberals cited this phrase o f Taube in accusing him of "separatism, a word, as is known, which has struck a chord o f fear in the government since ancient times," even though, in Grekov's interpretation, this was a "purely economic slogan." Priazov ’e i Don, 183-184.

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

m ilitary orientation choosing instead to retreat into the cocoon o f Cossack exclusiveness. In practical terms, this translated into bedrock support for the War Ministry's domain over the Don Host and hostility toward any urban initiative. The kazakoman impulse was vividly on display in a series published in the Xfoskovskie vedomosti titled "A Cossack on the Cossacks" {Kazak o kazakakh). The four articles propose that the government undertake a mass resettlement of Cossacks to the Caucasus region. Although the author argues that this policy would be an economical strategy for populating this vital region with a reliable element, he also suggests that it would be beneficial to the Cossacks themselves, badly in need o f rejuvenation. He harkens back to an unreconstructed vision o f the Cossack essence: Here then are the foundations o f the ancient cossacks: God. Tsar, family, their cossack community (obshchina)\ property, private and communal: equality, freedom, self-government, full openness in community affairs, and loyal service to the State and fatherland.156 But the author laments that there are no more "ancient" Cossack communities. Although outside forces bear much o f the blame for this decline - in particular Armenians and Poles {"Poliachki") - he also identifies a nascent elite w ithin the Cossacks as culpable: And things have without doubt become worse for the Cossacks; they are beginning to produce not citizens, but bureaucrats and cosmopolitans (siurtuchki). These elements talk a great deal about equality, but in fact are trying to rule with an equality among themselves according to their

]5(>Kazak o kazakakh (Moscow. 1886), 2. The articles were assembled and published in single booklet. 188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

personal point o f view.157 The "conservative" point o f view found a platform for its views in Trailin's many publications. In the waning years o f the Empire its tribune was the Golos kazachestva, first published in 1911 succeeded in 1913 by Vestnik kazachestva. Produced in Novocherkassk, both newspapers purported to represent the interests o f all the Cossack Hosts. In general the kazakoman press embraced the government's position on Cossack issues. In particular, its pages fulminated against the suggestion o f decoupling the Cossacks from their unique m ilitary identity. Although opposed to virtually all the reform proposals flowing from Noble assembly, the kazakoman yearning for renewed Cossack exclusiveness drove them to cast particular aspersions on the liberals' pet issue: the zemstvo. The primary argument raised against that zemstvo agencies would be dominated by alien elements harboring a secret mission o f dismantling the Cossack estate. Cossack proponents o f the zemstvo - Duma representative Ivan Efremov was a constant target15* - were ridiculed as "de-Cossackified" (razkazachenye). Taking the 1909 Land Conference as a model. Don conservatives enthusiastically advocated a revival o f the ancient krug as an authentic Cossack alternative to the zemstvo. If liberals exaggerated the potential economic benefits o f the zemstvo, then kazakomany were

l57lbid., 3. l5,"No one., trusts him any more, least o f all the cossacks." Grekov, 80.

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

capable o f overstating the value o f the krug as an integrative tool, as shown from the following passage from Golos kazachestva: My God, what wondrous, complete self-administration! Here's the key to the secret o f the development o f the Cossacks and their acquisition o f civilian power (moshchr), without which m ilitary power is unthinkable. How simple yet great! Our ancient krug, slightly reformed for modem conditions. Everyone [w ill be] content.I5g Granted this passage is presented as a fantasy, but the artistic adornments are not so great as to diminish the polemic effect. It would be incorrect, though, to dismiss the Cossack chauvinists as mere lackeys o f the War M inistry. As with other conservative populists o f the era the feverish invective in which the kazakomany cast the "enemies o f the Tsar" was highly provocative. The kazakoman example was unique, however: in addition to the usual suspects - Poles, Armenians, and, o f course, Jews - Don exclusivists abused the ubiquitous inogorodnye, most o f whom were Russian. Moreover, they did not exclude the War M inistry when firing fusillades at "bureaucrats" in St. Petersburg for their shameful neglect o f the Cossacks. One point o f agreement between liberals and exclusivists on the Don was their shared pessimistic estimation of the Cossacks' economic situation. Taube used the momentum from the Land Convocation to seize the initiative on the accursed zemstvo question. His staff drafted a new proposal for the introduction o f a

l5,S. Az(S. A—z), "Son na novyi god" Golos kazachestva 13 (1912): 155-56. 190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

modified zemstvo agency on the Don, w ith provisions that could only be anethema to zemstvo supporters: the reformed zemstvo would once again be under the jurisdiction o f the War M inistry and okrug zemstvo boards would be chaired by the okrug ataman. In anticipation o f criticism, the proposal minimizes, almost gratuitously, the role o f the nobility in Don society. The artificially grafted nobility on the Don enjoys no special sympathy among the rank and file; to this day the Cossacks do not recognize noble privileges in their local affairs, they do not see the nobles as the foremost estate, and they do not wish to submit to their authority. Rather, they readily submit to the authority o f their authorities, the instructions of whom have regulated their m ilitary and civilian lives for the entire period o f the existence o f the Cossacks, and in whom they see the natural intercessors for all of their m ilitary and economic needs. The draft goes on to cite the decision o f the Land Conference to select the ataman as head o f the proposed land commission, as well as opting for the okrug atamans for the respective okrug commissions, as evidence o f the strong authority they enjoy among the Cossack masses. The proposal further contends that appointing zemstvo chairmen is an "undoubtedly better" means than electing these officials, because the appointed officials "w ill be able to restrain the more hotheaded zemstvo activists from extraneous (uvlechenii)" such as clashing with local Host officials.160 *

In the waning years o f the Empire, a story circulated around Novocherkassk about

l60GARO f. 699, op. 1, d. 51, II. 17-18. Moreover, it warns that the "persistence" with which the zemstvo issue has been advocated on the Don gives an indication that its supporters would be prone to allow political transgressions by zemstvo agencies. 191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a meeting o f the War Council where A.M. Grekov, the ataman's assistant for civilian affairs, asked for funds to build a dam at Krivianskaia stanitsa. Due to annual flooding o f the local tributary, transportation was rendered impossible for several neighboring stanitsas, thus wreaking havoc on rudimentary trade routes. The War Council rejected the proposal. Stunned by the decision, Grekov asked one o f the council members how he could oppose such a worthy project. The official replied: “ What do Cossacks need a dam for? So there’s some flooding. That's okay. The Cossacks need to keep up their spirits [udal ’]. And it w ill give them a chance to swim. This w ill be especially useful for the youngsters." Grekov's response, that residents were forced to haul heavy loads through the flood waters, failed to soften his counterpart's resolve: “ That's just fine. Let them learn to traverse this creek, and in time o f war. no river w ill ever stop them. "161 For Don liberals, the dawn o f the reform era promised a fundamental reformation o f Imperial policy toward the Cossacks. The above anecdote vividly illustrates the extent to which these hopes unraveled. In this case, possibly apocryphal, the War M inistry was prepared to sacrifice a modest investment in the local infrastructure that could greatly ease the lives o f residents, as well as facilitating trade, on the grounds o f preserving the Cossacks’ “ spirit" and m ilitary readiness. To Cossack reformers. War M inistry policy

l6lG. Ianov, “ Donskiia Nastroeniia ko vremeni Revoliutsii," Donskaia Leiopis' 1 (1923): 66-67. 192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

w rit large seemed calculated to sacrifice the economic and cultural well-being o f the Cossack population for strategic concerns. Despite their numerous avowals that they did not intend to "de-Cossackify” the Host,162 Don reformers certainly aimed to “ civilianize” the martial estate. The improvements that they desired for the Don - schools, a free press, roads, hospitals, dams - were geared toward preparing the Cossack to participate in the civilian world. And elective zemstvo councils would take the decision-making power over necessary expenditures out o f the hands o f War Ministry bureaucrats. Moreover, the zemstvo would open channels o f communication between the intelligentsia and the rank-and-file, rendering the latter less vulnerable to manipulation by o fficia l appeals to m ilitary pride. The frustrations experienced by Don liberals reinforced their identity as Cossacks. A t the height o f the reform era. reformist nobles were prepared to abandon pretensions o f Cossack distinctiveness in favor o f universal principles, such as full property rights. However, as attitudes in St. Petersburg shifted toward a conservative view o f the Cossacks as a m ilitary caste and the War Ministry invoked Cossack exclusiveness to deny the Don necessary institutions, the Don intelligentsia, w ith its base in the Noble Assembly, adopted the role o f protector o f the Cossacks, as opposed to that o f beacon o f liberal principles.

l62E.g., GARO f. 410, op. 1., d. 1143,1.42. 193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

IN DEFENSE OF AN ANACHRONISM: THE COSSACK QUESTION ON THE DON, 1861-1914 VOLUME TWO OF TWO

A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty o f the Graduate School o f Arts and Sciences o f Georgetown University in partial fulfillm ent o f the requirements for the degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy in History

By

Paul E. Heineman, M.A.

Georgetown University Washington, DC November 10, 1999

-IS*0; ■

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Chapter 4 Recovering the Past: History and Commemoration [W]e must deliberately create archives, maintain anniversaries, organize celebrations, pronounce eulogies...because such activities no longer occur naturally. - Philip Nora If there was a subject that united the liberal and kazakoman contingents o f the Don intelligentsia it was a grand assessment o f the importance o f Don Cossack history. “ One would hardly exaggerate,” wrote Andrei K irillo v, a leading Don historian o f the period, “ by supporting the proposition...that a people's cultural level can be determined on the basis o f its attitude toward its historical monuments....” 1 This chapter w ill examine some o f the factors that elevated history to such a noble standing among Don activists and w ill describe institutional support for historical research and commemorative efforts on the Don. The following chapter w ill examine the historiography o f the Don produced during the period under review in detail. *

Critical inquiry into the historical craft has progressed to the point that it is no longer tenable to refer solely to a “ natural” interest in the past as the impetus for historical research; subjective factors, both environmental and individual, inform historical study to

'A.A. K irillov, Istorichez'-.oe znacheniepamiatnikov tserkovnoi stariny (Novocherkassk, 1911), 3. K irillov makes clear that he interprets "monuments" (pamiatniki) very broadly to include any article, including written documents, bearing historical evidence. 194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a degree that is often difficult to gauge.2 Ironically, discussion o f the environmental factors affecting historical research on the Don properly begins with the experience o f an individual, V.D. Sukhorukov. As was described in Chapter 1, Sukhorukov had been working as a chancellary official in 1818 when he was dispatched to Moscow and St. Petersburg archives to collect historical material for the Denisov Committee which was studying a fundamental reform o f the Host administration.3 Sukhorukov's enthusiasm for the project quickly exceeded the bounds o f a bureaucratic report. “ The study o f Don history," Sukhorukov exclaimed to friend Pavel Stroev in a letter o f September 1823, “ has become my strongest passion, and therefore any new discovery involving this subject feeds my soul."4 Sukhorukov's ultimate plan to write the first complete history o f the Don Cossacks was shattered in 1826 when A.I. Chernyshev, who hitherto had sponsored Sukhorukov's efforts, ordered him to relinquish all the materials he had collected for the history before transfer to duty in the Caucasus.5

2E.g.. Hayden White, Metahistory: the Historical Imagination in nineteenthcentury Europe (Baltimore. 1973). 3See pages 25-29 above. See also Bruce Menning, “ A .I. Chernyshev: A Russian Lycurgus," Canadian Slavonic Papers XXX (No. 2, 1988): 190-219. 4Ivan P. Popov, "K. biografii V.D. Sukhorukova," Sbornik Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Statisticheskogo Komiteta [hereafter Sbornik] I (1901): 15. Stroev, a writer and historian, provided material from Moscow archives. Later in their correspondence (August 1826) Sukhorukov declared his debt to Stroev: "You were the first to reveal my native land's history to me." Ibid, 46. 5In the Caucasus, Sukhorukov submitted anonymous articles to the Tiflisskie Vedomosti and reputedly began a history o f Georgia: A.M . Linin, A S. Pushkin na Donu: 195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The influence that Sukhorukov's ordeal would hold for succeeding generations on the Don cannot be underestimated.6 The pathos aroused by his unjust fate inspired Don historians to fu lfill Sukhorukov's ambition o f writing a comprehensive history o f the Don Cossacks; and his inherited pathos imbued the field o f history with a dignity and sense o f mission. Further, Don historians inherited a collective sense o f grievance that Cossack history had been "stolen"; the Don had been denied its Karamzin. Among the materials confiscated at the time o f Sukhorukov's exile were detailed source lists that were never recovered.7 Don historiographical surveys henceforth would lament how this loss had impeded historical research on the Don. Beyond the emotional level, Sukhorukov's experience provided object lessons for his epigones. Chernyshev's duplicitous behavior in the episode conditioned Don historians to regard official support for their efforts with

istoriko-liieraturnyi ocherk (Rostov-on-Don, 1941). 97-100. 6O f all the Cossack imelligeniy involved in the historical endeavor on the Don who were celebrated in DontsyXIX veka, Sukhorukov was the only individual described simply as "Historian": Dontsy XIX veka. Biografii i materialy dlia biografii Danskikh deiaielei na poprishche sluzhby voemoi. grazhdanskoi i obshchestvennoi, a lakzhe v oblasti nauk iskusstv, literatury i proch. (Novocherkassk, 1907), part 1, 423. Khariton Popov only merited the appellation “ Researcher o f Don antiquity": ibid., 396. 7Recall that the very first act o f the newly formed "Novocherkassk Statistical Committee" in 1839 was to request the return o f Sukhorukov's notebooks, which consisted primarily o f his initial drafts for his history: I.P. Popov "Oblastnoi voiska Donskogo statisticheskii komitet v pervye gody ego sushchestvovaniia (Istoricheskaia spravka)," Sbornik. I (1901): 5.

1%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

suspicion.1 Finally, events immediately subsequent to Sukhorukov's exile suggested that only a Don Cossack could write the definitive history o f the Host: it was widely speculated that Chernyshev had delivered Sukhorukov's voluminous notes to V.B. Bronevskii w ith instructions to compose a history, which was published in four volumes in 1834." Succeeding generations o f Cossack historians scorned this work as superficial and disjointed. Implied in this criticism was the message that only a Don Cossack could be expected to invest the dedication necessary to the task. Two essays from the 1850s addressed the state o f Cossack historiography as the Don entered the reform era. The first, authored by Aleksei Leonov, was delivered as a speech at the Novocherkassk Boys' Gymnasium in 1854 and subsequently printed in the VL’domosti in 1857.'° The second, by Mikhail Seniutkin, initially appeared in the Vedomosti, then was reissued in a compendium o f his historical and journalistic essays published in 1866." Leonov and Seniutkin concurred on salient points; together they can

'Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rostovskoi Oblasti [hereafter GARO] f. 55. op. 1. d. 840,11.21-31. "K irillo v. Kralkoe obozrenie istorii o donskikh kazakov. Opyt bibliografii Donskoi istorii (Novocherkassk, 1909), 16-17. '“Leonov was a Khar'kov graduate who taught history in various schools in Novocherkassk from 1840 to 1866, at the gymnasium from 1850 to 1855:1. Artinski Ocherk istorii Novocherkasskoi Voiskovoi Gimnazii (Novocherkassk, 1907), 330-331. The text is reprinted, untitled, in ibid., 380-390. "M ikh ail Seniutkin, "Vzgliad na istoriiu voiska Donskogo" in Donisy: V2-kh ch.: Istoricheskie ocherki voennykh deistvii, biografii starshinproshlogo veka, zametkipo sovremennogo byta, vzgliad na istoriiu voiska Donskogo (Moscow, 1866), pp. 157-192. 197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

be viewed as representative the Don intelligentsia at this time.13 The primary concern for both was the dearth o f serious historical research available on the Don Host: In fact, who knows the history o f the Don Host? Who studies it w ith enthusiasm and pleasure? Who values the immortal deeds o f the dontsy, o f which there is little similar in any other history?...Unfortunately, all of our knowledge o f our native history is limited to a few disconnected facts preserved in legends and folk songs, and a few poor historical compilations, which present only a pale sketch o f the true events o f the Don.13 Both made clear, however, that their distress over this gap was far from academic. Through solid historical research, the images and stereotypes o f Cossacks popular among Russians might finally be superseded: "The time has passed for that false, narrow view which accepts the Cossacks as a prim itive, ungovernable pack o f vagabonds and bandits, similar to the w ild tribes o f Africa and America, with no meaning for history." Thus, contemporary attitudes and sensitivities motivated the historical impulse. This mingling o f the historical and the contemporary testifies to the importance o f

Seniutkin edited the Vedomosti in the late 1850s and early 1860s. In the brief introduction to this volume, Seniutkin identifies himself as a former pretender to Sukhorukov's mantle; he had planned to write a complete history o f the Host from the time o f the Pugachev uprising to the present (ca. 1850s) but had only written ten years o f military history when the Host archives burned in 1858. l3The proxim ity o f their publications certainly leaves room for speculation that Seniutkin was strongly influenced by Leonov's speech, but it should be noted that in another essay from his collection Seniutkin engages in some polemic jousting with Leonov over an article the latter had published in the Vedomosti that besmirched, in Seniutkin's view, the honor o f the so-called "upper" Cossacks: Seniutkin, 113-127. l3Seniutkin, 157,158. 198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

historical consciousness for Don group identity, which at that time seems to have been laboring under an inferiority complex vis-a-vis Russian opinion. Historical research on the Don was imperative not merely for local consumption, but to gain entry into the corpus o f Russian history. In Leonov's words: "The story o f the Cossacks as a whole, but primarily from the Don, constitutes one o f the most magnificent and eloquent pages o f Russian history."14 Seniutkin traced the preponderant ignorance o f Russian historians on Cossack origins back to the Chronicles.15 Establishing the Russian ethnicity o f the earliest Don Cossacks, whom many assumed to have descended from a mix o f steppe tribes, provided the most expedient step toward overcoming Russian misconceptions. In this vein. Leonov made a sweeping assertion that exaggerated the case while giving pause to Don patriots: In the first place, not only did the Don nation ("narod kazatskii") not emerge from a blending o f various tribes, in fact, no Don nation ever emerged... Our dontsy, as a phenomenon o f the purely Russian world, have nothing in common with [the steppe nomads], they were, and are, purely Russian people.16 There are points o f departure between the two. Seniutkin referred to the extant works on Don history - as opposed to Leonov's premise that no serious effort had been

l4Leonov, 381. I5" lt would be far easier for us to describe the ongoing events in Siberia, or in Africa ...than it would for chroniclers o f that time to describe the war o f the Dontsy with the Turks and Tatars": 171. l6Leonov, 386. But Leonov also bemoans the fact that no serious effort had been made to date to elucidate the "distinct character" o f the Don Cossacks: 381-382. 199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

made in the area - and offers some unique insights o f his own.17 For example, he drew attention to similarities between the history o f the Don Host with that o f "Malorossiia," imputing to both a metahistorical mission o f defending Orthodoxy." And while Leonov acknowledged the basic need for further research, Seniutkin argued that the role o f Don historian required as much aesthetic ability as archival preparation: i f only developed by a historian "capable o f employing grand images," Don history would emerge as "an epic poem o f miraculous deeds... which yield nothing to those o f the famed Ilia d ."14 The general malaise afflicting the Don Host and the particular alienation felt by the Don intelligentsia during the waning years o f the Russian Empire cannot but have influenced historical discourse on the Don. It would be an oversimplification to assert that certain activists saw in historical research an antidote to the symptoms o f decline, but their own w riting made clear that historical research was pan o f a quest for respectability both for the Don intelligentsia w ithin the Cossack community, and for the Cossacks as a group within Russian society. In a recent roundtable discussion on the state o f Ukrainian

l7Seniutkin refers to the histories o f Bronevskii, Istoriiu Donskogo Voiska 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1834); Aleksandr Rigel'man, Istoriiu o Donskikh Kazakov (Moscow, 1846); and the as o f yet unpublished work o f Sukhorukov. O f these he judges Sukhorukov's to be the best, even i f it is not very systematic: 158. "Ib id ., 161-162. Not surprisingly, Seniutkin concludes that the Don Host's historical record is the more praiseworthy: ” [H]ere, untouched by outside influences, the life o f the Cossacks, developed more freely (privol'nee), and therefore there was more opportunity for their feats o f glory and courage.” "Seniutkin also noted that Russia's poets — he mentions Dmitriev and Zhukovskii — had been inspired by the historical events o f the Don: 158,160.

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

historiography, Serhii Plokhy poses the question: "‘what does Ukraine have except a history?” 20 Given the erosion o f Cossack privileges, the dimming economic situation, and the demographic pressures o f non-Cossack elements, one could easily transpose this question to the Don in the tw ilight o f the Russian Empire. As daunting as the economic prospects facing the Cossacks may have been, the Don intelligentsia also fretted over a looming crisis in group consciousness among their compatriots. Recent literature on the relationship between memory and history suggests that rather than complementing one another, the two concepts represent conflicting modes o f understanding, with the latter often filling a void left by the dissipation o f the former Philip Nora goes so far as to speak o f history’ s need to “ destroy” memory.21 The introduction to Don Cossacks o f the XIX century, an intelligentsia manifesto, warned o f a future with no memory o f the Cossacks.22 This work celebrated the accomplishments o f dontsy in a wide range o f professions, which drew some to Russia's capitals and other cities across the Empire, but its editors seem to have understood that this geographic and professional m obility diluted the remaining sense o f collective memory. Cossack authors themselves would have not understood there to be any conflict between history and

20Plokhy, “ The History o f a Non-Historical’ Nation: Notes on the Nature and Current Problems o f Ukrainian Historiography” Slavic Review 54:3 (1995): 710. 2lNora, “ Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire," Representations 26(1989): 9-10. 22Dontsy X IX Veka, part I , p. ii. 201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

memory, but the urgent need to document the Cossack memories propelled them toward the study o f history. Though some Don authors were fortunate enough to see their work published in national journals, most could only hope for a local audience. Don historians saw the development of substantial interest in history as part o f their mission: “ historical study is necessary not only for historians and antiquarians, but for the whole mass o f educated people, o f those who understand the meaning o f history.” 23 Public assessments o f the prevailing state o f historical knowledge on the Don expressed both delight in the overt enthusiasm for the subject, and disappointment in the ignorance o f basic facts. For example, A.M. Grekov's appreciation o f the Cossack historical museum ("the pride of the city") was balanced by what he perceived to be a neglect o f this landmark by educated Cossacks: "it's strange that I've never met a single resident o f Novocherkassk in the museum...and I'm not sure i f this is true or not, but two-thirds o f the city has never been to the museum and is not the least bit interested. This is especially so for the intelligentsia."24 Social differentiation accounted for this ambiguity: although it was assumed that the epic story o f the Cossacks held intrinsic interest for any reader. Don publicists expressed concern over the historical apathy o f those educated Cossacks who

23Kirillov, Isioricheskoe znachenie, 13. 24Grekov, Priazov'e i Don. Ocherki obshchestvennoi i ekonomicheskoi zhizni kraia (St. Petersburg, 1912), p. 93. One o f Khariton Popov's numerous correspondents made a similar lament: GARO f. SS, op. 1, d. 1022,1. 31. 202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

were not sufficiently “ Cossack-minded." But criticism on this account was seldom harsh. Sukhorukov's legacy pervaded any discussion o f the disappointing level o f historical knowledge on the Don, for had he been allowed to complete his intended history, every Cossack would have grown up reading this capital work from childhood. The absence o f a comprehensive history o f the Host forced Cossacks to seek tidbits from a variety o f national and local periodical sources, not a daunting task for the enthusiast, but difficult to expect from the indifferent. In Cossack history, Don historians aimed for something more immediate than academic interest: they saw historical consciousness as an integrative agent for those with the weakest memories o f the Don past, thus most vulnerable to assimilation into Imperial society. This aspect o f the Cossack historical endeavor was vividly illustrated in Ivan Popov's "From the Old Nest o f the Cossacks," discussed in Chapter I.25 In this thinly fictionalized narrative, a young Cossack — presumably Popov — visits Starocherkassk. the old Don capital, where he experiences a near religious epiphany. The very distance between the present and past disappears. He eschews description o f the town circa 1887, preferring to fantasize about how the same territory would have appeared in the seventeenth century. He is sent into a trance-like state by the glimpse o f Cossack relics. In describing this Cossack Holy Land, Popov's narrator credits the work o f father Grigorii Levitskii in drawing official attention to the decay o f the historical landmarks in

25Popov, “ V starom gnezde kazachestva," Don 1-3, 5-8 (1887). 203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Starocherkassk, especially the original Host cathedral.26 Popov’s Starocherkassk is literally "old" (Starocherkassk means “ Old Cherkassk): all his conversation partners are greybeards. These old-time Cossacks, with little or no prodding, discourse freely on their memories - real memories; some discuss episodes that took place eighty years prior as if they were contemporary events. A critical reading o f "From the Old Nest o f the Cossacks" suggests that Popov intended more than a breezy travelogue o f Starocherkassk. On a deeper level, Popov was promoting historical consciousness as a category o f Cossack identity. He very pointedly and trenchantly contrasts the unvarnished love for the Don past shared by the simple, uneducated Cossacks with the apathy o f the urbanized elite.27 Don “ authors” (pisatdi). in particular, were remanded to go to Starocherkassk.21 Although one should not mistake Popov's endorsement o f the narotf s prosaic enthusiasm as a lesson for the educated to turn their back on the modem world and “ go to the people,” he offers historical knowledge as a bridge linking the disparate elements o f Cossack society. Several grey­

26A self-educated man like Khariton Popov, Levitskii developed an all-consuming enthusiasm for the history o f his "rodina." He served as a parish priest in Starocherkassk from 1842 to his death in 1872. Owing to his efforts, ataman Khomutov allocated funds for restoring these sites. In 1870 Donskoi Vestnik published a special insert celebrating Levitskii's stewardship over the old Host capital. The appellation for Levitskii’s biography in Dontsy XIX veka neglected his clerical vocation, describing him as a "Collector o f monuments o f Don Antiquity", pt. 1, 241-243 27Popov, “ V starom gnezde kazachestva,” 3:17-18. 2,Ib id „ 2:18. 204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

beard Cossacks in the story mistook Popov's narrator for a "Russian" because o f his civilian dress, only to take him into their confidence when he was able to recite some rudimentary facts about the Cossack past.2*' A “ real Cossack" knows the history o f the Host. And while Popov offers the colorful musings o f the rank-and-file for entertainment value, he also seems to anticipate Nora by asserting the authority o f the history over memory; the narrator o f the tale on several occasions gently corrects the dubious "facts" put forth by his hosts.30 Although Popov's affectionate portrayal o f the simple Cossack as fount o f Cossack lore conformed with romanticized images on the Don, some intelligentsia figures were annoyed at the naive hold o f memory on stanitsa life. In a call for comprehensive reform on the Don written in 1867, an anonymous author mocked the wont o f Cossacks to gather and spin legends about the distant past while ignoring serious economic problems.31 W riting nearly forty years later, Aleksei Karasev, an important

^Popov's confidence in the regular Cossacks' readiness to share folk knowledge with their educated brethem, once revealed as such, was not simply a conceit. In 1856. Andrei Filonov. a non-Cossack, experienced frustration in his quest to collect popular legends on “ Pugach," having traveled to Pugachev's native Elizavetskaia stanitsa for this purpose. One little boy responded. “ Oh, people talk [about him|, but I don’t know anything." Filonov, Ocherki Dona (St. Petersburg, 1859), p. 50. “ “ V starom gnezde," 1:27, 33; 3:19; 6:32-33. "Pilgrimages" to Starocherkassk were apparently common for Don society figures: "Iz perepiski M.P. Bogaevskogo." Donskaia Letopis' 2 (1924): 328-329; M.V. Grekov, VManycheskikh stepiakh. Iz vospominanii o Done 1878-79 gg. (St. Petersburg, 1904), 8. 3II..U. “ Zemskoe delo na Donu” Donskoi Vestnik 38 (1867): 149-150. 205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

participant in historical research on the Don, displayed his exasperation with the rankand-file, claiming that they enjoy the backwardness o f the Host because it allowed them to “ play their historical games."32 *

As was evident in the essays o f Leonov and Seniutkin, the censorious gaze o f outside opinion influenced Don historical studies in a variety o f ways. Hans Rogger has vividly described the scramble o f Russian scholars o f the eighteenth century to establish a native expertise in the field o f history. Not only had foreigners asserted authority over history-writing in the German-dominated Russian Academy o f Sciences, but they had exercised this authority to promulgate shameful theories on Russia's historical development, denying Russia its place among European nations.33 Despite the undeniable credentials o f Shcherbatov and Boltin, among others, patriotic mission, as much as academic ambition, drove these men to usurp the German monopoly over Russian historical study. The dynamics laid out by Rogger had their parallel on the Don a century later, albeit on a smaller scale. Don historians felt a keen pressure to revise prevailing Russian attitudes toward Cossack history that distorted, denigrated, or ignored Cossack

32“ Chrezvychainomu Oblastnomu dvorianskuiu sobraniiu Doklad A.A. Karaseva" Mss., 2. 33Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-century Russia (Cambridge: 1960). 206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

contributions to the Imperial state.34 Any representation, contemporary or historical, o f the Cossacks as innately undisciplined particularly offended local Don sensibilities.35 Naturally, such perceived slights provided inspiration to history specialists on the Don. But they appealed to the sense o f affront shared by non-specialists, who had their own cause to resent the influx o f “ outsiders” lim iting educational and career opportunities for Cossacks in the Host — as was conspicuous in the fight to reserve spaces in the Don Polytechnical Institute for the “ native population.” Thus, references to Russian neglect o f Cossack history provided another lure to attract wider interest on the Don for this subject. Defense o f the Cossacks' place in Russian history held political potential in addition to its intellectual and integrative value. Many within the Don intelligentsia preserved a rather credulous trust in the power o f historical knowledge — in this case, the record o f the Cossacks' service to the Empire — to elicit benevolence toward the Cossacks from government officials, a vision encouraged by certain figures in the Imperial entourage who clung to the idea o f the Cossacks as a personal retinue o f the Tsar.36 This consideration prompted Don historians to emphasize the continuity o f the

34See I.F. Bykadorov, Byloe Dona (St. Petersburg, 1908), 33-42. 3SFor example, M.S. Zhirov invited Cossacks to share his indignation over comments published in Russkaia Starina alleging that the Russian army would have won a clear victory at Borodino had Platov not been suffering from a severe hangover when leading the Cossacks into battle: “ Materialy dlia biografii Matveia Ivanovicha Platova.” Sbornik X I (1912): 93. 36Robert McNeal dismissed the idea this myth retained effective power in the waning years o f the Empire, especially among the bureaucrats o f the War Ministry: Tsar 207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Don Host as coherent community with an uninterrupted history in order to justify the dontsy circa 1900 as proper heirs o f their legendary forebears.37 Don activists frequently invoked the historical exploits o f the Host in their petitions and arguments on contemporary issues affecting the Cossacks. Outside opinion can also be credited w ith influencing the scientific direction o f historical study on the Don. Though they doubted whether a non-Cossack could effectively convey the essence o f Cossack history, Don historians did not seek an insular refuge from critical opinions; they wanted to engage Russian voices, to convince them — and they understood that bluster or the recitation o f local myths would not suffice for this. So while Don enthusiasts paid due respect to Cossack myths and actively supported the study and preservation o f local folklore,3* there was never doubt that the definitive history o f the Don Host, when written, would be armed with the authority o f verifiable archival references. This positivist faith in the objective value o f documentary evidence signals

and Cossack, 1X55-1914 (Oxford, 1987). 37For example, in a description o f an Imperial visit in 1887. a casual reference to the Don Cossacks' long history o f service to the throne prompted a two-page footnote claiming that this tradition began with their aiding Dm itrii Donskoi against the Mongols in 1380: F.K. Trailin, Oposeshchenii ikh Imperatorskimi Velichestvami s Naslednikom Tsesarevichem avgusteishim atamanom vsekh kazach ikh voisk goroda Novocherkaska — 5, 6 i 7maia 1887goda (Novocherkassk, 1887), 9-10. 3*lt was not uncommon to sprinkle verses from folk songs in historical accounts, but this was done for illustrative effect. In a digression from this scholarly rigor, Kh. Popov cites folk songs on Ermak's conquest o f Siberia as proof o f Ivan IV's bequest o f the Don to the Cossacks: "Ataman Ermak Timofeevich. Po narodnym predaniiam i pesniam," Sbornik V III (1908): 141-155. 208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

that the Cossacks’ efforts went beyond the mere collection o f “ heritage.” 34 Don historians exhibited an exaggerated interest in source-gathering, perhaps at the expense o f interpretation. In their minds, they were not so much reconstructing the past reality o f the Don Cossacks as collecting it. These historical practitioners faced a grim reckoning with the amount o f source materials lost to archival decay and administrative carelessness40 or stolen by interlopers: “ Histories o f the Don. in the future, should single out those who did not give proper attention to the preservation o f these treaures."41 By collecting documentary evidence in various archives Don historians were performing the essential act o f recollection for the Don community as a whole. Archival vigilance inspired periodic campaigns to rally public participation in the historycollection process. Hope rather than experience informed an oft-expressed opinion that a trove o f materials lay unexploited in the homes, shops, and administrative offices o f the Don Cossacks: “ Most historical objects...at best remain neglected, perhaps rotting in basements...but for the most part have been destroyed or looted; well built and managed

34“ Heritage” writes David Lowenthal, “ defies empirical analysis; it features fantasy, invention, mystery, error.” "Identity, Heritage, and History," in John R. G illis.(ed) Commemorations: The Politics o f National Identity (Princeton, 1994), 49. 40The frequent inundation o f old Cherkassk during spring thaws o f course had a corrosive effect on Cossack records. Even after removal to higher ground Host archives were vulnerable to natural disasters; much o f the Host archive was destroyed by a fire in 18S8: Seniutkin, Dontsy, i. 4lPopov, “ V starom gnezde,” 3: 17. 209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

archives, not to mention museums, are in short supply.”'12 Cossacks, the complaint went, routinely discarded valuable historical documents that could unlock the mysteries o f their past. In his introductory commentary to an 1834 travel diary o f an unkown donets, Andrei K irillov heaved a rhetorical sigh o f relief that this valuable document was rescued from a scrap pile intended for wrapping groceries.43 Apparently the grocer’s counter was an ever lurking danger for historical documents; writing twenty years later (1907) in the introduction to his history o f the Don gymnasium, I. A rtinskii reported rumors that much o f that institution's archive had met w ith this fate during the move to a new building in 1876.44 Naturally, historians o f any period or region revel in the discovery o f a new text relating to their field o f study; on the Don, the act o f publishing source material held a magical quality that outweighed the discursive value o f whatever facts were revealed in the given document. An early contribution in this vein was a collection published by Ivan Prianinshikov in 1864, Materials fo r the History o f the Don Host (Charters). This volume presented a number o f charters preserved in the Host Administration which

42K irillov, Istoricheskoe znachenie, 13. 43K irillov does not explain why a contemporary Don Cossack should have been edified in the least by this brief account o f beau monde St. Petersburg. "Putevoi zhumal" Don 2 (1887): 33-38; 3 (1887): 35-41. This is perhaps derivative o f the trend, common during this period, toward monuments for the unknown as expressions o f shared group legacy: Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread o f Nationalism (London-New York: Verso, 1991), 9-10. 44This loss compounded the damage suffered during a fire in 18S0; Artinskii, iv. 210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Prianinshikov had printed that year in the Vedomosti (which he edited). In brief introductory and concluding notes Prianinshikov did not explain the scope o f his access to these records or to the screening process, i f any, that went into the selection o f documents. He indicated his desire to publish a second volume o f charters, " if we have the opportunity to acquire them."45 Prianishnikov, the ultimate Cossack patriot, demonstrated a scholarly probity in explaining the editorial principles governing the volume - original orthography was preserved, lists o f signatories were omitted to economize on space - and admitting that many o f the documents he published were taken from possibly corrupted reproductions. He invited readers to inform him o f errors they find and expressed his appreciation to A.K. Kushnarev, a colleague o f Sukhorukov's from the ill-fated Cheryshev mission, for bringing to his attention irregularities in the documents he had printed in the local press.46 W riting in 1868, Andronnik Savel'ev complained that Prianinshikov's publication had not received appropriate attention, arguing that the materials held compelling interest for specialists and non-specialists alike.47 In 1887 Ivan Popov launched a local journal, Don, specifically “ to serve as a

45Ivan P. Prianishnikov (ed.) Materialy dlia Istorii voiska Donskago. Gramoty. (Novocherkassk, 1864). 46Ibid., 331-332. 47Savel’e v ,"Materialy dlia istorii voiska Donskago" Donskoi Vestnik 41 (1868): 194-195; 42 (1868) 198-199. 211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

repository for the most important material relating to the past o f the Don region."41 Unfortunately this noble effort did not survive its first year o f existence, in which time it published an eclectic mix o f historical arcana.49 In the early twentieth century the published journal o f the Don Statistical Committee (Sbornik Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Statistichcskogo Komiteta) provided a platform for publishing historical texts. In contrast, an earlier publication o f the Statistical Committee (only two issues appeared, in 1867 and 1874) was devoted primarily to contemporary, statistical studies. By this time there had been a marked shift in the selection o f texts published; whereas Prianishnikov concentrated on official manifestos which established or amended Don privileges, Sbornik contributors favored the elusive materials which illuminated the internal, cultural development o f the Cossacks. For example, the debut volume announced a regular section on source materials for the history o f Novocherkassk, promising to publish “ along w ith official documents, personal correspondence, even the legends and stories o f Cossack elders which touch upon the settlement and every day life

41“ We w ill publish," the quote continues, “ historical acts, memoirs, biographies. Host decrees, diaries, information on archeological sites, as well as researched articles and monographs." “ Ot redaktsii" Don 1 (1887): 1-2. 49As an example o f the quirky nature o f some entries, the seventh edition included an anonymous biography o f a deceased Don general. The introductory note averred that it “ had probably been written for a newspaper," and that “judging by the paper and faded ink, one can assume it was written long ago.” “ Voiska Donskago general-maior Gavril Ambrosievich Lukovkin," Don 7-8 (1887); 1-12. 212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

of the city.” 50 For the most part, the journal stayed true to this mission, putting into circulation various documents illuminating the civilian side o f Don history.51 In addition to bemoaning the problem, the intelligentsia worked to overcome the above-mentioned lack o f sanctuary for historical artifacts by establishing a rudimentary "bureaucracy o f memory"” to guarantee the storage, preservation, and announcement o f materials necessary to foster a group historical consciousness. Simultaneously, a growing sense o f professionalism took root among those who led the effort. The term "professionalism" requires some qualification here: practitioners o f the historical craft on the Don were conscious o f their own deficiencies in terms o f training53 and facilities. Nonethele*:^. they felt sufficiently confident to assert their authority as "first among equals” among history enthusiasts. This was particularly on display in their exhortations to private citizens to relinquish their historical documents and artifacts to the custody o f

50Kh.I. Popov and lu.M . Sulin, “ Materialy k istorii goroda Novocherkasska,” Sbornik I (1901): 120. 51A regular section appeared under the rubric “ Materials on the History o f Education on the Don.” In an interesting turnabout on military themes, Mikhail Zhirov published selections from Platov's correspondence while on campaign in 1807 which described not battles but the day-to-day hardships encountered by his troops; “ Donskaia voennaia starina,” Sbornik V III (1908): 224-236. 5:The term is taken from John R. G illis, "Memory and Identity: The History o f a Relationship," in Commemorations, p. 6. 53U ntil the 1880s, the Novocherkassk Boys’ Gymnasium did not offer Greek language instruction, a prerequisite for matriculation into history faculties at Russian Universities: Artinskii, 23S-236. 213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

experts. Referring specifically to religious materials, Andrei K irillov complained that, in addition to decay and carelessness, artifacts were scarce because “ meddling antiquarians [neproshenny liubifelei vsiakoi stariny] are expropriating them for, o f course, their own egotistical considerations.” 54 The Don historian, presumably, felt the civic responsibility to publish any newly acquired evidence on the Cossack past, “ no matter how unimportant it seems to be, or how scanty its content” 55 Several organizations arose in order to provide an administrative infrastructure for sponsoring and transmitting research. Resources were expended to guarantee the proper storage and cataloguing o f those materials recovered. In the late 1870s, a commission was formed to restore the Starocherkassk archive, which later took the name o f the Don Historico-Archeological Commission, which reformed itself as The Society for Enthusiasts o f Don History (Obshchestvo liubitelei Donskoi istorii). alternately known as the Society for Enthusiasts o f Don Antiquity, in 1884.56 The Society's charter, approved by ataman Sviatopolk-Mirskii. announced plans to found a historical museum on the Don. complete with an archival respository. This aspect o f the plan met with some objections from St. Petersburg that the proposed Don

54K irillo v, Soobshchenie o deiatel'nosti Donskogo Eparkhial'nogo Tserkovnoistoricheskogo Komiteta (Novocherkassk, 1912), 10. S5Andrei K irillov, "Materialy po istorii narodnago prosveshcheniia na Donu" Sbornik V III (1908): 221. 56Andrei K irillov, Kratkoe obozrenie istorii o donskikh kazakov, 30-31. 214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

museum would interfere with an Imperial mission tasked with cataloging provincial archives, but ministerial approval came through in 1885.57 In 1867, the Statistical Commission opened a small museum with a historical section, but exigencies o f space prevented this from developing into a significant resource for historians.’1 As early as 1886 local benefactors began contributing memorabilia, mostly coins and medals, to the future museum.59 Materials intended for exhibition were housed in the building o f the Statistical Committee until 1898 when construction was completed. Sviatopolk-Mirskii mobilized half o f the funds at his budgetary discretion toward this construction.60 The official convocation was on 22 November 1899. The administration o f the museum fell under the purview o f the Commission for the Management o f the Don Historical Museum, whose director, as o f 1890, was Ivan Dobrynin. After completing the Novocherkassk gymnasium Dobrynin went on to graduate from the Law Faculty o f Moscow University in 1873. Upon returning to the Host he served for seventeen years in the Judicial administration.61 In 1890 Dobrynin

57GARO f. 699, op. 1, d. 3. II. 1-4. 7. 51GARO f. 353, op. I, d. 140. II. 1-5; "Ob ustroistve mestnago Donskago muzeia pri statisticheskim komitete" Donskoi Vestnik 34 (1868); 133-134. 5,GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 752, II. 1-2. This lists credits Khariton Popov himself as the biggest donor. “ GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1452,1.6. 6lThe 1864 Judicial Reform was instituted on the Don intact. As one o f the few agencies in the Host not subordinate to the War Ministry, it was staffed by proportionally 215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

was transferred to the second position (initially titled "senior councilor renamed "junior assistant" [mladshii pomoshchnik] in 1895) in the C ivilian Section o f the Host Administration, at the same time he was named director o f the museum commission.62 Prior to taking this post, there is nothing to connect Dobrynin to historical research or intelligentsia activity: he did not publish in the Host press and did not become a member o f the Statistical Committee until several months after assuming his new position.63 Organizationally, the Don Historical Museum was divided into four departments: an exhibition hall, which contained prehistoric, historic, and natural history sections; a special depository to house the Host regalia; a library; and a historical archive.64 W riting a decade after its opening Popov noted that "the foremost task in establishing the Don Museum was the idea o f elucidating the historical fate o f the Don Cossacks in all manifestations o f their past life and. at the same time, the fate o f the Don region."63 The transfer o f the Host regalia (Imperial charters, rescripts and banners) required the permission o f the War Ministry. "This constitutes the most valuable adornment o f the museum and holds enormous interest for every visitor, especially the Cossack, who has

fewer Cossacks than found in other government offices in the Host Administration. b2Dontsy XIX veka, part I , pp. 93-95., Pamitanaia knizhka Voiska Donskago na 1897 g. (Novocherkassk, 1897). 63GARO f. 353,op. l,d . 379,1. 2. wGARO f. 699, op. I, d. 11,1.60. 65GARO f. 55,op. I,d . 751,1. 1. 216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the opportunity to become acquainted with the historical monuments o f the service o f the Don Host."66 The ataman's office instructed local officials to cooperate with the Commission in the collection o f historical and ethnographic materials.67 and cajoled individuals to part with family possessions o f interest to the museum. In February 1902 A.M. Grekov, the Ataman’s Senior Assistant for C ivilian Affairs, wrote to Tat’ iana Efremova requesting that she make available fam ily documents and portraits available to the museum for the purpose o f copying them. However, should she chose to donate any o f the materials, he promised that they would be kept in a special Efremov collection, for which funds had already been allocated.6* In 1911, in anticipation o f the centennial celebrations o f 1812, the Host administration appealed through the local press for donation o f fam ily documents and artifacts to the museum, "our national Cossack repository."64 Such appeals invoked both filia l and group pride as motivation for parting with family treasures. Unfortunately, with few exceptions.70these appeals did not meet

“ GARO f. 699, op. l,d . 11,1.64. 67GARO f. 699, op. 1, d. 10,1. 52. 6*GARO f. 699, op. 1, d. 10, II. 37-38. For similar notes to less illustrious families, see Ibid., II. 26-36. 64GARO f. 55, op. l,d . 675,1.3. 70ln a b rie f economium to his distinguished forebears, Aleksei Karasev noted several times that all the family documents quoted had been donated to the Host museum, as if to serve as an example for others: Karasev, "Familiia Karasevykh," Sbornik III (1902): 48-54. 217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

with an enthusiastic response; in 190S Khariton Popov reported little success in collecting personal articles for the archive.71 Under Popov's leadership maintenance and extension o f the Museum's archive took priority over all other functions: As far as the historical archive is concerned, it has already served the region in a noticeable way. It should be enough to point out local publications like the Sbornik o f the Statistical Committee and Don Church Antiquity, the historical articles that cite documents from our archive; there is an abundance o f these citations in the historical study o f the Novocherkassk gymnasium, and they are even found in the History o f the Hundredth Anniversary o f the War Committee and in the History o f the Kuban Host, the author o f which worked in our archive for a month extracting materials on the resettlement o f Cossacks from the Don to the Kuban in the eighteenth century."77 The museum’ s exhibition hall was only open to the general public on Sunday afternoons.73 Besides serving the needs o f scholars, it offered members o f the public information on ancestors. The archival file for 1912-13 included over seventy such requests. This might have been an anomaly, as many o f these were connected with

7l"The overwhelming m ajority o f [fam ily] archives, which existed until recently, have disappeared or are disappearing without a trace." Kh. Popov, "Primechaniia k pis'mam N.L. Astakhova," Sbornik V (1905): 209. A t the same time, Popov had to endure numerous overtures from his old friend Fedor Trailin to enshrine such mundane items as ticket stubs and personal photographs for posterity: GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1019, II. 1-2,27-28,33-36. ^GARO f. 55, op. l.d . 751,1. 7. 73"Khronika kazach'ikh voisk" Golos kazachestxa 22 (1912): 267-268. 218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

petitions for Jubilee medals from the 1812 centennial celebration, but others needed confirmation o f noble status to register their children as nobles or apply for noble stipends. In response to such a request, the museum supplied copies o f a note from 1813 to General A.K. Denisov naming various officers under his command.74 Some o f the letters provide relevant information on the ancestor in question (service dates, units, battles) but many give merely a name. Either Popov and his colleagues knew the records very well, or they spent a significant portion o f their time reviewing correspondence and service lists for this information. Around the turn o f the century A.N. Pivarov devoted much o f his attention during his two three-year terms as Noble assembly secretary to the proper organization o f that body's archive. In 1908 and again in 1909 the Noble marshal Leonov spent 100 rubles for a three-man team to put his office's archive in order. Unfortunately this work was spoiled by a 1913 fire in the Noble assembly home, which damaged the archival holdings.7’ Interest in historical research was strong enough on the Don to support specialized organizations, such as the Don Dioscesan Committee on Church History, founded in April 1904 by Archbishop Afanasii with the immediate goal o f producing a description o f

74GARO f. 699, op. 1. d. 62, II. 72, 75. 75Aleksandr N. Pivarov, Donskie kazaki: sbornik razskazov iz boevoi i domashnei zhizni (Novocherkassk, 1909); GARO f. 410, op. 1, d. 919, II. 1, 3; Kratkii otchet Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Predvoditelia dvorianstva, 1913-1915 (Novocherkassk, 1916), 9. 219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

all the churches in the Host. The Committee council, chaired by Andrei K irillo v,76 immediately expanded upon this goal to include establishing a repository for historical memorabilia and a library in the Archbishop's consistory. But the Committee's substantive contribution was erratic. On the positive side o f the ledger, it published four volumes o f the journal Don Church Antiquity (Donskaia Tscrkovnaia Starina), which depended heavily on reprints from the Statistical Committee's journal, and created a network among the local parish clergy to distribute and popularize its work. But it suffered from lack o f support from its sponsor.77 A ll o f these organizations were subsidized, at least in part, by the Host Administration. O fficial attitudes toward the historical enterprise were equivocal. Efforts to preserve the Don heritage, particularly evidence o f State solicitude toward the Host, were met with hearty approval, but members o f the intelligentsia periodically expressed disappointment at the lack o f official patronage for historical writing. Clearly, the administration and the intelligentsia had conflicting priorities over correct channels for historical research on the Cossacks. For example, when Petr Krasnov published a two-volume. Pictures from the Past o f the Quiet Don in 1909, an unrefined compendium o f anecdotes and asides, wholely uncontroversial in nature, ataman Samsonov endorsed

76Besides being a prolific historian and active member o f the Statistical Committee, K irillo v served as an inspector at the Don Seminary in Novocherkassk. ^K irillo v , Soobshchenie o deiatel'nosti, 3-10, 12. 220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the work as appropriate “ for use in the family, schools, and Host units.” 71 In objecting to this endorsement, Andrei K irillo v fretted that this imprimatur might lead the unsuspecting reader to believe that Krasnov had composed a comprehensive history o f the Host, when “ such a conclusion would be highly mistaken."7'' Not surprisingly, officials promoted histories that highlighted Cossack military achievements as part o f the Russian armed forces; local historians, in contrast, sought fresh themes in Don history by examining the internal development o f the Host. Don historian Evgraf Savel'ev bitterly characterized the lim its o f military history: “ [M ilita ry history is culled from official reports, commands, etc.. which are rigorously censored. A one-sided treatment o f the facts is unavoidable....In it there are no people, but just an assemblage of movable parts, pawns, that run. jump. fall, die...” 10 Andrei K irillo v complained that to date (1909) only the “ purely martial” side o f Cossack history had received any detailed presentation." A historiographical essay in the Empire's preeminent military journal lent authority to the civilian direction. In describing the Cossacks' place in broader Russian history, Nikolai Putyntsev acknowledged their significance in military history, but added that their civilian contributions, i f properly

7*Krasnov, Kartiny bylogo Tikhogo Dona (St. Petersburg, 1909). 79Kralkoe obozrenie istorii o donskikh kazakov. 37. *°E.P. Savel’ev, M.I. Platov i osnovanie g. Novocherkasska (Novocherkassk. 1906), 86. 11Kirillov, Kralkoe obozrenie istorii o donskikh kazakov, 3.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

elucidated, might overcome longstanding prejudices.*3 This conflict in goals was in evidence in the early 1900s when the War M inistry ottered special subsidies to the Host for the purpose o f producing a comprehensive history.*3 The initial "program" suggested by the War Ministry included four broad subject areas: the Cossacks as colonizers, the Cossacks as protectors o f State borders, the Cossacks as protectors o f the Orthodox Church, and the Cossacks as a state m ilitary force. In response, an ad hoc committee formed within the Don Statistical Committee countered that these topics should at least be supplemented by the questions o f whether or not the Host developed independently, whether or not its ethnic composition was homogenous, and what were the historical conditions for land ownership on the Don. A brief elaboration on this point claims the designation "Metropole o f the Cossacks in the Southeast" for the Don Host; as such, "[the Host] has an indisputable right to publish such a history, that would elucidate the very origins o f the Cossacks on the Don and their subsequent development, but with equal attention to their external activity (vneshneiu ileiulel'nost'iu) and to their native way o f life (svoebraznyi by()"u The distinction between a Russian, state-centered approach, on the one hand, and a Cossack, Don-

*3Putyntsev, "Nashi kazach'i voiska (Neobkhodimost' izucheniia ikh trekhvekovogo istoricheskago proshlago)" Voennyi sbornik I (1901): 49-50. *3This offer was extended to all the Cossack Hosts: ibid., 56-58. wGARO f. 55, op. I , d. 620, II. 1-2. Perhaps this subtle expression o f a controversial theme was caused by Samsonov's presence at the session. 222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

centered approach, on the other, is plain. *

Among the history enthusiasts o f varying proficiency on the Don, Khariton Popov served as patriarchal figure. The autodidact Popov never achieved great facility as a writer; his prodigious publication trail consists almost entirely o f narrow source presentations illuminated parsimoniously. Nonetheless, he left an indelible imprint on the historical enterprise through his industry, diligence, influence, generosity, not to mention longevity. In addition to an avowed passion for the subject o f Don history, Popov's knowledge o f the Don archives was unsurpassed; virtually every important figure in historical research expressed his debt to Popov for a timely reference. This great intimacy is easily explained by his career as caretaker for Host records, first with the Statistical Committee, later as manager o f the Host Museum. Moreover, his protracted career editing local publications afforded him Olympian powers over historical discourse on the Don. both through his control o f access to publication and his standing license to rebut wayward voices.®5 Owing to his editorial and administrative centrality Popov was also in a position to extend patronage to aspiring Cossack writers. As was noted in the first chapter, contributors to Vedomosti recognized the potential for remuneration for their efforts, to

iSPopov's correspondence includes numerous inquiries from local figures seeking the status on articles they had submitted for publication: GARO f. SS, op. 1, d. 1022, II. 18, 31, 35, 51, 58-59; d. 1023, II. 12-13, 14-15,30-31; d. 1024,1. 27; d. 1025,1. 5; d. 1027,1. 50. 223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the extent that some offered articles as currency to pay o ff debts. The extent o f this patronage was limited, however; a tally from 1899 shows that twenty-two individuals were paid for their contributions over the year, w ith the largest single earner, a certain Nacharov, receiving forty-eight rubles and fifty-tw o kopecks.16 Hie Statistical Committee annual Shornik. o f which Popov served as co-editor for twelve o f its thirteen editions, offered contributors the handsome sum o f fifteen rubles per page/7 Moreover, it is clear that Don historians looked to Popov as a patron who could employ considerable personal influence with the Host Administration on their behalf. Recall the deferential tone o f V.V. Bogachev's entreaty that Popov intervene with the new ataman to secure his transfer to Novocherkassk.81 In 1907 Isaak Bykadorov appealed to Popov to remind the ataman o f a promise to subsidize the publication o f Bykadorov's The Don Past in St. Petersburg.89 Popov's unflagging enthusiasm is evident from the personal relationship he formed w ith Pavel Zakharov, a student at Khar'kov university with an expansive interest in Don history. Their correspondence reveals that, in addition to keeping abreast o f

“ GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 500,1. 1. "G AR O f. 410,op. 1, d. 745,1. I. “ Bogachev refers to several figures who were more accomplished historians than Popov as his "assistants": GARO f. 55, op. I, d. 1027, II. 24-25. “ GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 615,1. 67. Bykadorov stated that he was turning to Popov after receiving no response from Leonid Bogaevskii, a member o f Popov's inner circle who held a high position in the ataman's chancellary. Apparently someone was able to dislodge these funds, as Bykadorov's book was published by Berezlivost publishers in St. Petersburg in 1908. 224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.

Zakharov's research, Popov aided the young student by securing Host funding, archival access, and the enrollment o f Zakharov's fam ily in the Cossack estate.40 Despite his monumental contribution, both through his labors and his encouragement o f others, it bespeaks a serious shortcoming among Don historians that Popov was never eclipsed as the recognized authority in the field. In his taciturn writings Popov demonstrates the extent o f his prodigious knowledge o f relevant source materials, but little intellectual vigor. For example, in an article published in the Sbornik, Popov describes Don folk legends o f Ermak. conqueror o f Siberia. From this evidence, Popov draws the conclusion that all stories favorable to Ermak and the Don — such as Ivan IV ’s supposed bequeathal o f the Don to the Cossacks after the fall o f Kazan in 1552 — are historically accurate, while those unfavorable to Ermak are the result o f "poetic license.”41 Save for Karamzin, there is no evidence that Popov had ever read anything other than local histories. This lack o f erudition, combined with a stubborn provincialism, on the part o f the doyen o f local historians certainly hindered the qualitative development o f research on the Don. Popov's limitations as a scholar were exposed through an encounter, albeit vicarious, with the pre-eminent Russian historian o f the prerevolutionary period, V.O.

40For his part. Zakharov kept Popov informed on the fruits o f his archival labors in Moscow: GARO f. 55, op. 1. d. 622, II. 5-8, 11-12, 14-15; d. 1025, II. 18. 19-20,21-22. 25-26. 4lKh.I. Popov, "Ataman Ermak Timofeevich. Po narodnym predaniiam i pesniam,” Sbornik V III (1908): 141-155. 225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Kliuchevskii, prompted by the aforementioned Ministry-sponsored history project. On 19 January 1908 the ad hoc commission o f the Statistic Committee proposed forming yet another commission to collect the necessary materials for the history be undertaken. The Statistical Committee rejected this proposal, choosing instead to name one person to head the whole project; Kliuchevskii. D.I. Evamitskii and V.A. Potto were the only candidates mentioned for the position.10 The committee reaffirmed this set o f priorities on 26 May 1908.1,3 This was not the first time Don society had sought to recruit an eminent national historian to write the history o f the Don. In 1882 the Statistical Committee solicited a proposal from Nikolai Kostomarov for the project, but a delegation could not persuade ataman Sviatopolk-Mirskii to agree to Kostomorov's terms.44 Kliuchevskii formally responded to this request in July 1908. He declined the offer, but noted that he considered the lack o f a thorough history o f the Don Cossacks to

4:GAROf. 55, op. 1, d. 620.1. 2. 43GARO f. 55, op. I,d . 631,1. I. ‘"The immediate impediment had to be his price; Kostomorov demanded a salary o f 2,500 rubles per year, with an estimated duration o f six years, as well as a payment o f 15,000 rubles upon completion, "to be remitted to the author without delay." The already sickly Kostomorov also included that in the event o f his death, any money owed him should be turned over to his family: GARO f. 55. op. 1, d. 337, II. 1-2; K irillov, Kratkoe obozrenie istorii o donskikh kazakov, 29. The short list o f candidates demonstrates that Don historians were conversant with contemporaryhistorians: other than Kliuchevskii, the other three candidates were specialists on Cossack history- Kostomarov and Evamitskii on Ukrainian Cossacks, Potto on the Terek Cossacks. For more on Kostomarov, see Thomas Prymak, Mykola Kostomarov: A Biography. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 19%. 226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

be a "most shameful gap o f Russian historiography."95 In June he had submitted to an interview with the L.V. Bogaevskii on the project. Kliuchevskii reported to Bogaevskii that he had asked the historian Mikhail Liubavskii to recommend someone for the task, but Liubavskii had not yet done so. In anticipation o f a final selection, he advised that the Commission seriously consider several pointed questions: Should the designated person write the history on the basis o f documents available or administer the ongoing collection o f documents? Would it be a "formal, official" history or a history that meets the full requirements o f modem historical science? Who w ill ultimately be responsible for the quality o f the history, the designated historian or the Host administration? W ill the historian enjoy the cooperation o f the local Statistical Committee and Don museum in searching local archives?96 There is nothing inherently controversial about these suggestions. Kliuchevskii's first and fourth points reflected his lack o f fam iliarity with the Don. The second and third questions touched on more serious matters o f authorial integrity. The ad hoc commission was less than appreciative o f the illustrious Kliuchevskii's gentle "peer review." The commission responded to the fu ll Statistical Committee in an unsigned, undated report-although from the prose style Popov's influence is manifest-that barely concealed its members' methodological naivete, suspicion o f inogorodnye

95GARO f. 55, op. I , d. 622,1. 49. ■*GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 622, II. 52-53. 227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

influences, in general, and hostility to Kliuchevskii, in particular. The report responded to Kliuchevskii's second question by asserting "Such a juxtaposition, official or scientific, is, I dare say,...unscientific." From the brief elaboration it is apparent that the author interpreted "official" to mean based on official documents to the exclusion o f literary evidence. The third question was "no less strange." Although the Host administration took responsibility for collecting materials, "the immediate responsibility for the thoroughness and aesthetic value o f the structure, formed from this material, can only belong to the...the future historian. The administration could never take responsibility for the quality o f someone else's work, and to demand this would be more than strange."47 W ith both o f these questions, Kliuchevskii would seem to have been posing subtle queries as to the author's freedom from administrative interference and censorship. Unfortunately, the committee misread this emphasis, leading to confusion - as if Kliuchevskii's third question pondered whose name would appear on the title page - and affront. Most repugnant was Kliuchevskii's offer to recruit a historian to lead the project. As an alternative, the committee proposed a competition to produce a brief historical tract on Don history based on original sources. We can be sure that more than a few Don Cossacks w ill respond to this appeal. And so, the person whose work shows the most thoroughness in terms o f content, the most ardent love for the Don, and yields the most vivid picture o f Cossack life, in a word, the person whose work is marked

"’ GARO f. 55, op. I, d. 622, II. 28-29. 228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

by God-given talent, that person must entrusted with the task o f composing the history o f the Don Cossacks.41 So, as opposed to the prospect o f having an historian trained at Russia's premier university, the Committee preferred to place its trust in its own ability to judge "ardent love for the Don" and "God-given talent." In addition to misplaced pride, one can also discern a conceit that Cossackdom was inscrutable to outside observers, a possible limitation to the prevailing “ scientific'' approach to historical research on the Don. Popov and his colleagues were spared the indignity o f aiding an outsider to write “ their” history when Taube assumed the position o f ataman. Even before his arrival in the Host, Taube sent word that all preparations toward hiring a professional historian should cease, "because in principle...it impossible for the history to be prepared by someone who does not belong to the Cossack estate in the Don Host..."44 Popov's protege Zakharov congratulated his mentor for his personal triumph.100 Unfortunately, this personal triumph failed to produce the elusive scholarly history o f the Don Host. Archival research for the project was conducted by teams in Moscow and St. Petersburg directed by amateurs, including Popov's son Petr, whose

4,GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 622,1. 27. "GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 622,1. 30. 100GARO f. 55, op. l,d . 622,1. 5. 229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

main credential seems to have been enrollment in the Don Host.101 Bickering within the Committee, poor communication w ith the research,102 and confusion over fundamental issues, such as the scope o f the intended history, frustrated the project. The final product o f seven years o f discussion, squabbles, scrambling for funds,103 research, and revamping toward what had originally intended to be the comprehensive history o f the Host was a slight volume credited to Isaak Bykadorov, History o f the Don Host's Contribution to the Patriotic War o f 1812 and the Foreign Campaigns o f 1813-I814.W Decisions to lim it the scope o f this publication to, at first, 1775-1812, then, to the immediate events o f 1812, were made by the War M inistry. Ministry patience and subsidies apparently were

l0lColonel Aleksandr Ivanovich Medvedev, a professor at the Nikolaevskii Academy, headed the team in St. Petersburg. His first order o f business was to write von Taube a haughty letter complaining that his deadline was unreasonable and requesting permission to travel to Paris to acquire some "interesting books." On this latter point. Taube noted "ne stoit." GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 649, II. 33-34. In June 1910, Popov assured von Taube that he was trying to find an appropriate successor as team leader in Moscow, "under the condition, o f course, that he must be a Don Cossack." GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 649,11.70-71. lo:In late August 1911, both Medvedev and Ivan Andreevich N ikulkin, head o f the Moscow team, received hectoring letters to cease work and turn over all copies immediately since their deadline had been in May: GARO f. 55. op. 1. d. 649. II. 225, 233. I03lronically, K irillov, who was above quoted denouncing the “ egotistical considerations" o f others, volunteered to make available his personal materials to the project, only to withdraw the offer after his request for 750 rubles was rejected: GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 649,11.219,244. mOcherk uchastiia Donskogo voiska v Otechestvennoi voine 1812 g. i zagranichnykh pokhodakh 1813-1814 g.g. (Novocherkassk, 1912). 230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

exhausted before publication, so the Noble assembly provided last minute financial support.10’ Bykadorov’s "history" demonstrates very little critical insight or analysis. In fact the entire book (160 pages) consists o f brief accounts o f specific battles or campaigns. It would seem that the precious archival material was merely embroidered with a triumphant tone. There is no attempt at synthesis, no conclusion. *

Historical enthusiasm on the Don was not restricted to uncovering documents and writing history: Don society was also active in the realm o f commemoration. Certainly the commemoration impulse held an educational purpose by distilling the past into accessible images o f Cossack identity calculated to celebrate Cossack achievements and to promote further interest in Don history. Through erecting monuments and participating in ritual celebrations, Don patriots were not merely delivering elementary historical lessons: they were also engaged in the painstaking process o f forging a group memory, which in turn implies a concern for cementing, or reshaping, the group identity o f the Don Cossacks. Preservation activities on the Don were not limited to recovery o f the Cossack

'“’ Although the archival file does not extend up to publication, the book's title page merely describes it as “ A Publication o f the Don N obility” (Izdanie Donskogo Dvorianstva). A subtle nod to the nobility is embedded in the text. In one o f the few interesting points o f the book, Bykadorov notes in his discussion on the nobility's philanthropic and m ilitary contributions to the 1812 that "The Don nobility is unique in Russia: it was formed by elevating cossacks into the noble estate for their martial feats; thus nobility among the Dontsy is earned exclusively through the blood or life o f one's ancestors..." Ibid., 60. 231

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

past. Don institutions participated in archeological studies o f the ancient Greek merchant outpost o f Tanais and other sites dating back to the pre-Christian era.'06 Naturally, enthusiasm for these endeavors did not match that directed toward Cossack-oriented activities. I he Don past was celebrated in ritual displays. Given the economic, political, even demographic trends in the Host, public ceremonies afforded the Cossacks one o f their few remaining opportunities to assert their titular ownership over the territory “ sown with the bones and blood” o f their ancestors, at least symbolically. A ll Cossack ceremonies invoked the past. Describing the elaborate ceremony in 1887 when the future Nicholas 11 was invested w ith the title “ Most August Ataman o f all Cossack Hosts.” Fedor Trailin exclaimed that “ the Cathedral Square [in Novocherkassk | in fact became a historical page in the chronicle o f our region.” 107 As with historical research, Cossack ritual display subsumed a debate over just what past would be celebrated — that o f the Cossacks' own exalted deeds, including settlement o f the Don? or that o f the Cossacks' service (or subservience) to the Imperial state? The omnipresent prop for all Cossack ceremonies was the full array o f Imperial regalia — banners and orders awarded to the Don Host or to particular Cossack units, dating back to 1614.101 As noted above, these

l06GARO f. 699, op. 1. d. 11.11.23-24; f. 55. op. 1, d. 1022, 72-73. l07Trailin, Oposeshchenii. p. 13. l0“ K administrativnoi deiatel’nosti lakova Petrovicha Baklanova.” Sbornik IX (1909): 133. 291

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

relevant appendices he collected; this may have been the only work o f Don history to approach the level o f a monograph. Before moving on to grandiose theories on the origins o f the Cossacks, E.P. Savel’ev wrote an interesting economic history. An Outline o f the History o f Trade on the Don: the Cossack Merchant Society, 1 X 0 4 -1 9 0 4 In addition to serving as an institutional history o f the aforementioned merchant society, this work was distinguished by its long view o f trade patterns in the region. Savel'ev noted how a general trade boom in 1850-1875 coincided with a rapid expansion o f the society, from 500 to 3,921 members.100 The War Ministry put an end to this in 1875: as part o f the M ilitary Reform, the exemption from service granted to Don Cossack merchants was revoked. Although exceptions were made for those already enrolled, the damage was done; membership dropped to 203 by 1895. Savel’ev hypothesized that but not for this decree, the phenomenal growth o f the society would have continued: “ And in this way, the Cossack population, which over the centuries has played the historical role o f Cossack-

'"Savel'ev, Ocherki po istorii torgovli na Donu. Ohshchestxo torgovykh kazakov, 1804 - 1904 (Novocherkassk. 1904). l00He failed to note, however, legislation from 1868 which made it much easier for outsiders to enroll in the Cossack estate. Many o f new ranks clearly were merchants who enrolled as Cossacks in order to enjoy the duty-free trading privileges o f society members. In response to this influx, the War Ministry soon imposed new restrictions on enrollment in the Host. Stoletie Voennago Ministerstva, XI, part 1,648-652 292

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

soldier...could have gradually converted to a life o f trade and industry.'’ 101 Savel'ev did not spare the Cossacks themselves from criticism, pointing out their lack o f business foresight; most o f those engaged in trade before 187S, were engaged small-scale wholesalers or shippers, destined to be overtaken by the steamship and the railroad. But this did not prevent him from looking back nostalgically to the pre-reform era, when all trade was in the hands o f Cossacks. The most comprehensive cultural and political history o f the Don over the course of the nineteenth century appeared in Don Cossacks o f the Nineteenth Century. Due to the nature o f this work - a compendium o f biographical sketches produced by a team of authors - the presentation is fragmented. And the focus was self-consciously skewed toward the upper levels o f society. Nonetheless this was a seminal contribution to Don history. Authors took the opportunity to describe larger cultural and political events while ostensibly chronicling individual lives. Thus, N.N. Efremov's biography showed how this eccentric member o f the illustrious family spearheaded support for the zemstvo, I.V. Klunnikov's rapporteur illustrated how Cossacks used their position on the Main Administration o f Cossack Affairs to provide patronage, and the section on V.M.

,0,Saverev, Ocherki po istorii torgovli na Donu, 84-85. Other prominent works in this vein were, Ivan Popov. "Oblastnoi voiska Donskogo statisticheskii komitet v pervye gody ego sushchestvovaniia (Istoricheskaia spravka)," Sbornik I (1901); 3-12 and N.A. Norov, "Voisko Donskoe v 25 letnee tsarstvovanie Imperatora Aleksandra II. 19 go fevralia 1855 - 19 fevr. 1880 g.,” Sbornik X II (1914): 139-148. 293

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Liutenskov provided administrative details on various commissions o f the 1880s.103 While on the subject o f biography, one can also compare Seniutkin's Dontsy with the group effort Cossacks o f the Nineteenth Century to gauge the maturation o f historical sensibilities and o f Cossack group identity that took place in the forty years separating these publications. Seniutkin’s compendium is avowedly conservative; he intended to elevate a small group o f elite Cossacks as a model for his contemporaries, focusing in particular on their lifelong service as well as their ambivalence toward awards and recognition. He does not spell out why he assumed the Cossacks o f the early 1860s were in need o f such lessons, but clearly advocates a reinforcement o f the military identity o f the Host. Cossacks o f the Nineteenth Century is much richer in its scope and conception. Whereas Seniutkin's Cossacks served almost exclusively on the battlefield, the Cossacks o f the Nineteenth Century represent a diversity o f callings, many combining civilian pursuits with a m ilitary career. And while Seniutkin sternly remands his readers to emulate.historical figures bom over a century earlier, the editors o f Cossacks o f the Nineteenth Century avoid such overt didacticism--they squarely confront the transformation enveloping the Host circa 1906 and offer no palliatives for the difficulties resulting from this process. This is not to contradict the argument advanced in Chapter I

103Dontsy X IX veka, part 1, 117-123, 186-187, 255-259. Authors also took the opportunity to criticize unpopular decisions o f the Host Administration, sometimes quite subtly, as when Aleksei Karasev mentioned that I.I. Kosogin “ finished the Kamensk pre­ gymnasium (since closed)." Ibid., 191. 294

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

that Don Cossacks o f (he Nineteenth Century represented a manifesto o f sorts on the part o f the Don intelligentsia, but to acknowledge that its coterie o f authors uniformly refrain from the exultant tone o f Seniutkin. Moreover, the later compendium was emblematic o f biographical themes o f the period under review. For example, portraits o f Don m ilitary heroes unfailingly noted that the subjects had a deep respect for education and culture, even those who were barely literate themselves; warriors were humanized, not only with cliched accounts o f instinctive camaraderie with rank-and-file Cossacks, but through gestures o f elevated sensibility or piety.103 *

Within the Don historical community. Andrei K irillov wrote most prolitlcaliy and broadly. Befitting his administrative position with the Novocherkassk-Aksai diocese, K irillov devoted special attention to the ecclesiastical history o f the Don Most, touching upon the institutional history, the construction o f churches, and the unique religious practices o f the Sbornik Don. but he also addressed other themes.104 Along with Khariton

l03Baklanov's biography in Dontsy XIX veka provides a prime example o f this: part 1. 18-53. lwHis works included the following: “ K istorii nardnago prosveshcheniia na Donu. I. O voiskovoi latinskoi gymnazii," Sbornik III (1902): 27-33; “ K istorii nardnago prosveshcheniia na Donu,” Sbornik IV (1903): 3-13; ** Glavnoe narodnoe uchilishche na Donu,” Sbornik V (1905): 1-15; “ Chasovni, tserkvi i monastyri na Donu ot nachala ikh piavleniia do kontsa X IX veka,” Sbornik VI (1906): 1-48, V II (1907): 1-35, V III (1908): 1-36; “ Obychnoe pravo na Donu” Sbornik V III (1908): 170-173; “ Stanichnoe pravo na Donu” Sbornik V III (1908): 174-178. A ll the above articles were subsequently published in pamphlet form. 295

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Popov (with whom he frequently collaborated as editor o f the Sbornik) K irillov published numerous archival discoveries. Although no controversialist, his critical edge manifested itself in his fascination with the life o f Evlamii Katel'nikov [7-1854], an autodidact would-be poet, religious free thinker, and social commentator who was arrested in 1823 for his involvement with a local sectarian circle.105 After a lengthy interrogation on the Don, Katel'nikov was transferred to St. Petersburg for a confrontation with Arakcheev, who granted Katel'nikov a reprieve on the strength o f his abject contrition.106 He was subsequently exiled to Solovetskii monastery, where he lived out the last thirty odd years o f his life, and where, so K irillov claims, he reconciled with Orthodoxy.107 K irillo v did not merely rescue this forgotten figure from obscurity as a historical curiosity, but lauded him as "an outstanding Don autodidact-writer" who commands interest "not as a m ilitary hero and not as an exemplary administrator, but as a person who in his advanced years devoted himself to the search for a higher truth."10*

105K irillo v "Iz istorii religioznykh dvizhenii na Donu v pervoi chetverti X IX v." Sbornik X (1910): 1-4. Katel'nikov had previously had brushes with authorities for his annoying habit o f disrupting Church services to correct the celebrant; V.Z. "K biografii E.N. Kotel'nikova [sic]" Sbornik II (1901): 95-96. I06A.A. Karasev published Katel'nikov's apology and Arakcheev's pardon from 1824: "Esaul Evlamii Katel'nikov" Russkaia Starina 4 (1873): 95-96. l07K irillo v, "Iz istorii religioznykh dvizhenii na Donu v pervoi chetverti X IX v." pp. 20-21. K irillo v argued that Katel'nikov was always sincere in his love for the mother church, but that his relationship with Orthodoxy was characterized by a "dualism" (dvoistennosty. ibid., p. 2. l0*K irillov, "K biografii E.N. Katel'nikova" Sbornik I (1901 ):114. 296

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This commentary on Katel'nikov, along w ith his obituary for Ivan Popov, cited in Chapter 1, demonstrate K irillo v 's determination to promote interest in the civilian element o f Cossack history, particularly in the history o f religion and education on the Don, inviting a reevaluation o f the Cossack as a spiritual being. For example, in an article on the Cossacks' participation in the War o f 1812, K irillo v associated the Host with the general wave o f religious fervor which enveloped Russia in this period. This fervor, not plundering, impelled the Cossacks to raid the churches o f Europe, presumably searching for items stolen by the French: “ in this instance, it was not the material value that was o f interest, but precisely the high religious value o f the retrieved articles.” 11” None o f his many publications had an overtly military theme. In 1909 K irillo v published an important essay on the state o f Don Cossack historiography. He cited Leonov's speech at the very outset to emphasize how the intervening half-century had failed remedy the lack o f a definitive. Nonetheless, K irillov's overview o f Don history rested on much more confident footing than his predecessors in several respects. He does not, for example, betray any concern over the crude stereotypes o f the Cossacks held in certain quarters o f Russian society. More to the point, his was a genuine historiographical survey: he assumed a local audience eager "to devote [its] energy and knowledge to Don history" and in need o f bibliographical

lwK irillo v, “ Pamiatniki blagochesiia Donskikh kazakov i vozhda ikh voikovogo atamana grafa M l. Platova, otnosiashchiesia k voine 1812 g.,” Sbornik X II (1914): 167. 297

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

guidance;110although he considered its quality wanting, he was able to cite a body o f work on the Cossacks, written (mostly) by Cossacks in the interim since Leonov and Seniutkin; and he provided a thematic and operational blueprint for advancing toward that elusive seminal study o f the Don Host. K irillo v launched into his study with the general assessment that the extant historical study o f the Cossacks had only scratched the surface o f the historical reality: "A ll the distinguishing characteristics, 'the shadows and half-shadows,' o f Don history are hidden (pod spudom)." While crediting recent War M inistry injunctions and subsidies for spurring interest in Don historical research, he worried that this sponsorship would reinforce the longstanding imbalance in Cossack history toward military history. K irillo v reviewed the progress made toward the ultimate goal o f publishing an authoritative account o f Don history. He traced Sukhorukov's travels and travails but his discussion o f the work itself is surprisingly sparse; K irillo v judged Sukhorukov's history to be the "foundation" (osnova) o f Don history, but since it only covered Don history until the Bulavin uprising, it did not absolve future historians from the need to cull through archives.111 He acknowledged the important thematic advances o f early histories by Pudavov and A.M. Savel'ev, despite their lack o f heft, and dismissed popular histories o f Isaak Bykadorov and Petr Krasnov as adding nothing to the general knowledge o f Don

ll0K irillov, Kralkoe obozrenie istorii o donskikh kazakov, i. "'Ib id ., 9-19. 298

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

history. In discussing the latter, K irillo v professed his confidence in the positivist model o f history: “ this publication only proves without doubt that it is impossible to write the history o f the Don Host on the basis o f a few specious sources; rather, before all else one must collect a mass o f archival material, work through this material critically, and only then sit down to write the history.” 1" K irillov's harsh assessment o f Krasnov's effort illuminates his departure from Seniutkin's dictum that the Don historian best serves his subject matter through dramatic presentation. K irillov concluded by appealing to the Don historical community to emulate Sukhorukov's strategy for approaching the history o f the Cossacks: organize bibliographies o f printed materials on the Cossacks; study and develop local archives "without delay"; publish chronological indices o f charters and laws affecting the Cossacks; collect artifacts o f local culture — songs, adages, fables; and study the geography and ethnography o f region.113 Publication o f this essay coincided with the War Ministry-funded project to compile a history o f the Host. Although he modestly refrained from assessing his own contribution to the body o f Cossack history, it stands to reason that K irillo v intended this work as a resume for the position o f lead author in that effort. I f this was the case, he was unsuccessful; Petr Popov was selected for this post by a committee chaired by his father.

"'K irillo v , 37. ll3Ibid., 37-38. 299

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

K irillov’s longtime collaborator. K irillov offered to make available his personal notes on cultural and religious life on the Don in the late eighteenth, early nineteenth centuries, only to withdraw this assistance at the last moment."4 In this essay, K irillo v castigated Don Cossacks o f the Nineteenth Century-. alongside figures who merit inclusion there appear ordinary people who only achieved some kind o f social distinction far from the borders o f their native D on."5 One would expect K irillo v to have applauded the appearance o f these academic and professional luminaries alongside the m ilitary heroes o f the Quiet Don. Perhaps K irillov's conspicuous absence from the team o f contributors for this effort, rather than a spirit o f healthy criticism , motivated his rancor on this point. These two moments allow one to speculate that despite their numerous collaborative efforts, K irillo v may have chafed in his subordinate role to Khariton Popov (who held the chief editorial position for both projects) among Don historians. *

Popular histories taking an unabashed pride in the military feats o f the Don Cossacks appeared as well. Such titles as Aleksandr Pivarov's The Don Cossacks: a B rief Collection o f Episodes from the Martial Life o f the Don Cossacks, Petr Krasnov's Pictures from the Past o f the Quiet Don, and Isaak Bykadorov's The Don's Past, sated the

" 4GARO f. 55, op. I, d. 649, II. 219, 227,244. " sIbid., 35. K irillov's absence from the volumes, as a subject or contributor, is striking; perhaps bitterness on that score is surfacing here. 300

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

need for unreflective glorification o f the Cossack past, uncomplicated by the suggestion o f discontent either in the Host's internal development or in its relations with Moscow or St. Petersburg. The latter two titles were published in St. Petersburg, but w ith subsidies from the Host Administration, which clearly signified an official sanction for these works. Such works received little respect from those who took a critical interest in Don history. Petr Krasnov, the son o f Nikolai Krasnov, would, o f course, achieve fame as the ataman o f the revived "All-Great Don Host" following the Bolshevik revolution and as a prolific, i f mediocre, novelist in emigration. Like his father. Krasnov was a Don patriot who spent most o f his life outside o f the Host.116 He did not. however, inherit his father’s critical perspective on Don history or appreciation for scholarly conventions. As an example o f their divergent approaches to Don history, one can compare the father's disparaging interpretation o f Chernyshev's intrusive behavior in compiling the Charter of 1835 with the son's gloss on this episode: the younger Krasnov hinted at no controversy or underlying tensions and averred that "This statute was created not by Chernyshev, nor by atamans Denisov, Uovaiskii, or Kuteinikov, but by life itself."1’7 Under chapter headings such as "On the Don under Emperor Aleksandr II" and "From 1878 to 1904"

116Dontsy XIX veka. part 1, 228-231. " 7Kartiny Bylogo Tikhogo Dona, part 2, 55-61. 301

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Krasnov described Imperial visits to the Don. but little else.1,1 The zemstvo issue, as well as other reform initiatives, passed unmentioned. *

In the preceding chapter it was argued that Don society approached the urgent task o f historical research with both local and Imperial interests in mind. The narrative o f Don history that took shape in the late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries offered material for these disparate audiences. For Cossack readers, the most tangible from this historical research was a much needed source o f pride in their past at a particularly depressed period in the fortunes o f the Don Host, establishing continuity between the Don Cossacks circa 1900 - who may have even resettled outside the territory o f the Host - and those o f the "Golden Age” o f the seventeenth century, who met stormy sessions on the public square in Cherkassk elect their officials, debate relations with the Tsar, and distribute the booty from campaigns on the Black Sea. They were reminded o f a time when the formidability o f the Don Host influenced Russian-Turkish rivalry for dominance o f the Black Sea theater. Don historians, under the guise o f "reviving memories,” presented their compatriots with fundamental knowledge o f the Host's past, visiting both major episodes and obscure pages. The histories presented in this chapter did not, however, present an unvarnished

‘"Ibid., 134-142, 159-166. 302

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

view o f the Cossack past. Don historians expected their readership to be o f the relatively cultured sector o f Cossack society, thus expected - but at times pleaded for - a certain historical sensibility. Their work illuminated brilliant and ignomious pages o f the Cossack past; they critically analyzed the motivations and decision-making o f Cossack heroes; they were frank about the limitations o f their sources. If Don authors hoped to solidify the Cossack consciousness o f their educated readership, as was argued in Chapter 4, then it was necessary to supply images calculated to appeal particularly to this sector of Don society. This meant extending beyond an exclusive focus on military exploits; such an orientation would likely cause alienation in a Don Cossack engaged in civilian pursuits, rather than persuading him to become more “ Cossack-minded.” The most obvious example from this period o f history seemingly tailored for the consumption o f the educated elite was Don Cossacks o f Ihe Nineteenth Century, with its celebration o f Novocherkassk society. But throughout the period. Don historians labored to adorn their narratives with images o f Cossacks as prescient analysts o f steppe dynamics, instinctive politicians, pious Christians, men o f letters, able administrators, and sometimes benevolent officers. Moreover, men such as Sukhorukov and Denisov demonstrated that Cossacks had opportunity to show genuine courage in the civilian arena as well as on the battlefield. These same themes, the chronicling o f Don Cossack accomplishments and illuminating the non-martial side o f Don history, also had relevance for the broader

303

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Russian audience, though for different reasons. For many Russians, the Cossacks were exemplified by literary images o f Taras Bulba and folk legends o f Sten'ka Razin; that is, they existed beyond the realm o f time and space. Don authors set out to show that the seemingly preternatural feats o f their ancestors, while easily mistaken for the stuff o f myth, were actually grounded in a historical record. In addition to marveling at these exploits for their dramatic value. Don histories calculated the essential contribution o f the Cossacks to Russian history by protecting the Muscovite state, in its formative period, from Turkish and Tatar aggression. The civilian orientation in Don history challenged Russian readers to re-examine common stereotypes o f the Cossacks as fire-breathing marauders. Most o f the historians reviewed in this chapter could be associated with reformist circles on the Don, thus were distressed by an official policy that saw the Cossacks primarily as m ilitary material. Proponents o f expanded civilian administration, more educational facilities (including a university), economic reforms, and. most o f all. the zemstvo, asserted that these reforms corresponded to the needs and abilities - if not the conscious desires - o f the Cossacks. By pursuing research in the non-military side o f the Don past, Don historians established that cultural life was not alien to the Cossack experience. Moreover, the reformers could point to a tradition o f civilian activism in defense against accusations that their liberalism, caused by corrupting modem influences, somehow disqualified them as Cossacks. So how did the efforts o f various Don historians, as described in this chapter,

304

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

affect the “ Cossack Question,” as delineated in chapter 3? Was this pursuit o f historical knowledge at all connected with the dilemma o f clarifying a role for the Don Cossacks in the modem world? In addition to asserting an ancestral link with Cossacks o f a “ Golden Age,” Don historians attempted to establish a continuity o f Don Cossack interests, modified over time, that were distinct from, sometimes in conflict w ith, those o f the central government. Although most o f the historians were reform-minded, even overtly conservative presentations stubbornly abjured from the Imperial perspective that the Don Host had become, for all intents and purposes, an integrated component o f the Empire by the mid-eighteenth century, when Cossack "anarchy” (vol nost ~) had been subdued. An undercurrent o f grievance pervaded accounts oflm perial historical figures acting with complete disregard o f Cossack sensitivities or fortunes. Though eternally loyal, in the sense that they would not shirk from military duty or serve foreign rulers, Cossacks throughout history had understood and protested these slights. This message had to be conveyed subtly to avoid the appearance o f separatism, so authors appealed to “ unique traditions" rather than “ autonomy," much less "independence." Besides articulating a reasonable alternative to the point o f view that a Don Cossack never questions Imperial policy, Don historians argued that Imperial policy, when viewed through the prism o f hindsight, often appeared to have be capricious and short-sighted. And just as Peter I had been wrong to disarm the Don Host o f its naval capabilities, so. perhaps, was the War Ministry o f late Imperial Russian misguided in denying the Cossacks the benefits o f the

305

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

zemstvo and other civilian reforms. Writing many years later, the American historian Peter Kenez castigated several Cossack histories produced by Cossack emigrants in Western Europe and America."4 Even more than the shoddy scholarship, Kenez was excercized by the indulgence o f fantasies and myth, such as the suggestion o f the pseudo-historical entity "Cossackia." which, he argues could only be nurtured in a community long separated from its homeland and disconnected from its historical reality. I f nothing else, this extended discussion o f Don Cossack history has shown that Don Cossacks, nestled securely in the Imperial bosom, already had fashioned a vision o f their own unique history long before the decentering experience o f emigration.

ll4Kenez, "The Ideology o f the Don Cossacks in the C ivil War," in R.C. Elwood, (ed.), Russian and East European History. Selected Papers fo r the World Congress fo r Soviet and East European Studies (Berkeley, 1984), 160-183. 306

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Chapter 6 The Don Cossacks and “ O thers” “ Don dlia donisov.r (The Don for the Don Cossacks!) Ataman Baron von Taube, 1909

When Baron von Taube pronounced the above phrase to thunderous applause at the 1909 land use conference, one would think he was merely repeating an axiom in the region formerly known as “ The Territory o f the Don Cossacks." Although the popular ataman may have affirmed Cossack precedence in the Don Host, his exhortative rhetoric did not correspond to demographic or economic realities. By 1912. Cossacks comprised only 44.3 percent o f the population o f the Don Host.1 Land in the Host was increasingly falling out o f Cossack control; stifling debts from equipping sons (or selves) for service forced many Cossacks to rent their land allotments to newly-arrived peasants, then hire themselves as laborers for those same peasants. Trends indicated further dilution o f the Cossack element. Educated and plebeian Cossacks alike recognized that a seismic shift was occurring in the social dynamics on the Don with an immediate understanding that did not require statistical analysis. A local paper ominously warned:

'Z.I. Shchelkunov, “ Sostav i rost naseleniia Oblasti Voiska Donskogo za 10 let (1902-1911 g.),” Sbornik Oblastnago voiska Donskogo Stalisticheskogo Komiteta [hereafter Sbornik] X II (1914): 2. These population figures need to be qualified: i f one factors out Rostov okrug - which no one mistook for “ Cossack" territory - the Cossack contingent o f the population would have risen to 48.4 percent. On the other hand, one might assume that population figures underestimated the number o f peasant immigrants to the Host. 307

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

numerous enemies are surreptitiously destabilizing the historical Cossack foundations, stanitsas are being taking over by a wandering element [ibrodiachim liudom], drunken hooligans, and tavern owners. The sacred past is spit upon at every step: they chatter about a ‘province,' w ith all their strength they push for the introduction o f the all-estate zemstvo, a sure step toward the final decline o f the Cossacks, because without a doubt all ‘departments’ (upravy) w ill be filled by ‘their people’, who have nothing in common with the toiling Cossacks.*'2 This chapter w ill examine the conscious efforts o f Don Cossacks to define and defend, when need be, Cossack identity. When attempting to gauge the defining elements or relative strength o f Don Cossack group consciousness in late Imperial Russia it is important to avert one’s gaze a bit from the calamitous events subsequent to August 1914. This is not to engage in ahistorical sophistry, such as speculating about the Cossack community in 19S0 had Gavrilo Princip's gun jammed; rather, it is to acknowledge the potential impact o f interpreting statements from 1875, or even 1910, through the distorting prism o f our knowledge o f later events. Cossack authors could not have anticipated that Russia would be plunged into four years o f bloodletting on the battle fields o f Europe; that the tsarist regime would fall; that the Don would find itself directly on the fault line between Red and White forces; or that state power would be won by a dictatorial Jacobin party, for which Cossack particularist claims were, to put it

2Golos Kazachestva 18 (1912): 210. The same untitled editorial seethed over the impudence o f Jews, Poles, and Armenians who were “joyously declaring the imminent end o f the Cossacks” ; 211. 308

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

mildly, untenable.3 Without allowing some margin for the role o f contingency, plausible expressions o f confidence in the Cossacks’ future might seem preposterous.4 This admonition to examine prc-1914 expressions on their own merits does not mean that Cossack consciousness might have been elaborated in a tranquil environment; the Don was not immune from the general breakdown in social and cultural relations experienced throughout the Empire, particularly in the wake o f the revolution o f 1905-07.5 In the preceding chapters, we have focused on how competing definitions o f Cossack-ness emerged as Don society interacted with the Host administration and the War M inistry in St. Petersburg on Cossack issues. But to assess the formation o f Cossack identity, one must also examine how the Cossacks distinguished themselves from the various other groups inhabiting the increasingly crowded Don. A fter discussing the legal state o f segregation (zamknutost") prevailing on the Don. this chapter w ill analyze Cossack attitudes toward “ others," then describe some efforts at mobilizing Cossack political activity in the modem era.

3For a survey o f Bolshevik attitudes toward the Cossacks, see Peter Holquist “ A Russian Vendee: the practice o f revolutionary politics in the Don countryside, 19171921" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1995), 324-342. 4For a provocative essay on the importance o f contingency in historical thought, see N iall Ferguson “ Virtual History: Towards a ‘chaotic’ theory o f the past” in Ferguson (ed.). Virtual History: Alternatives and Counter/actuals (London, 1997), 1-90. 5On the turmoil o f the 1905 revolution, see Abraham Ascher, The Revolution o f 1905. 2 Vols. (Stanford, CA, 1988). On the inter-revolutionary period, see Leopold Haimson, “ The Problem o f Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905-1917,” Slavic Review X X III, 4 (1964): 619-642. 309

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Even i f segregation did not allow the Cossacks to live in hermetic isolation from other groups, they were able to retain a conviction o f natural superiority that sought no outside legitimation or defense. The elimination o f legal barriers, regional economic expansion, along w ith the annexation o f Rostov and Taganrog, robbed the Cossacks o f this luxury. In the late Imperial era, when various ethnic, estate, class, political, and regional agglomerations experienced awakening o f common interests which were contested in the burgeoning print media, one group's assertion o f precedence could not stand unchallenged. In times past, the Don Host's contribution to the Empire was manifest, its need for certain prerogatives transparent. However, w ith the viability o f the Cossacks in question, Don activists found it necessary to articulate the nature o f Cossack identity, both as a matter o f self-assertion and as justification for demanding state resources. Zamknutost* No contemporary observer seriously thought that there had ever been a time when the Don was inhabited exclusively by Cossacks. In fact, Don historians reveled in the diverse foreign presence, particularly in old Cherkassk, as a reflection o f the Host's lost glory.6 However, there was never any suggestion that Persian, Greek, or Tatar merchants had been citizens o f the Host; their presence had depended on the sufferance o f the Cossacks. Moreover, historical research had uncovered a large peasant contingent on the

6For example, see S.Z. Shchelkunov, "Voisko Donskoe pri atamane Aleksee Ivanovichem Ilovaiskom," Sbornik X (1910): 26-27,42-43. 310

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Don dating as far back as the end o f the seventeenth century.7 In 1860 peasants already constituted roughly one-third o f the Host population (305,052 out o f 929,938).' Through the seventeenth century, Don stanitsas were prepared to accept any w illing newcomers as members, much to the chagrin o f central authorities. After the Bulavin uprising o f the early eighteenth century, however, the Imperial state pursued a consistent policy of lim iting entrance into the Cossack estate on the Don, save for several mass enrollments of Ukrainian peasants.9 The 1835 Don Charter established zamknutost strict controls on the enrollment into or exit from the Cossack estate, as a “ privilege" o f Cossack service. At first glance, this segregation might seem to resemble the endogamy which characterized the Russian estates. However, this principle assumed greater resonance for the Don Cossacks when combined with their putative ownership o f the territory o f the Don. During the 1860s, when the reformist spirit was ascendant, liberal voices on the Don challenged the theory and substance o f Cossack zam knutostChapter 3 described the fierce debate waged over the unfettered property rights o f Don landowners, including the right to sell land to non-Cossacks. Proponents o f this policy, drawn primarily from

7Kh.I. Popov, "Po povodu stat'i: 'Malorossiiane v voiske Donskom,'" Donskoi Vestnik 47 (1867): 186-188 and K.V. Markov, “ Kresf iane na Donu,” Sbornik XI (1912): 1-68; 13(1915): 25-113. *Vsepoddaneishii otchet o deistviakh Voennago Ministerstva za I860 god (St. Petersburg, 1863), 220. 9I.I.Krasnov, "Malorossiiane v Voiske Donskom" Donskoi Vestnik 41 (1867): 163. 311

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the upper layers o f Don society, further advocated recruiting a fresh contingent to bolster the local Cossack population, arguing that an infusion o f commercially minded newcomers would stimulate an economic flowering on the Don that would ultimately benefit all the Cossacks. As M ikhail Krasnov argued, “zamknutost' is not a privilege. It is a burden that was imposed on us by previous politicians who wished to keep the Don Cossacks in a precarious state."10 The stated purpose o f this policy was functional rather than a philosophical endorsement o f intra-estate harmony; but those opposed to easing entrance to the Host, the kazakomany, attacked not only the economic logic o f this strategy but objected on principle to inserting a non-Cossack cohort in the Host for whatever reason. In 1868 the War Ministry struck at Cossack zamknutost" by reducing the legal barriers to enrollment in the Cossack estate, at the same time easing the process for Cossacks seeking to enroll in a different estate. This was an example o f the concerted effort at that time to integrate the Cossacks into the Imperial legal framework. The policy also reflected the policy o f Don reformers, who advocated that enrollment could invigorate the Host economically by attracting new citizens w ith non-military specialties. In the first year a whopping 16,616 took advantage of new law to enroll in the Don Host,

l0Krasnov, "O pozemel'noi zamknutosti na Donu (otvet Ust'-Medveditskomu dvorianinu)" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 13 (1863): 88. 312

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

as compared with the twenty-four able to penetrate the ranks in 1861." This influx defied the prediction o f ataman Chertkov, who had assured the Main Administration o f Cossack Hosts that the new law would have minimal impact.12 In response, new restrictions were implemented requiring the ataman's personal approval o f all new enrollments.13 Perhaps officials were genuinely alarmed by the response, or perhaps they were influenced xoltcface by War M inistry thinking at the time, when, after contemplating the idea o f de­ emphasizing the m ilitary role o f the Cossacks, the Cossack Legislative commission reconfirmed the traditional mode o f Cossack service [see Chapter 3]. The increased scrutiny notwithstanding, enrollment in the Cossack estate remained a legal possibility, with the approval o f a two-thirds majority o f a stanitsa assembly, but the Don Cossacks proved to be inveterate protectors o f Cossack dignity. The rate with which Don stanitsas accepted new members, as well as that with which Don Cossacks enrolled in other estates, was demonstrably lower than those the other Cossack Hosts.14Z.I. Shchelkunov, in his presentation o f the statistics cited above, attributed the

11Vsepoddaneishii oichet... za 1861 god, 248; Vsepoddaneishii otchet...:a 1868 god, 12. l2Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rostovskoi oblasti [hereafter GARO] f. 46, op. I . d. 894, II. 4-7. '}Sioletie Voennago Ministerstva, 1802-1902 (St. Petersburg, 1902), XL part 1, 648-652. ,4For example, in 1900 the Kuban Host (the second largest Host), enrolled 3,053 new Cossacks as opposed to 907 for the Don; in 1910 the corresponding figures were 6,402 and 1,399. Vsepoddaneishii oichet...za 1900 god; Vsepoddaneishii otchel...za 1910 313

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Cossacks' declining share in the Don population to their low “ artificial growth." Compelling economic factors help explain the Don Cossacks' peculiar reluctance to welcome new members. Inductees immediately became eligible for land allotments, and while other smaller Hosts had yet to experience serious land shortages, growing land hunger on the Don made this less attractive to enterprising agriculturalists. On the other hand, one can suggest that the Don Cossacks, as the largest and oldest o f the Cossack Hosts, felt a unique obligation to close ranks and protect the purity o f the Cossack estate. There is anecdotal evidence that stanitsa communities occasionally succumbed to the blandishments o f rich merchants hoping to take advantage o f Cossack exemptions from customs duties. For example, a local journalist fumed at the proceedings in Konstantinovskaia stanitsa in 1912. where N.I. Siviakov was admitted to the martial estate after doling out 3000 rubles to local notables. One o f the arguments offered in support o f his dubious qualifications to be a Cossack was that he could always find another stanitsa ready to accept him .13 Reformist and kazakoman activists engaged in an exclusively Cossack discourse over what it still meant to be a Cossack. Reformists pushed Cossacks to embrace new, civilian-oriented professions; kazakomany encouraged the rank-and-file to affirm their

god. l3Nabliudavshii, "Stanichnyia iazvy"Go/os Kazachestva 29 (1912): 347-348. The author estimated that Siviakov stood to save 5,000 rubles per year in taxes on four enterprises. Stanichnik, "Nash Krai. Generalo-Efremovskaia stanitsa" Donskaia Gazeia 57 (1913):2, tells a similar tale. 314

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

loyalty to the Cossack tradition o f loyal service. But despite their disparate views on this fundamental question, both sides contributed to a view o f the Cossacks as a discrete group with particular, abiding interests. Both frequently posed direct contrasts between the Cossacks and other groups, some o f whom were explicitly labeled as “ enemies.” Whether motivated by economic, political, or cultural motives, Cossack spokesmen advanced beyond immediate economic, political, or cultural issues to articulate a range o f supposedly innate characteristics - beyond martial prowess - that differentiated the Cossacks from other groups. The unique status o f the Cossacks was the reference point for all liberal reform proposals, even those which promised to alter the nature o f Cossack service.

Inogorodnie O fficial nomenclature served to reinforce feelings o f Cossack exclusiveness in the face o f an increasingly dynamic social mix, marginalizing competing groups by reducing them to a nondescript status. As late as 1892, official censes o f the War Ministry lumped all non-Cossacks into the category “ non-Cossack (nevoiskovoe) estate [sic]." The most common label ascribed to non-Cossacks was “ inogorodnii." an archaic word that literally refers to person from a different city, but which acquired a specialized meaning within the Cossack Hosts. It might be best rendered in English as “ non-local."16 The local press

,6DaPs Tolkovoi slovar' did not recognize the Cossack-specific usage. The USSR Academy o f Sciences dictionary included this secondary definition: Slovar' sovremennogo Russkogo literalurnogo iazyka (Moscow-Leningrad, 19S6), V, 362. Holquist translates the term as “ outlander” in his dissertation, “ A Russian Vendee." 315

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

also employed the fu ll array o f standard Russian vocabulary for outsiders (chuzhdye, prishlye, postoronnye) to describe non-Cossacks; some earned the description “ wholly alien” (sovershenno chuzhdye). The precise meaning o f inogorodnii gave cause to confusion. The protocols o f the Don Committee meeting in the 1860s to discuss reforms to the Don charter established what would seem to be a straightforward definition: “ The term inogorodnie is understood to include all persons who do not belong to the Cossack estate.” 17 But in the work o f an agricultural conference held in 1903. “ it became clear that not all members understood the term inogorodnii in the same way. Peasants, and a few other members, considered indigenous peasants to be inogorodnie. while Cossack representatives interpreted the term to cover only recently arrived (prishlye) peasants and raznochinisy This question is not merely semantic: although inogorodnii had a neutral connotation when used in official documents, it also carried an opprobrium in popular discourse. Hostility toward inogorodnie, w rit large, was endemic: the more radical voices among Don patriots demanded the expulsion o f inogorodnie from the Host; individual stanitsas had to be restrained from enacting local (and illegal) restrictions on

l7GARO f. 46. op. 1, d. 698,1. 7. "A.M . Grekov, “ Nuzhdy v trudakh mestnykh sel’ sko-khoziaistvennykh komitetov,” Sbornik V (1904): 2. The committee resolved to ban land rental to inogorodnie, using the latter definition. 316

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

inogorodnie settlement.1" The unvarnished hostility attached to the term robbed it o f unprejudiced descriptive value. For example, Grekov bemoaned the fact that “ there is a great deal o f land [on the Don] which benefits not the community, as it should, but a few rich [Cossacks] who have entered into shady ties with inogorodnie."20 Considering the range o f social, occupational, or ethnic categories that he could have employed, it is telling that Grekov chose the term inogorodnie as people likely to have forged “ shady ties.” Public opinion frequently held inogorodnie responsible for most o f the crimes committed in the Host.:i As noted above, the status o f the native peasant contingent in relation to the term inogorodnii caused confusion. To accommodate “ their” peasants, Don authors included them in the categories "core population” or “ core inhabitants.” " But even this identification also lacked solidity. When Don ethnographer I.V. Timoshchenkov enumerated the population a local peasant community, he divided the residents into

'"GARO f. 46, op. 1, d. 2325,11. 2-6. :oA.M. Grekov, “ K istorii razvitiia obshchinno-zemel'nikh poriadkov na Donu,” Sbornik V III (1908): 47. :i[Prianinshik]ov, "Po povodu zametki g. Povsemestnago" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 3 (1863): 20; Kh. P., "Po povodu stat’i 'Razsmotrenie voprosa o dopushchenii inogorodnykh v Voisko Donskoe'" Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti 24 (1863): 177-179; GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1022, II. 72-73 "W hen twenty-five percent o f admissions to the Don Polytechnical Institute was set aside for the core population o f the Don, this term was intended to include “ not only those o f Cossack origin, but peasants and merchants who have been settled here since the distant past (izstarykh vremen)” : GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 2 0 ,1. 13. 317

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

“ Ukrainian peasant core residents'’ and inogorodnie, but when describing a Cossack stanitsa, he employed the categories “ Cossacks” and inogorodnie. As the latter figure was over two thousand, this surely included numerous “ Ukrainian peasant core residents."23 The kazakoman press openly encouraged suspicion o f outsiders by frequently casting inogorodnie as predators. One local polemicist attributed a drop in the “ Cossack spirit” to the Don schools, where “ almost all the teachers are people entirely alien to the Cossacks.... When pointing out, for example, the outstanding events in the history o f the state, they do not utter one word on the participation o f the Don Cossacks, and by the way, not one event in Russia took place without the participation o f the Cossacks.” 24 Although Don liberals generally refrained from inflammatory rhetoric, their criticisms of state policy could not but have fomented “ us versus them” resentments. For example, they frequently drew attention to the fact that non-Cossacks enjoyed the benefits o f a Host civilian administration that was financed primarily by the rental o f reserve lands which were supposedly the communal property o f the Cossacks.25

Peasants

23I.V. Timoshchenkov, “ Sidorskaia volost', Usf-Medveditskago okruga,” Shornik V (1904); 70; Timoshchenkov, “ Stanitsa Nizhne-Chirskaia. Statistiko-ekonomicheskii ocherk," Shornik VI (1906): 115-116. 24N.P. “ Dukha ne ugasnaite” Golos Kazachestva 9(1911): 111. 25GARO, F. 162, op. 1, d. 17,1. 290. 318

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

For most rank-and-file Cossacks, contact w ith “ others” was lim ited to those peasants who rented land in their stanitsa or lived in a neighboring volost ’, or with merchants, both itinerant and settled. Despite their long history o f living in close proximity, an inflexible barrier separated Cossacks from the peasants. In addition to legal boundaries - as late as the eighteenth century, priests on the Don were forbidden to marry Cossack women to Ukrainian or Great Russian peasant settlers-* - the peasantry embodied the Cossack's most dire social fear. Even as their economic fortunes suffered, Cossacks retained a belief in their privileged status as free servitors o f the tsar, most prominently displayed while exercising political power at the local level through the stanitsa popular assembly (skhod). Shane O'Rourke has argued that participation in the skhod, the legal competence o f which far outpaced the local institutions available to any other rural communities in Imperial Russia, provided the core o f Cossack identity on the Don in the late Imperial period.27 Without traditional privileges, the Cossacks would be reduced to the condition o f peasants, their m ilitary service no different than that o f regular soldiers (a status ofien described as “ reguliarstvo” ). Opponents o f the reformist

:6S.I. Shchelkunov, ‘‘Voisko Donskoe pri atamane Aleksee Ivanovichem llovaiskom,” 28. 27Don liberals, as noted above, scorned the skhod as a primitive, essentially nondeliberative institution, easily manipulated by the Host administration, incapable o f positive action. Shane O'Rourke argues that “ outsiders” misinterpreted the raucous, seemingly anarchic atmosphere o f the sbor as a sign o f immaturity on the part o f the stanitsa population: the ubiquitous drinking and shouting were simply time-honored elements o f stanitsa political culture: “ Warriors and Peasants: The Don Cossacks in Late Imperial Russia” (Mss., 1999), 149-165. 319

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

program on the Don routinely attacked liberal proposals on the grounds that liberals secretly planned to make all Cossacks “ muzhiki " 2‘ Contemporary observers often confused the Cossacks for peasants. For example, French observer Anatole LeroyBeaulieu attributed Don Cossack intransigence over the zemstvo to "the predominance o f the peasant class in this region, and its innate hostility, in principle, to anything new."29 Recall also Kuropatkin's comparison o f the Don Cossacks' economic situation to that o f Russian peasants in his 1900 report. Cossacks themselves would have taken mortal offense at this confusion. The natural rivalry between the peasants and Cossacks may have been rooted in deeper cultural patterns. Anthropologists make the broad distinction between sedentary and nomadic societies, defined as much by world view as by relative m obility.30 Where sedentary cultures maintain collective memories o f localized, preferably fertile sites, nomadic cultures, fittingly, hold nostalgia for wide open spaces. The Don Cossacks at the turn o f the twentieth century are not an easy group to fit into either o f these categories. One might suggest that they were nearing the end o f a centuries-long conversion from a nomadic to sedentary existence, with one indicator o f this being the

“ GARO f. 55, op. I, d. 1428,1. 60. :9Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire o f the Tsars and the Russians (New York-London, 1894), I, 170. In fact, Don peasants joined landowners in supporting the zemstvo in the fateful Committee o f 106. “ John Alexander, Motions before Nationalism (Chapel H ill, 1982), 14-53. 320

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

late surge in monument construction. As early as the middle o f the nineteenth century observers noted the great reluctance o f Cossacks to abandon the homestead for the horse. Yet nostalgia for the steppe (or the open seas) continued to occupy a prominent place in Cossack mythology. Cossack disdain for peasants may well have been grounded in aversion to what they, the Cossacks, had become. Popular opinion held that peasants had been invidious to the Cossack way o f life by plowing under pasture lands while Cossacks were on service, thus undermining the traditional Cossack livestock economy and setting in place the chain o f events whereby more and more hands were trying to scrape out a meager existence from an ever shrinking supply o f land.31 Although Cossack authors assumed a fundamental distinction between the Cossacks and peasants, the categories for this differentiation were not always transparent. The Russian estate system, which organized the tsar's subjects according to their duties and obligations, does not adequately explain the unabated hostility toward peasant immigrants. By cultivating the land and, whenever possible, acquiring small plots, these peasant arrivistes were simply doing the work o f peasants. So the Cossacks looked to the past, contrasting the Cossacks' eternal vigilance in defending the Russian throne w ith the peasantry's more placid history. In addition to establishing an implied debt on the part o f the state, this historical discourse also accounted for the embarrassing inability o f the Cossacks to compete with the peasants. As Don deputy Andrei Petrovskii explained in a

3IA.I. Petrovskii, Donskie deputaty vo Il- i Gosudarstvennoi Dume. Istoricheskaia spravka (St.Petersburg, 1907), 34. 321

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

speech before the second Duma, "the Cossack had little time to learn to cultivate the land...."32 Some Cossacks asserted that their history had forged a superior physical type, immediately distinguishable from the peasant.33 Liberals, on the other hand, insisted that the Host's tradition autonomy had imbued the Cossacks with a greater capacity for civic initiative than their peasant neighbors.34 The struggle against the peasantry was not merely symbolic or rhetorical. At the outset o f the reform period, most observers agreed that the average Cossack was satisfied in his economic condition,33 a perception that would crumble by the turn o f the twentieth century, due primarily to diminishing land allotments. The 1835 Don Charter established a standard of thirty dcsiatinas per Cossack male as the amount o f land necessary to equip him self for military service. Due to the diversity o f methods for calculating and distributing the Cossack pa i, Host officials could never provide accurate statistics on the size o f allotments. But there was no doubt that these allotments were shrinking, falling to less than ten desiatinas per male by I909.36 In addition, the last quarter o f the nineteenth

32Ibid.. 34. 33GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 821, II. 60-61. 34Efremov raised this point when arguing for the compatibility o f the zemstvo with Cossack traditions: Ivan Efremov, Voprosy zemskago Khoziaistva v Donskoi oblasti (Novocherkassk, 1905), 28. 35GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 821, II. 8-9. 360 ’ Rourke, 109-137. 322

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

century witnessed a fundamental shift from stock-breeding to grain production on the Don. Land hunger in other regions, particularly the southern Black Earth zone, drove multitudes o f peasants to the Don seeking not Cossack freedom, but perhaps enough land to support their families. Cossack agriculture suffered from most o f the hindrances one normally associates with Russian peasant communities - small scale, non-contiguous allotments, and irrational rotation patterns. Moreover, the Cossack suffered from his relative inexperience at grain production and. more importantly, the costs o f Cossack service. In 1900. the War Ministry estimated that it required 200 rubles to equip a Cossack for service, but during debate in the Fourth Duma. Don deputy A.A. Nazarov introduced the figure o f 1,303.50 rubles as the amount an average Cossack "lost" over the course o f serving through all three lines.17 Also, the young male Cossack was required to spend extended periods away from the home from the age eighteen until thirty-two. A.M. Grekov noted that the often demoralizing effect o f m ilitary service further handicapped the Cossack domestic economy.3" When Cossacks were unable to finance their own service, they were compelled to turn to their stanitsa administration for financial assistance. In return, the Cossack would relinquish his allotment, which the stanitsa

37S.G. Svatikov, Rossiia i Don (1549-1917): izsledovanie po istorii gosudarstva i administratixnago praxa ipoliticheskago dvizheniia na Donu (Vienna, 1924), 573. 3lGrekov, Priazov'e i Don. Ocherki obshchestvennoi i ekonomicheskoi zhizni kraia (St. Petersburg, 1912), 176. 323

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

would lease until the assistance was recovered. More times than not, the lessor would be a newly arrived peasant. Owing to these pressures, the operation o f the Peasant Land Bank on the Don (established in 1882) rankled at Cossack sensibilities, as if the state were intervening to aid to those who would dispossess the Cossacks o f their legacy, rather than protecting the integrity o f the Host. In 1907 the Finance M inistry acquiesced to longstanding demands from the Don by permitting Cossacks to take advantage o f the Bank under limited circumstances: Cossacks could receive assistance for private land sales, but were ineligible to purchase land directly from the Bank. The Don Noble Assembly quickly challenged this measure as inadequate. Marshall o f the Nobility Leonov pressed the War Ministry to convene an interagency commission that further expanded Cossack access, including representation on the Board o f Directors.34 Rank-and-file Cossacks, however, most likely shared the sentiment o f N. Iakunov, who wrote to Khariton Popov in 1907 asking if the ataman could not convince "Piter” to close the Peasant Bank once and for all.40 Apropos o f the above discussion on the term inogorodnii, Don publicists often expressed sympathy for the plight o f native peasants. "Let them be assured," wrote Ivan Krasnov in 1868. "that none o f the Don Cossacks, with whom they share common

3,GARO f. 162, op. 1, d. 20, II. 21-23. 40GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1024, II. 58-59. 324

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

interests and needs, see them as aliens.” 41 But when economic pressures intensified, there was no confusion over where primary loyalties lay: “ Peasants are an industrious people, their concerns also merit concern, but then the Don is not America and the land o f the Don should be the property [vladenie] o f the Cossacks!” 42 Kalmyks The Kalmyks, distant ancestors o f the Mongols, formed a contingent o f 60,000, occupying the barren terrain o f the Transdon steppe, as well as a problematic swath o f the Don social fabric. W riting in 1927, Isaak Bykadorov proudly averred his solidarity with these “ Buddhist Cossacks,” considering them closer to him than Great Russians.43 Perhaps such intimate connections were forged during the course o f the Russian C ivil War. but in the pre-1914 period there was no talk o f “ Buddhist Cossacks." As with native peasants, the Cossacks accepted the Kalmyks as legitimate constituents o f the Host, even i f they were not strictly “ ours.” To w it, a draft proposal for a new Don Charter from the early 1860s proposed that the preamble read: “ The primary [osnovnoej population o f the Don Host consists o f the Don Cossacks themselves and the Kalmyks, who have been adjoined [prichislennye] to the Cossacks, occupying the southern territory o f the Host. Moreover, temporarily obligated peasants are settled throughout the territory

4lKrasnov, “ Malorossiiane v Voiske Donskom,” Donskoi Vestnik 42 (1867): 168. 42V. Puzanov, “ Zemlevladenie Dontsov,” Golos Kazachestva 8 (1911): 97. 43Kazachestvo. Mysli sovremennikov o proshlom, nasioiashchem i budushchem kazachestva [facsimile o f 1928 edition] (Rostov-on-Don, 1992), 95-96. 325

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

o f the Host.” 44

The Kalmyks established a settled existence under the administration o f the Don Host only after an extended, contentious history. Over the course o f the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Kalmyk khans entered into, and broke, numerous alliances with the Russian government. Michael Khodarkovsky has attributed this seeming inconstancy on the part o f the Kalmyks to a fundamental clash o f political cultures: Russian diplomacy assumed that any foreign alliance entailed the political submission o f its partner, while Kalmyk elders considered their relations with Moscow (and later St. Petersburg) to be based on mutual independence and self-interest.45 Tellingly, a contemporary Cossack interpretation o f these discordant relations placed all blame on the Kalmyk willfulness.46 Given the fluid, often volatile nature o f steppe politics, relations between the Don Host and Kalmyks alternated between cooperation and conflict. Cossack starshina were versed in the Kalmyk language in order to conduct direct negotiations.47 Both sides complained to the central Russian government o f abuses perpetrated by the other. The losing clans

“ GARO f. 243, op. 1. d. 41.1. 36. “ Michael Khodarkovsky, Where Two Worlds Met: The Russian State and the Kalmyk Nomads, 1600-1771 (Ithaca, 1992). 46N.A. Maslakovets, "Statisticheskoe opisanie kochev'ia Donskikh Kalmykov." Trudy Donskogo Voiskovogo Slatisticheskago Komiteta 2 (1874): 7-18. 47Seniutkin, "Neskol'ko slov o Done, po povodu gazetnikh statei" in Dontsy: V 2kh ch.: Istoricheskie ocherki voennykh deistvii, biografii starshin proshlogo veka, zametki po sovremennogo hyta, vzgliadna isloriiu voiska Donskogo (Moscow, 1866), 38-40. 326

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

from internecine Kalmyk power struggles often sought haven in the Host. It was such a contingent that was granted permission by Catherine II to “ settle” on the Transdon steppe in 1786, nearly a half century after the Kalmyks had fled from the Russian steppes for their native Junguria. Like the Cossacks, the Kalmyks were considered an “ irregular force” under the authority o f the War Ministry. They bore m ilitary obligations, yet could avoid actual field service by supplying the Ministry w ith horses. In 1891 the terms o f service for Kalmyk were adjusted so that they were virtually the same as those o f the Cossacks. This occurred only seven years after the formation o f Sal'sk okrug, home to the Kalmyks, from the eastern most area o f Cherkassk okrug. Even given the rudimentary standards o f the Don Host, Sal’sk never received the fu ll complement o f civilian administrative agencies and was frequently represented by Cherkassk or First Don okrugs in Oblastwide convocations. I f peasants symbolized the sedentarization o f the Don. the presence o f the Kalmyks recalled the era o f the “ W ild Field.” As late as the early nineteenth century. Kalmyks raided Don stanitsas for livestock during seasonal campaigns. When examining the tone and categories Don authors employed to describe the Kalmyks, the outside observer cannot help but be struck by the parallels with Russian representations o f the Cossacks. (This irony was apparently lost on contemporaries.) The editor o f the Donskie Voiskovye Vedomosti associated them w ith Kirghiz, cannibals, and other “ ignorant

327

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

nations."41 In an ambitious ethnographic sketch, N .A. Masiakovets argued that the Kalmyks (ca. 1867) were making the transition from being “ slave[sj o f nature" to a society that understood the need for “ physical and mental labor."44 An official with the Don Consistory attributed poverty among the Kalmyks to “ a lack o f fam iliarity with agricultural labor, along with an inborn laziness, apathy, and ignorance.” 50 Cossacks adopted a patronizing attitude toward the Kalmyks; they stoutly accepted their “ white man's burden” o f rescuing the Kalmyks from their superstition, mysticism, and aversion to productive labor. Masiakovets confidently predicted that continued contacts between the Cossacks and the Kalmyks would “ have their civilizing influence, acquainting the nomads with the comforts o f their newly settled life, with the advantages o f trade and industry."51 There was a strong religious aspect to this program. The Kalmyks were assumed to be under the thrall o f their Lamaist clergy, who clung to a stubborn particularism. Efforts at converting the Kalmyks to Orthodoxy, however, bore little fruit: one well-financed mission begun in the 1870s attracted only nine recruits in

4llb id „ 105. 44Maslakovets, 3-4. 50S. G. Pavlovlskii, Kratkie svedeniia o donskikh kalmykakh (Novocherkassk, 1911), 2. 5'Masiakovets, 29. 328

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

nine years.52 This Orthodox activity would seem to elevate the cause to a Russian, rather than Cossack, scope. But Don authors were jealous o f a special Cossack role. W riting in 1903, the liberal Ivan Popov argued that the Cossacks, given their inveterate honesty, were the best suited for interaction w ith the Kalmyks, as “ models o f hard work and efficiency"; inogorodnie, on the other hand, “ exploit [the Kalmyks] as much as they can."53 The problematic relationship between the Cossacks and Kalmyks makes it difficult to use the estate definition ascribed by the state as the prime category o f Don Cossack consciousness. Kalmyk service was acknowledged. For example, when preparing for the 1897 census, the Don Statistical Committee proclaimed that the Kalmyks should not be included among “ foreigners" (inorodtsy) within the Host, “ since they live in stanitsa communities, just as the Cossacks, and perform the very same military service as the Cossacks."54 This formula, “ performing the same service as the Cossacks," was frequently invoked, apparently as a device for excluding the Kalmyks from the ranks o f the actual Cossacks. Local presentations o f Host population statistics

52Pavlovskii, 10. In 1894, following the death o f the Lamai baksha, the symbolic leader o f the Kalmyk clergy, the head o f Kalmyk missions within the Don Consistory requested that the Ataman simply abolish the position as superfluous. Ataman Sviatopolk-Mirskii declined to follow this advice. Ibid., 24. 53GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 1430, II. 1-2. The censor forbade publication o f this article, finding it “ not without tendentiousness.” Ibid, I. 1 (verso). 54GARO f. 353, op. 1, d. 379,1. 43. 329

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

always maintained a distinct category for the Kalmyks. This was not the case with the War Ministry: the classifications employed in the official annual reports varied over time, but the Kalmyks were never separated from the Cossacks. One can only speculate as to which o f the various distinguishing features ethnicity, language, religion, history, way o flife - prevented the Cossacks from fully acknowledging the Kalmyks as “ d o n t s y The racial element cannot be discounted as an automatically disqualifying factor. Whatever their ambivalence toward contemporary Great Russians, recall that Cossack historians endeavored to establish that the original Cossacks were o f predominantly Russian ethnicity, w ith only a small admixture o f other Steppe peoples. But beyond a narrow biological framework, this would seem to be a classic example o f a “ nesting Orientalism."55 O f all the social groups living in the Don Host, the Kalmyks alone provided the Cossacks the opportunity to assert a fundamentally superior level o f civilization. W hile the peasants, with their sheer numbers advanced command o f agricultural technique, and inogorodnie, w ith their inborn cunning, offered themselves as rivals to Cossack preeminence on the Don, the Kalmyks - seen as indolent, feckless, and superstitious - were mere “ native peoples." For Cossack activists to have accepted these aborigines into the Cossack fold as equals, rather than assuming a quasi-protectorate over them, would have obviated concentrated efforts to promote the Cossacks as a hardworking community possessing a natural aptitude for civic initiative.

55See Daniel Brower and Edward Lazzerini (eds.), Russia's Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, / 700-1917 (Bloomington, 1997). 330

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Jews, Armenians, and those "entirely alien” I f Cossack authors betrayed a certain ambivalence with regard to their peasant and Kalmyk co-habitants, their attitudes toward other groups were starkly hostile. Cossack hostility toward Jews has become a leitmotiv in Russian cultural history. Naturally, the more scabrous representations o f Jews emanated from the rabid kazakomctn press, but even more liberal figures o f the Cossack intelligentsia displayed their subtle antiSemitism. In a contemporary overview o f the annexation o f Rostov uezd, Nikolai Krasnov gratuitously alluded to the 20,000 Jews o f Rostov as an extra burden for the Host administration (in addition to the 280,000 other new residents).56 In a 1905 address to the Noble Assembly on state indifference toward the Cossacks, Aleksei Karasev bitterly noted that since the liberation o f Russia's serfs, much had been done for "even for Jews, in a word, the age of'supplementary' liberation bums brightly."57 The opportunity for interaction between Jews and Cossacks was actually quite limited. In addition to Imperial laws restricting Jews to the so-called Pale o f Settlement, special legislation forbade Jews from living in the territory o f the Don Host. An 1872 survey found only 210 Jews in Novocherkassk.51 There was. however, a burgeoning

56Krasnov, "Donskoe voisko. kak glavnyi chlen kazach'ei sem'i" Voennyi sbornik 9(1888): 197. S7Karasev "Chresvychainomu Oblastnomu Dvorianskomu Sobraniiu. Doklad A.A. Karaseva" June 12,1905 (Mss.). 5*A.M. Savel'ev "Novocherkask po perepisi 15-go Dekabria 1872 goda" Trudy Donskogo Voiskovogo Statisticheskago Komitela 2 (1874): 100. 331

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Jewish population in nearby Rostov, which was incorporated into the Host in 1887. Morever, Don Cossack regiments were regularly stationed in the Warsaw, Vilnius, and Odessa m ilitary districts, amongst the largest concentrations o f Jews in the Empire.34 There was nothing original in the anti-Semitism o f the Don Cossacks: the Jews were a bacillus infecting the moral health o f the community. Cossacks were remanded to remain vigilant against Jewish efforts to insinuate themselves in the community by duplicitous means. An article in the local press, purportedly from a Cossack recently returned from third line duty, complained that baptized Jews were teaching in the Don schools: "we had hoped, at least, that the Hebrew tribe would not disturb the Cossack spirit with its presence." This prompted an editorial note that "A ll these Jews o f course are baptized, but keeping in mind the ease with which this tribe moves from one faith to another, according to circumstances, we do not have the moral right to call them ours ( 5 V O / ) . " 60

Kazakoman opponents o f the zemstvo and other liberal institutions on the Don

warned that Jews would quickly overrun these offices. Peasant unrest on the Don during 1905-07 was blamed on the pernicious influence o f Jewish newspaper editors in Rostov.61 In coverage o f national politics, Jews appeared behind all suggestions to dismantle the Cossack estate.

5,Robert McNeal, Tsar and Cossack (Oxford, 1987), 56. “ V.B., "Bol'noi vopros" Golos Kazachestva 22 (1912): 260. 6IA.M. Grekov, Priazov'e i Don, 49, 76-77. 332

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

As is often the case, Cossack anti-Semitism seemed to reflect a generalized hostility toward the prototypical “other” rather than engaging specific aspects o f Jewish existence. Most Cossacks never encountered a Jew in their day-to-day affairs. When Don authors singled out groups “ entirely alien” to the Don, Jews were often clustered along with Armenians - with Germans and Poles sometimes appended to the list. The association with Armenians is telling. Often dubbed “ the Jews o f the Caucasus,” the Armenian presence on the Don dated back to 1778, when Catherine II established Nakhichevan-on-Don to spur commercial expansion. Rumors lingered that this Armenian community, jealous o f its advantageous position, sabotaged plans at the turn o f the nineteenth century to relocate the Host capital to the same site where Rostov-on-Don would later flourish, far outpacing Novocherkassk as a trading and industrial center.62 An 1868 report on the Armenians evokes Don representations o f the Kalmyks: “ an instinctive barbarism still dominates their everyday lives...the majority is still bound by an Asiatic lifestyle w ith Crimean Tatar customs that they are in no position to change.” 63 But when A .M Grekov included Nakhichevan in his 1893 survey on the diverse residents o f the Don, his ostensibly benign description o f tradition-encrusted mores masked a portrayal o f the Armenians as subtle exploiters "living in Nakhichevan,

6:E.P. Savel'ev, Ataman M .i Platov i osnovanie Novocherkasska. (Novocherkassk, 1906), 37-38. 63“ Nakhichevan na Donu, ego administrativnaia i obshchestvennaia zhizn',” Donskoi Vestnik 4(1867): 15. 333

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

earning [their] money in Rostov."64 As with their relations with peasants, economic fears blended with deeper cultural reservoirs o f distrust in stoking Cossack hostility toward Armenians and Jews because o f their prominence, at least in popular consciousness, among merchants on the Don. One is struck by the stark moral categories Cossacks invoked to attack the practices o f nonCossack merchants in the Host. Witness the following description from 1888: Most [merchants] arrive without any means [sreiistva} at all. but soon are able to find them on the Don, making use o f the sim plicity and g u llib ility [doverchivost'\ o f the local population, and after commencing operations, they exploit the people. But then as soon as they are able to amass a decent amount o f capital, they immediately move their activity either to their place o f permanent residence or to other centers, which offer more benefits for commerce, taking with them, irretrievably, all the riches obtained from the region.65 Whatever labels used to define these groups - meshchane and kuptsy, among others Cossack writers were not referring to estate-membership but to exploiters. Merchants, it was argued, employed various forms o f chicanery and flim -flam to cheat the honest. gullible Cossacks in the stanitsa. These images were often raised as part o f arguments to enlarge and enhance the paltry merchant element within the Cossacks, both to encourage commerce within the Host and to prop up the particular fortunes o f the Cossacks, so Don authors may have indulged in hyperbole to advance their arguments. But the ubiquitous

wGrekov, Sredi donskikh obyvatelei (Novocherkasstsy - Rosiovtsy - Taganrozhtsy - Nakhivantsy). Oblastnye ocherki i paralleli (Rostov-on-Don, 1894), 71. 65I.S. Koshkin and U . Zubkov, (eds.) Donskoe Torgovoe Obshchestvo i Ego znachenie v zhizni Donskago Kraia. (reprint o f 1888 edition] (Rostov, 1915), 8-9. 334

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

contrast between the manipulative, avaricious inogorodnii merchant versus the honest, fair-minded Cossack merchant, set against the background o f the population o f honest, naive Cossacks, indicates deep social acceptance o f these images among the Cossacks. It is not difficult to identify the stereotypical representation o f Jewish traders, although on the Don the agents were more likely to be Armenian. Armenians and, to a lesser extent, Jews, were sometimes singled out for their patently unscrupulous methods, but Don authors more commonly employed the catchall appellation “ inogorodnie" to categorize merchants. As the Cossack domestic economy tightened and growing numbers o f dontsy fell into debt either to their stanitsa community or to local moneylenders, whose ranks included Cossacks as well, images o f rapacious outsiders proved potent. Poles and Germans were often attached to catalogues o f "entirely alien" peoples on the Don. although their numbers were small, limited primarily to professional circles in the city. German landowners were a growing economic presence, particularly in Taganrog and Rostov okrugs.66 Both were prominent among the faculty o f the Don Polytechnic Institute, founded in 1907. But this concentration at the upper levels o f society did not prevent a popular hostility toward Germans from penetrating the Cossack masses. The death o f the relatively popular ataman Taube caused one barely literate donets to express his indignation over the respectful tone o f official eulogies: “ Surely everyone knows that this was a sly German - and a Baltic heretic at that - THE MAIN

“ A.M. Grekov, “ Khoziaistvo kolonistov v Taganrogskom okruge” Sbornik I (1901): 98-106. 335

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ENEMY OF THE COSSACK.” 67

Russians Perhaps the most challenging group for the Cossacks to unravel in terms o f identity were “ Russians.” The evidence is contradictory. Recall that Don historians felt a keen need to establish the Russian ethnic heritage o f the original Cossack settlers. In the preface we saw that Andrei Filonov reacted with confusion cum indignation when Don Cossacks questioned him about events in “ Rus'": "Amazing! It is as if the Cossacks don't consider themselves Russians." 61 In his 1862 report on the state o f the Host, Chief o f StafT prince Dondukov-Korsakov wrote that "Among the Cossacks ’moskal' and 'khokhol' are the generally accepted terms for residents o f Russian provinces and Little Russia. Briefly put, although these expressions are not hostile, they are far from affectionate."6*' A.M . Grekov observed in 1912 that it was still common to hear Cossacks ask "are you Russian? Did you marry a Russian?" but, he maintained, the Cossacks were nonetheless Russian people "to the core" (giuboko).70 To make sense o f these contradictory signals one must recognize how the Cossacks understood the term "Russian." When Cossacks proclaimed their Russian-ness.

67GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 675,1. I. 6,A. G. Filonov, Ocherki Dona (St. Petersburg, 1859), 3-4. M"Zapiska o Voiske Donskom" in Koshkin and Zubkov, 56. TOGrekov, Priazov'e i Don, 173. 336

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

they had in mind a formula that entailed allegiance to the Tsar, membership in the Orthodox Church, and association with imperial splendor -- throne, faith, and fatherland; it did not mean ethnic solidarity with the Russian nation. This distinction was apparent in debate over the Cossacks in the first Duma. Deputy Sedel'nikov from Orenburg attacked the Cossacks for their role in counter-revolutionary' repression and proposed their dissolution for being "an enemy to their own people." Unmoved by this salvo, the published response o f a group o f rightist deputies from the Don distanced the Cossacks from undifferentiated notions o f "the people": “ The Cossack population o f the Don Host has always been and remains loyal to its own ancient traditions o f serving its beloved tsar-father and dear motherland; as befits true sons o f the fatherland [sic], [the Cossacks] w ill act according to the dictates o f their Sovereign and state."71 This broad definition informed claims o f Russian ancestry for the original Cossacks; Don historians were specifically refuting theories o f a large Turkic-Tatar presence in the early Host, not establishing emotional ties with the Russian fam ily. In this way, the Cossacks could be included within the pale o f civilized Christian society, as distinct from the infidel, slavetrading Tatars. This is not to say that the Cossacks saw Great Russians or Ukrainians as "entirely alien" peoples. They recognized a larger agglomeration o f Slavic peoples, but had not fully developed their relationship to this mass. As noted in chapter 4, Don authors on

7lSvatikov, 502-503. 337

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

occasion expressed resentment over the condescending attitudes toward the Cossacks emanating from Russian society —a particular annoyance were those would-be ethnographers determined to portray the Don as a far-flung frontier inhabited by half­ domesticated savages. It is not clear, though, whether their strategy for overcoming such attitudes favored insinuating the Cossacks into the mainstream o f the Russian people or distinguishing the Cossacks as a discrete group. In 1928 Don Cossack M.A. Gorchukov penned an essay on his compatriots titled “ Cossacks - the best Russians."72 This seemingly unsophisticated formulation nicely illuminates the Cossack attitudes on the eve o f World War I which sought to accommodate ethnic kinship with the Russian fam ily, no matter how tenuous, while preserv ing a unique, privileged rank for the Cossacks. Don authors frequently identified “ native" peasants, by definition descendants o f families which had lived on the Don for generations, as Ukrainian (korennye malorossiisskie krestiane). thus recognizing their ancestral place o f origin along with linguistic and cultural traits as a marker for ethnicity. But many Don Cossacks, it was recognized, particularly “ lower" Cossacks, bore Ukrainian names and maintained traces o f Ukrainian dialect, yet no one spoke o f malorossiiskie kazaki (except historically, to refer to the Zaporozhian cossacks), or the even more awkward malorossiiskie dontsy, as i f something had taken place to cleanse the Cossacks o f Ukrainian ethnicity.

^Gorchukov, “ Kazaki - luchshie russkie liu d i" in Kazachesivo; Mysli sovremennikov o proshlom, nastoiashchem i budushchem, 110-117. 338

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

It may be argued that the Cossacks referred to native peasants as Ukrainian to distinguish them from the multitude o f the "immigrant" (prishlye) peasants who were undoubtedly o f Great Russian stock. But Don observers were reticent about identifying the latter by ethnic labels; one does not encounter the phrase "immigrant Great Russian peasant" in publicism o f this period. This inconsistency may have resulted from Cossack efforts to seek formulations that protected Cossack status. Ukrainians bore the onus o f stereotypes that portrayed them as embodying the quintessential peasant: hale, loyal, yet slow-witted. So to mark native peasants routinely as "Ukrainian" was to diminish any fears that they might challenge the Cossacks' primacy w ithin the Host. This effect was strengthened by use o f the colloquial khokhol. On the other hand, the great swell o f migrant Russian peasants to the Don was proceeding apace. Cossacks may have been reluctant to identify Russian peasants as such, preferring to employ a social category, peasant, which stood below the Cossack in the Imperial ranks, appended by the mildly derogatory "immigrant," to emphasize their status as outsiders in the Host, rather than associating these rivals with the dominant ethnic group o f the Empire. I f this supposition is correct, it would indicate both confusion and fear among the Cossacks as to their place in the "All-Russian" polity. It should be noted that the Don Cossacks also employed the term "katsap" to refer to the Great Russians, but this seems to have been directed to people o f means, not peasants.73

73Grekov, Priazov'e i Don, 45; GARO f. 55, op. 1, d. 28,1.40. 339

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

From the outset o f the reform era until the opening salvos o f the Great War, the evolution o f Don Cossack identity underwent numerous permutations. In the 1860s, Don liberals demanded that the state accord the Cossacks the same opportunities available to other Russian subjects, an outlook viewed with suspicion by traditionalists who looked to the throne to preserve the unique status enjoyed by the Cossacks. Both camps were forced to modify their perspectives. Frustrated by the War M inistry's intransigence, reformists increasingly cast the Cossacks as victims o f state neglect. On the basis o f this, they claimed the need for new protections, particularly in the economic realm, thus surrendering the ideal o f the Cossacks as Russians. The kazakomany, heartened by the retreat from the reformist impulse, especially the elimination o f the hated zemstvo, nonetheless remained dissatisfied with state efforts to bolster the substance o f Cossack privileges. Although no rapprochement ever occurred between the liberal and conservative parties o f Don society, both recognized that their beloved Cossacks were being overtaken economically and politically by other groups. Peter Holquist has asserted that since the end o f the C iv il War the idea o f the Cossacks has undergone the transition "from estate to ethnos."74 But this process was well underway during the waning years o f the Russian Empire. The familiar language o f

74Holquist, “ From Estate to Ethnos: The Changing Nature o f Cossack Identity in the Twentieth Century," in Nurit Schleifman (ed.). Russia at a Crossroads: History, Memory, and Political Practice (Portland, OR, 1998), 89-123. 340

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

estate privileges traditionally used to define identity had to be supplemented with a modem vocabulary to include such factors as economic interests, capacity for civic initiative, physical prowess, and political reliability in order to distinguish the Cossacks. Don Cossack authors proved to be flexible in employing these categories, depending on audience and the rival group in question. One constant delineator was the moral superiority o f the Cossacks. This was all in addition to the Don Cossack's supposedly native capacity for the military arts. Don Cossack civic leaders were teaming to speak the language o f incipient nationalism: they long assumed that group membership was the primary determinant o f an individual's behavior, but were increasingly aware o f the role o f economic competition and political organization as determinants o f social dynamics. This contrasts with an earlier view which defined social groups in terms o f their relationship with the tsar: “others" would invariably defer to the precedence o f the Cossacks, who demonstrably enjoyed the favor o f the Romanov court. Don liberals, who were generally well entrenched in Don and Imperial society, retained a preference for official petition as the favored means for affecting change. The kazakomany, standing closer to the social fray, demonstrated a sophisticated grasp o f modem ethnic politics -- complete w ith feigned disavowals o f being “ political.” 75 They

75M. Kholm skii asserted that all criticism o f his paper emanated from inogorodnie and “ politicians" (quotation marks in the original): S.Az [Kholm skii], Golos kazachestva 24(1912): 281. 341

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

understood that the envisioned Cossack revival would require a well-financed press, political representation, and cultural organization. An editorial from the inaugural issue o f Golos Kazachestva in 1911 lamented that, unlike other groups, only we, the Cossacks are silent....This is because we do not have purely [chisto] Cossack newspapers and journals, working only for the benefit and honor o f the Cossacks and protecting their ancient, unique historical way o f life from unwanted patrons, who see the Cossacks' destruction and conversion into peasants as the only possible solution from the present difficult moment in the centuries-old glorious life o f the Cossacks.76 Editorials and articles frequently branded the Don's representatives to the Duma as traitors for their liberal politics. But in addition, contributors to these papers articulated a Cossack identity grounded not just in the legal obligations and privileges o f the Cossack estate, but in a consciousness o f the Cossacks as a unique ethnic group (narodnost ’). The Cossack patriots were not simply backward-gazing romantics dreaming o f a past that never was, nor did they rely exclusively on Imperial favor. Publisher M. Kholmskii. marking the six-month anniversary o f Golos kazachestva, outlined the three guiding principles behind the publication: to raise the material well-being o f the Cossacks: to develop Cossack consciousness through education and cultural work; and. in order to preserve the Cossacks' m ilitary bearing, “ to revive the Cossack ideal and jo in [slit ] all Cossacks into a unifled family tied by blood relation."77 As this linkage between military prowess and blood ties would indicate, these Cossack patriots were not simple

lbGolos Kazachestva 1 (1911): 3. nS.Az [Kholm skii], Golos kazachestva 24 (1912): 281. 342

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

pawns o f the War Ministry, but constituted an element in the rise o f popular right-wing radicalism [Rawson, Loewe]. Their rhetoric was short on sentimental references to “obligations" and “ privileges," favoring instead emotionally charged salvos. They sought not merely to organize, but to mobilize. Leaders envisioned a "Cossack party" that would nominate candidates for Duma elections and an Empire-wide network o f Cossack clubs modeled on Polish and Armenian organizations. Not surprisingly, these pages produced the most striking assertions o f Cossack essential ism:. The Cossacks cannot die out, just as the Great Russians, Cherkess, Kirgiz, or Poles cannot die out, in the sense o f an ethnic group (narodnost 1. The Cossack w ill not cease to be a Cossack, and even at the last stage o f desolatioa . he w ill proudly declare himself to be a Cossack. To render the Cossack incapable o f carrying various duties and responsibilities would not be a difficu lt matter, but to diminish the Cossack spirit or wipe out the...ancestral seed would be impossible.7* Don intellectuals contributed most substantively to the definition o f the Cossack community by creating well developed concepts o f regional and corporate rights through their historical research. Prasenjit Duara has coined the term “ discent" to characterize “ tracing o f a history ... frequently linked to differentiating the self from the Other. The narrative o f discent serves as a template by which the cultural cloth w ill be cut and given shape and meaning."79 By contrasting the Host's vanguard role in defending the frontier

7,“ Novocherkassk 9 iiunia" Vestnik kazachestva 7(1913): 277. 79Duara, “ Historicizing National Identity, or Who Imagines Want and When” in Geoff Eley and Ronald Grigor Suny (eds.), Becoming National. A Reader (New York, 343

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

o f the Orthodox realm with the duplicity and incapacity o f others, Don historians effectively historicized the unique characteristics which they wished to impute to contemporary Cossacks. By cataloging the erosion o f Host privileges, prerogatives, and rights, they appealed to vestigial memories o f the Cossacks as “ free” men, inspiring their contemporaries to dream o f "freedom" from the economic pressures and political pretensions o f rival groups. Most importantly. Don historians affirmed Cossack dominion over the territory o f the Host, not just by virtue o f Imperial beneficence but by right o f conquest and settlement. When Cossacks referred to the Don as their homeland they were not indulging in sentimentality - as was mentioned above. Cossack mythology was often rooted in other territories - but asserting a possession sanctioned by the historical record and legal documentation. Consciousness that the land was “ sown with the blood and bones o f our ancestors” colored relations with “ others” more directly than perceptions o f unique qualities and emboldened some extraordinary proposals on the part o f the Cossacks. In 1906 the League for the Peaceful Resolution o f the Land Question was founded in response to radical demands for the immediate expropriation o f private landowners. One o f the league's proposals was to eject peasants from the Host, with compensation.10 The 1909 Land Conference witnessed spontaneous calls to expel

1996), 168. *°A.M. Grekov, “ K istorii zemel'nago voprosa na Donu, v sviazi s sovremennyn polozheniem i resheniem ego,” Sbornik V II (1907): 89-92. 344

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

inogorodnie. And the Don nobility raised numerous to exempt Don oblast from Imperial laws on land ownership based on continuous tenure." And the Cossacks received some justification o f their pretensions o f ownership o f the Don from Imperial authorities. Although the state did not take measures to stem the transfer o f land to outsiders, the War M inistry maintained the titular priv ilege o f the Cossacks to the territory o f the Don. This "ownership" manifested itself w ith the Cossacks enjoying representation in Oblast-wide convocations that far exceeded their proportion o f the population. A constant in the myriad proposals to implement the zemstvo on the Don was that stanitsa representatives must constitute a majority o f any elective zemstvo councils. For example, in 1909 a proposal emanating from the ataman's staff, which limited elections to the okrug level, projected 322 representatives on zemstvo councils: 191 from the stanitsas, 108 from private landowners, and only 23 from peasant communities." The stanitsas also accounted for a plurality (79 out o f 175) o f the curia which selected deputies for the first two Dumas." Although such symbolic endowments failed to reverse negative economic and demographic trends w ithin the Don Host, they may have salvaged for the Cossacks a tenuous faith in the tenacity o f an Imperial social hierarchy in which the Cossacks

"GARO f. 410, op. I, d. 1143, II. 6-8. "GARO f. 699, op. 1, d. 51, II. 13-14. "Svatikov, 493. When one considers that the majority o f private landowners, who held 47 votes, were Cossacks, the representation appears even more impressive. 345

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

occupied a privileged rank. This had potent consequences for group consciousness. Having recognized that traditional rights and privileges no longer protected the Cossacks from modem economic and political forces, it was left to the Cossack intelligentsia to articulate a fundamentally new, forward-looking identity.

346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Conclusion

In many ways, the Territory o f the Don Host o f 1861 embodied the “ old regime,” for better or worse. For reasons o f military expedience, this expansive, fertile region was administratively segregated from the rest o f the Empire, administered from St. Petersburg by the War M inistry. Within the Host, a rigid hierarchy divided the majority Cossack population from their peasant neighbors. The spirit o f duties and privileges bestowed personally by the Tsar, not rationally deliberated laws, defined the regulations governing the Host. The Don Cossacks resembled a medieval retinue more than a modem community; all able-bodied men were obligated to provide self-financed military service at the w ill o f their sovereign. Traditionally, this obligation lasted for life, but at least since the Don Charter o f 1835, the terms o f service were regularized, with the obligation “ limited” to twenty-five years, divided into active field-duty and reserve status. In return, the Cossacks enjoyed the tax-free use o f the land o f the Don - the 1835 Charter established a standard allotment o f thirty desiatinas o f land per adult male. Further, the Cossacks expressed their political w ill, at least at the local level, through the election o f local officials and collective resolution o f important economic and judicial matters at the stanitsa skhod, a faint echo o f the old Don krug. Entrance into, and egress from, the Cossack estate was impracticable, i f not impossible. Non-Cossacks were permitted to conduct business in the Host, but not to own land. It is little wonder that the reform-

347

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

minded Alexander II directed his War Minister to undertake a comprehensive review o f the administration o f all Cossack Hosts. The Don Cossack community was far from an undifferentiated mass; a social and economic elite achieved detachment during the eighteenth century. Imperial officials encouraged the pretensions o f this nascent aristocracy, granting the status o f nobility to Don Cossack officers in 1798, in violation o f the Cossack tradition forbidding permanent ranks. In the eighteenth century, St. Petersburg left grandee families on the Don to administer the Host with little interference. But during the nineteenth century, the War Ministry assumed a more active rule in governing, without bothering to consult the local nobility. Having achieved a position o f economic and social advantage, the leading Don families s till considered themselves Cossacks. On the one hand, the service tradition o f the Don Host compelled loyalty. On the other hand, Don nobles were reminded o f their status as Cossacks by the state, which denied them the fu ll range o f noble corporate rights on this basis. The relationship between the Don nobility and the Cossack rank-and-file was strained; popular attitudes blamed nobles for abandoning Cossacks for personal gain, even while the Don Noble Assembly yearned for recognition as the rightful guardian o f Cossack interests. From the ranks o f the nobility a local intelligentsia emerged, which assumed an increasingly critical stance toward the War M inistry's administration o f the Don. Although modest in its architecture and unloved by the Cossack rank-and-file, the

348

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Host center o f Novocherkassk provided a convenient base o f operations for the Don Cossack intelligentsia. Founded in 180S to replace old Cherkassk, Novocherkassk never overcame its disadvantageous location, existing as a dusty backwater town. It nonetheless offered sufficient cultural outlets and institutional resources to draw the cultivated Cossacks from their private estates. As activists strove to mold Novocherkassk into a "capital” city worthy o f the name by erecting memorials and museums, they lamented the city's primitive administration apparatus and meager commercial presence. From the outset o f the reform era, the Russian Empire wrestled with the accursed question o f how to reform the creaky structures o f the autocratic state without undermining the entire apparatus. The question acquired a unique contour on the Don, as state authorities contemplated whether the modest reforms implemented in other areas o f the Empire could be applied to this region, which until this point had lived under a legal state o f segregation from neighboring provinces. Alexander II had directed that wherever possible, barriers between the Cossacks and his other subjects be dismantled. During the reigns o f Alexander III and Nicholas II, state authorities reversed this outlook, reinforcing the idea o f the Cossacks as a fundamentally separate order. The impetus for reform may have emanated from St. Petersburg, but the idea o f dismantling the legal framework o f Cossack segregation found enthusiastic proponents among liberal-minded Don nobles who lobbied the War Ministry for the swift implementation o f a comprehensive reform program. Conservative elements on the Don,

349

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the so-called kazakomany, fiercely defended the standing legal status o f the Host as the hard-earned legacy o f the Cossacks' ancestors; they argued that the fu ll complement o f rights and privileges must remain intact. As attitudes in St. Petersburg shifted, Don liberals and kazakomany clashed over a series o f Don-specific issues: full rights over privately owned property, priorities in education. War Ministry stewardship over the Oblast, and, most famously, the applicability o f the zemstvo system to the Don. Underlying debate over these specific issues - which collectively composed the political side of the Cossack question - was a more fundamental disagreement over the nature o f the Cossacks. Liberals recognized that traditional service patterns had left their compatriots without necessary skills to cope with modem economic demands; consequently, they urged the state to allow more Cossacks to adopt civilian occupations. Don patriots championed the traditional definition o f the Cossack rooted in military service and exclusive privileges. On balance, one would have to judge the kazakomany the winners in this contest: the reform impulse on the Don suffered a fatal blow with the “ temporary suspension" o f the elective zemstvo system on the Don in 1882, and the program o f Don liberals never achieved popular resonance among the rank-and-file Cossacks. Neither side, however, could feel content with the dramatic impoverishment o f the Cossacks at the turn o f the century. Liberals pointed to this trend as justification for their reform program, while kazkomany blamed the influx o f outside elements for their plight, yet both agreed on the

350

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

need for state intervention to restore the economic health o f the Cossacks. In addition to engaging in civic activism, members o f the Don intelligentsia contributed their efforts to their community through historical study o f the Cossack past. In part, Don scholars sought to redress the tendency o f Russian historians to diminish the contributions o f the Don Host to seminal events in Imperial history by representing the Cossacks as a marauding band whose actions merited anention only during the storied rebellions o f Razin, Bulavin, and Pugachev. Local historians undertook a sustained effort to locate, organize, and preserve sources o f Don history. Although the ultimate goal o f a comprehensive, definitive history o f the Host proved elusive, a body o f Don Cossackcentric studies were published. These works emphasized the steadfast, independent role played by the Cossacks in defending the Orthodox realm against the Ottoman empire and its allies. In addition to praising the heroism and valor displayed by their ancestors on the battle field, Don historians also highlighted the former political autonomy enjoyed by the Don Host and cataloged its incremental demise at the hands Imperial officials. Don historians cultivated pride in the Cossack past, as well as establishing an implied debt on the part o f the state toward its loyal sons.

The Don Cossacks were experiencing an identity crisis o f sorts. This was fundamentally different than the situation that obtained in other “ small nations,” where a small determined band o f zealots fought to revive an seemingly extinguished identity or

351

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

disseminate a newly constructed identity among a skeptical or apathetic populace. According Miroslav Hroch's model for identity formation among “ small nations" in the context o f a multinational Empire, minority groups coalesced around a shared sense o f grievance against a dominant ethnic group. Although economic and estate conflict influence the process, the emotionally charged issues o f linguistic or religious persecution held the most potential for recruiting mass support. In addition to agitating against German, Russian, or Ottoman “ oppressors," national “ patriots" often had to coax their would-be co-nationals to shed their primary loyalty for the province, town, or other small frame o f reference and to embrace the nation. The Lithuanian or Slovene activist o f 1914 could only have marveled at the degree o f self-identification among the Don Cossacks, even without serious complaints over linguistic or religious violation, and at the devotion to the entire territory o f the Don Host as a homeland. For the Don Cossacks, the crisis lay not in self-recognition, but in adapting Cossack identity to the modem world - the ideological side o f Cossack question. Long accustomed to seeing group conflict in military terms, the Don Cossack population confronted a fundamentally new challenge, economic and cultural rivalry, as outsiders continued to inundate the Host. Previously, the Imperial center had mediated relations between the Cossacks and other social groups. With this arrangement no longer feasible, it was incumbent upon the Cossacks to define themselves in a new, highly competitive social landscape. The Don intelligentsia articulated Cossack grievances against non-

352

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

native contingents, but did so, unfortunately, without benefit o f a modem socio-political vocabulary; the archaic ("inogorodnie") and ambiguous (“ totally alien” ) terminology they employed to depict the social cosmology o f the Don renders it d ifficu lt to discern how would-be spokesmen viewed interpreted Cossack identity, in comparison. One might qualify Shane O'Rourke’ s formulation that the Don Cossacks were “ a nation in search o f an intelligentsia” 1 to say that the harried Don Cossack intelligentsia lacked the perspicacity to imagine an identity that transcended the bounds o f Imperial social relations. Both factions within the Don society adhered to principles mitigating > against any separatist agenda; reformists' liberal scruples oriented them toward breaking down barriers between peoples and regions; conservatives were unprepared to assert Cossack interests above those o f throne, faith, and fatherland. And neither was prepared to renounce the charisma o f Imperial privilege, whatever their accumulated frustrations. Nonetheless, the last few years before the outbreak o f World War I must have hardened attitudes toward Imperial or pan-Russian sentiments. The events o f I90S-07 aroused popular hostility toward the Cossacks in many quarters. Liberal Cossacks must have experienced disillusionment over the neglect, i f not hostility, toward Cossack interests in the state Duma. The kazakomany were left dissatisfied with the dearth o f concrete measures taken to support official pronouncements o f gratitude to the Don for its role in defending the old order.

‘O’ Rourke, Warriors and Peasants: The Don Cossacks in Late Imperial Russia (Mss., 1999), 244. 353

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Despite lacking a unique language or religion, the Don Cossacks shared an abundance o f distinguishing group characteristics - homeland, martial esprit de corps, historical continuity, folk culture, memories o f estate privilege, and collective economic interests - which, i f judiciously woven, could have provided the ideological basis for an assertive, nationalist identity. Certain conditions characterizing life on the Don in 1913. had they persisted, might have provided the necessary gestation period for Don Cossack nationalism to take root. Among these were festering ethnic polarization; cutthroat competition for land; an Imperial state too tradition-bound to reform the Cossacks, too poor to finance their revival, and too weak to silence disparate voices; and a Don intelligentsia increasingly comfortable in challenging Imperial prerogatives. Nationalism, here, should not be mistaken for aspiration to an nation-state; rather, had the Empire persisted further, it is likely the Don Cossacks would have asserted their authority over the land o f the Don as a matter o f right, not privilege. O f course the political environment o f 1913 did not last, and subsequent events would prove that just because a national idea appears in an inchoate form does not guarantee its fu ll development. When Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary in August 1914, the Don responded with unequivocal loyalty. Even i f the Cossacks had not shared in the insults felt over the humiliation suffered by their Orthodox Slavic brothers in Serbia, Don Cossack identity had not progressed nearly to the point that it could question support for the Tsar in conflict with foreign foes. The war-time environment did not

354

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

preclude Cossacks on the Don from contemplating and expressing their interests, but certainly must have tempered critical voices. Obviously, I do not share the judgement o f those scholars who have dismissed declarations o f Cossack nationalism during the Russian C ivil War as an ephemeral phenomenon spawned by an arriviste elite centered around the vainglorious Peter Krasnov.2 Contemporary observers and subsequent historians alike have mistaken Don Cossacks’ loyal military service to the tsar, demonstrated one last time during the Great War, for solidarity with the Russian nation, ignoring the strong degree o f ethnic awareness engulfing this group before 1914. While providing the opportunity to declare a Don state, the calamitous events o f 1914-1917 caused political events to outpace identity formation among the Cossacks. After the fall o f the Romanov dynasty, it was a logical step for the Don Cossacks to look inward for political legitimacy, rather than embracing a new post-imperial Russian government, given the hostility o f liberals and radicals alike for all regional particularism, for the Cossacks especially. Unfortunately, for the hopes o f the “ All-Great Don Host,” the swift rush o f events allowed precious little time for the Cossacks, or non-Cossacks for that matter, to adapt to the idea o f Don Cossack nationalism. No existing local institutions offered themselves as a suitable for a national government. Nonetheless, the ultimate failure o f Don independence and

2Peter Kenez, "The Ideology o f the Don Cossacks in the C ivil War” in R.C. Elwood, (ed.), Russian and East European History. Selected Papers fo r the World Congress fo r Soviet and East European Studies. Berkeley, 1984; Holquist; Figes. 355

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Cossack nationalism may have been doomed more by the unpropitious geography o f the Don than by the paucity o f the idea.

356

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Bibliography Archival Materials Gosudarstvennyi A rkhiv Rostovskoi Obiasti Fond 46 Fond 55 Fond 162 Fond 243 Fond 304 Fond 3S3 Fond 360 Fond 410 Fond 699 Fond 802

Kantselliaria Voiskovogo Nakaznogo Atamana. Lichnyi fond Kharitona Ivanovicha Popova. Lichnyi fond Aieksandra Matveevicha Grekova. Lichnyi fond Ulianovykh Obiastnoe dvorianskoe sobranic. Voiskovoi statisticheskii komitet. Efremovy, Donskie kazaki-dvoriane Oblastnoi voiska Donskogo prevoditel' dvorianstva. Kommissiia po ustroistvu Donskogo Muzeia. Komitet "vysochaishe" utverzhdennyi dlia sostavleniia proekta, "Polozheniia o voiske Donskom"

Contemporary Newspapers Donskaia Gazeta Domkaia Rech' Donskie Oblastnye Veclomosti Donskie Voiskovye VeJomosti Donskoi Golos Donskoi Vestnik Vestnik Kazachestva

Unpublished Materials

"Chresvychainomu Oblastnomu Dvorianskomu Sobraniiu. "Doklad A.A. Karaseva," Mss. 1905. Bespalov, A.B. "Vopros o zemstve v liberal'nom dvizhenii na Donu v kontse 19 • nachale 20 veka (seredina 90-x -1914 gody)," Diplonmnaia rabota, Rostovskii-na-Donu Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, 1992. Holquist, Peter Isaac, “ A Russian Vendee: the practice o f revolutionary politics in the 357

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Don countryside, 1917-1921," Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1995. Menning, Bruce W. "The Socialization o f the Don Cossack Host prior to the Reign o f Nicholas I," PhD Dissertation, Duke University, 1971.

Contemporary Publications (Abbreviations used: Sbornik ~ Sbornik Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Statisticheskago Komiteta\ Trudy = Trudy Donskogo Voiskovogo Statisticheskago Komiteta.) Abaza, Konstantin Konstantinovich, Kazaki: Dontsy. Uraltsy, Kubantsy, Tertsy. Ocherk iz Istorii i starodavniago kazatskago byta v obshchesdostupnom izlozhenii dlia chteniia v voiskakh. sem'e i shkole. St. Petersburg, 1899. Abramtsev, A. Dvenadlsatyi god. lubileinoe chtenie v Donskom Imperatora Aleksandra III kadetskom korpuse. Novocherkassk: Chastnaia Donskaia Tipografiia, 1912. Ermark i tsarstvo Sihirskoe. Istoriko-kriticheskii ocherk. Novocherkassk, 1909. Andriianov. Ivan "Zametki kazaka ob obmundirovanii, vooruzhenii, snarzhcnii i polevoi sluzhebe kazakov" Voennyi sbornik 1879, No. 3. Arefin, S. la. "Donskie kazaki," Russkoe Bogatstvo 12 (1906): 116-152. Artinskii, sviashch. I. Ochherk istorii Novocherkasskoi Voiskovoi Gimnazii. Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia voiska Donskogo tipografiia. 1907. Baedeker, Karl, Russia. A Handbook fo r Travelers (facsimile o f 1914 edition). New York: Amo Press/Random House, 1971. Baklanov, la.P., “ Moia boevaia zhizn’” Sbornik IX (1909): 58-73. Bogachev, V.V., “ K biografiiam nakaznykh atamanov gr. P.Kh. Grabbe i S.S. Nikolaeva. Otnosheniie ikh k dvizheniiu dekabristov,*' Sbornik VII (1907): 110-122. Bogaevskii, L.V., “ Aleksei Grigor’evich Popov, pervyi direktor voiskovogo gimnaziia," Sbornik VI (1906): 49-59. "Brigadir Ivan Matveevich Krasnoshchekov (Pamiati znamenitago dontsa)" Sbornik 358

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

111(1902): 3-22.

Bykadorov, Isaak Fed. Byloe Dona. St. Petersburg: Berezhlivost', 1908. Ocherk uchastiia Donskogo voiska v Oiechestvennoi voine 18i 2 g. i zagranichnykh pokhodakh 1812-1814 g.g. Izdanie Donskogo Dvorianstva. Novocherkassk: Tipografiia V .I. Babenko, 1911. Dobrynin, V. "Na Donu" Voennyi sbornik 11 (1912): 97-114. "Donskoi kazachii pisatel' N.I. Krasnov (Kriticheskii ocherk)" Voennyi sbornik No. 2, 1901. Dontsy XIX Veka. Biografii iz materialy dlia biografii Donskikh deiatelei na poprishche sluzhby voennoi. grazhdanskoi i obshchestvennoi. a takzhe v oblasti nauk. iskusstv, literatury i proch. 2 Vols. Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia voiska Donskogo tipografiia, 1907. Dukmasov, I. (Esaul, 1-ii) "Neobkhodimost1reformy v kazach'ikh voiskakh" Voennyi sbornik 7 (1871): 50-69. Efremov, Ivan Chtoe takoe zemstvo i nuzhno li ono kazakam v Donskoi oblast/? Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia voiska Donskogo tipografiia, 1905. Kazaki i zemstvo na Donu. St. Petersburg, 1908. Voiskovoi kapital i zemskoe oblozhenie kazach'ikh zemet\ Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia.voiska Donskogo tipografiia, 1905. Voprosy zemskago Khoziaistva v Donskoi oblasti. Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia.voiska Donskogo tipografiia, 1905. Filonov, Andrei Grigor’evich. Ocherki Dona. St. Petersburg, 1859. Gerasimov, Evgenii Mikhailovich, ” K stoletiiu so dnia rozhdeniia la. P. Baklanova,” Sbornik IX (1909): 1-58. Grekov, Aleksandr Matveevich, “ Pamiati la. P. Baklanova. Vyderzhki iz knigi, izdannoi v Parizhe: “Souveniers d’ un officier du Caucase’” Sbornik IX (1909): 74-87. 359

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

"Po povodu postroiki pamiatnika la. P. Baklanovu" Sbornik IX (1909): 135-42.

— "Voinskaia povinnost' donskogo kazach'iago voiska v prezhnee i nastoiashchee vremia," Voennyi sbornik 1 (1876): 153-172; 2 (1876): 349-361; 3 (1876): 69111.

Grekov, Aleksandr M ikhailovich, “ K istorii razvitiia obshchinno-zemel'nykh poriadkov na Donu” Sbornik V III (1908): 37-54. — “ K istorii zemel'nago voprosa na Donu, v sviazi s sovremennyn polozheniem i resheniem ego,’’ Sbornik V II (1907): 71-97. “ Khoziaistvo kolonistov v Taganrogskom okruge” Sbornik I (1901): 98-106. — "Ocherk krest’ianskago zemlevladeniia i zemlepol'zovaniia v Taganrogskom okruge," Sbornik II (1901): 14-22. — “ Nuzhdy Dona v trudakh mestnykh sel’sko-khoziaistvennykh komitetov,” Sbornik V (1905): 16-46. Priazov'e i Don. Ocherki obshchestvennoi i ekonomicheskoi zhizni kraia. St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia Pol'za, 1912. Sredi donskikh obyvatelei (Novocherkasstsy - Rostovtsy - Taganrozhtsy Nakhivantsy). Oblastnye ocherki i paralleli. Rostov-on-Don, 1894. Grekov. M .I. VManycheskikh stepiakh. Iz vospominanii o Done 1878-79 gg. St. Petersburg, 1904. Ilovaiskie i Donskie Kazaki. Petrograd. 1914. Iks., “ Iz Novocherkasska. (Zhizn’ sovremennago kazachestva),” Novoe Slovo 6 ( 1897): 130-136. “ K administrativnoi deiatel’nosti Iakova Petrovicha Baklanova.” Sbornik IX (1909): 121134. Karasev, A.A., "Donskie krest'iane," Trudy I (1867): 72-118. "Familiia Karasevykh," Sbornik III (1902): 48-53. 360

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

“Grafinia Rostophchina 1 V.D . Sukhorukov

—

Sbornik V II (1907): 66-70.

"Povestvovanie o bunte, proizvedennom v Moskovskom gosudarstve Sten'koi Razinym, o ego vozniknovenii, razvitii i okonchanii," Sbornik IV (1904): 14-31. "V asilii Dmitrievich Sukhorukov, Donskoi pisatel'," Russkaia starina III (1871): 236-40.

Kazachii (calendar' na 1884 god (Visokosnyi). Novocherkask, 1884. Kazak o kazakh. Moscow, 1886. K irillov, A.A., “ Chasovnoi, tserkvi i monastyri na Donu ot nachala ikh poiavlenie do kontsa XIX veka,” Sbornik V I (1906): 1-48; V II (1907): 1-35; V III (1908): 1-36. —

“Glavnoe narodnoe uchilishche na Donu,” Sbornik V (1905): 1-15.

— O’. Novocherkassk. Osnovanie oblastnogo Donskogo goroda i pervonachal’naia isioriia. Novocherkassk: Chastnaia Donskaia Tipografiia, 1905. Istoricheskoe znachenie pamiatnikov iserkovnoi stariny. Novocherkassk. 1911. "Iz istorii religioznykh dvizhenii na Donu v pervoi cherverti XIX v .” Sbornik X (1910): 1-21. — “ K aktam, otnosiashchimsia do bytovoi istorii Voiska Donskago.” Sbornik V II (1907): 148-154. — "K biografii E.N. Katel'nikova," Sbornik I (1901): 114-117. — "K istorii narodnago obrazovaniia na Donu. Cherkasskaia dukhovnaia seminariia," Sbornik IV (1904): 3-13. — "K istorii narodnago prosveshcheniia na Donu. O voiskovoi latinskoi seminarii," Sbornik III (1902): 27-33. Kratkoe obozrenie istorii o donskikh kazakov. Opyt bibiiografii Donskoi istorii. Novocherkassk: Chastnaia Donskaia Tipografiia, 1909. —

"Materialy k tserkovnoi istorii donskogo kraia za X V III i X IX vv.," Sbornik II 361

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

(1901): 115-125.

— "Materialy po istorii tscrkovnoi istorii,” Sbornik X III (1915): 188-196. "Materialy po istorii narodnago prosveshcheniia na Donu,” Sbornik V II (1907): 155161; V III (1908): 221-223. "Mesto rozhdeniia la. P. Baklanova," Sbornik IX (1909): 103-118. “ Obychnoe pravo na Donu.” Sbornik V III (1908): 170-173. “ Pamiati Ivana Petrovicha Popova.” Sbornik V II (1907): i-vii. — “ Pamiatniki blagochestiia Donskikh kazakov i vozhdia ikh voiskovogo atamana grafa M.I. Platova, otnosiashchiesia k Otechestvennoi voine 1812 g.," Sbornik XII (1914): 149-185. Soobshchenie o deiatel'nosti Donskogo Eparkhial'nogo Tserkovno-istoricheskogo Komitetu. Novocherkassk, 1912. "Stanichnoe pravo na Donu,” Sbornik V III (1908): 174-178. — "Voiskovoi ataman Voiska Donskogo graf Matvei Ivanovich Platov i ego administrativnaia deiatel'nost',” Sbornik XI (1912): Prilozhenie, 1-56. — "Voiskovoi ataman voiska Donskogo graf Matvei Ivanovich Platov. Reformy v donskom voiske. proizvedenyia v atamanstve grafa M .I. Platova” Sbornik X III (1915): Prilozhenie. 57-142. Koshkin, I.S. and I.I. Zubkov (eds.) Donskoe Torgovoe Obshchestvo i Ego znachenie v zhizni Donskogo Kraia. Rostov-on-Don: F.A. Poluvatko, 1915. Krasnov, B.D. Novocherkassk. Spravochnaia knizhka s prilozheniem plana goroda. Novocherkassk, 1896. Krasnov, N.I. Denisov, A.K. Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia voiska Donskogo tipograflia, 1877. —

"Donskoe voisko. kak glavnyi chlen kazach’ei semi" Voennyi sbornik 9 (1882): 192201; 10(1882): 400-421; I I (1882): 177-191; 12 (1882):46l-474. 362

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

—

"Istoricheskie Ocherki Dona. Bor'ba Chernysheva s Voiskovymi Atamani," Russkaia Rech ’ 5 (1881): 66-92; 7 (1881): 108-129; 8 (1881): 32-50. "Istoricheskie Ocherki Dona. Ot Razina do Bulavina," Russkaia Rech *1 (1881): 76102; 2 (1881): 137-159; 3 (1881): 27-57. "Narodnonaselenie i teritoriia (sic) kazakov Evropeiskoi i Aziiatskoi Rossii" Voennyi sbornik 12 (1877): 264-301; 1 (1878): 47-69; 2 (1878): 281-288; 3 (1878): 85-94; 4 (1878): 253-276; 5 (1878): 96-115.

Krasnov, P.N., Atamanskaia pamiatka. Kratkii ocherk istorii Leib-Gvardii Atamanskogo Ego Imperatorskogo Vysochestva Naslednika Tsesarevicha polka, 1775-1900. St. Petersburg, 1900. Kartiny bylogo Tikhogo Dona. Kazaki v nachale XIX veka. Istoricheskii ocherk. 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1896. Kratkii otchet Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Predvoditelia dvorianstva. 1913-1915. Novocherkassk: Donskoi pechatnik, 1916. Kratkii otchet Oblastnogo voiska Donskogo Predvoditelia dvorianstva ocherednomu dvorianskomu Sobraniiu. Zatrekhletie 1901-1903 gg. Novocherkassk: Tipografiia P.V. Boldyreva, 1904. Kratkoe Istoricheskoe i Statisticheskoe opisanie Voiska Donskagoi Izdanie Donskago Oblasnago statisticheskago komiteta pod redaktsei chlenov onago: A.A. Karaseva i Kh.l. Popova. Novocherkassk. 1887. Kriukov, A.D.. “O stanichnykh lesakh Donskoi Oblasti," Sbornik X (1910): 79-104. Kriukov, F.D., "Mechtaniia," Russkoe Bogatstvo 10(1904): 165-174. "O kazakakh," Russkoe Bogatstvo 7 (1907): 25-47. "Vybory na Donu" in K 10-letiiu l-o i Gosudarstvennoi Dumy. Sbornik statei pervodumtsev. Petrograd: Ogni, 1916. Kurmoiarov, I. "Byloe" Voennyi sbornik 1914, Nos. 4-5.

363

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

"Iz stanitsy" Voennyi sbornik 1914, No. 2. "Kazach'ia pechat"' Voennyi sbornik 1915, No. 1. Lagunov, N., “ Anketa o zemstve na Donu” Vestnik Evropy 4(1910): 279-300. Leroy-Beaulieu, Anatole, The Empire o f the Tsars and the Russians. 3 Volumes. New York-London, G.P. Putnam's sons, 1894-1896. Markov, K.V., “ K resf iane na Donu,” Sbornik X I (1912): 1-68; X III (1915): 25-113. N.A. Maslakovets. "Statisticheskoe opisanie kochev’ia Donskikh Kalmykov" Trudy II (1874): 3-95. Minaev, K.M. Torzhestvo Donskago Kazachestva. Prebyvanie Avgusteishei sem'i na Donu v 1887godut Novocherkassk: Tipo-Litografiia K.M. Minaeva, 1887. Nomikosov, S.F. (ed.) Oblast' voiska Donskaga po perepisi 1873 g. Novocherkassk, 1879. "Voinskaia povinnost' kazakov” in Don 5-6, 1993, pp.236-245 (reprinted from Statisticheskoe opisanie Oblastei Voiska Donskogo, Novocherkassk, 1884). Norov, N.A., “ Voisko Donskoe v 25 letnee tsarstvovanie Imperatora Aleksandra II. 19 go fevralia 1855 - 19 fevr. 1880 g.,” Sbornik X II (1914): 139-148. Ob"iasnitel'naia zapiska kproektu Potozheniia o Donskom zemskom upravleniit Novocherkassk: Oblastnaia voiska Donskago Tipografiia, n.d. Pavlovskii, S.G., Kratkie svedeniia o donskikh kalmykakh. Novocherkassk: Chastnaia Donskaia tipografiia, 1911. Pereselenkov, S.A. (ed.) "K istorii Novocherkasskoi muzhskoi gimnazii." in Sbornik 4. 1904, pp. 132-139. (ed.) “ Delo o direktore gimnazii I uchilishch Voiska Donskago A.G. Popove,” Sbornik VI (1906): 83-89. Petrovskii, A.I. Donskie deputaty vo 11-i Gosudarstvennoi Dume. Istoricheskie spravki. St. Petersburg, 1907. 364

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Pivarov, A.N. Donskie kazaki: sbornik razskazov iz boevoi i domashnei zhizni. Novocherkassk, 1909. Po Donu. Spravochnik dlia Oblast voiska Donskago. Novocherkassk, 1898. Popov, I.P., "Oblastnoi voiska Donskogo statisticheskii komitet v pervye gody ego sushchestvovaniia (Istoricheskaia spravka)," Sbornik I (1901): 3-12. "K biografii V.D. Sukhorukova" Sbornik I (1901): 13-47. "Dvizhenie naseleniia oblasti voiska Donskogo za 10 let," Sbornik I (1901): 110113. "Statisticheskiia dannyia po oblasti voiska Donskogo do 1860-kh godov," Sbornik II (1901): 32-60. "General-maior Iv.lv. Zhirov," Sbornik IV (1904): 106-120. “ V starom gnezde kazachestva,” Don 1 (1887): 21-34; 2 (1887): 12-23; 3 (1887): 1624; 5 (1887): 11-18; 6 (1887): 23-33; 7-8 (1887): 13-25. Popov, K h.I., Akty, otnosiachchiesia do istorii Voiska Donskago. (3 Vols.) Novocherkassk, 1890-1894. — “ Ataman Ermak Timofeevich. Po narodnym predaniiam i pesniam," Sbornik VMI (1908): 141-155. — “ Ataman Ermak Timofeevich. Po istoricheskim dannym,” Sbornik V III (1908): 156163. — “ Chestvovanie la. P. Baklanova v g. Novocherkasske," Sbornik IX (1909): 149-155. — (ed.) “ Gramoty Voiska Donskago - 1757 i 1785 gg.,” Sbornik V (1905): 133-135. —

"K istorii Novocherkasskago kanala," Sbornik I (1901): 48-62.

— “ K ratkii ocherk proshlago donskogo kazachestva, ” Sbornik V II (1907): 36-50. — and I. M . Sulin "Materialy k istorii goroda Novocherkasska," Sbornik I (1901): 120131. 365

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

(ed.) Prazdnovanie na Donu 300-letiia tsarstvovaniia doma Romanovykhi Novocherkassk: Donskoi pechatnik, 1913. Vysochaishie gramoty i regalii, pozhalovannye Voisku Donskomui Novocherkassk, 1887. (ed.) "Zapiski I.S. U l’ianova,” Sbornik II (1901): 60-95; III (1902): 53-82. Popov, P.Kh., Ccroi Dona. K pereneseniiu prakbov geroiev v usypal'nitsu pri Novocherkasskogo kafedrel'nago Sobora1Novocherkassk, 1911. "Materialy k istorii voiska Donskogo," Sbornik II (1901): 97-101. "Putevoi zhumal," Don 2 (1887): 33-38; 3 (1887): 35-41. Putyntsev, Nikolai, "Nashi kazach'i voiska (Neobkhodimost' izucheniia ikh trekhvekovogo istoricheskago proshlago)," Voennyi sbornik 1 (1900): 45-57. Robush, S.S., "O narodnom obrazovanii v voiske Donskom" Trudy I (1867): 121-135. Sakharov, P.P.. “ Materialy po istorii kolonizatsii i byta zemli donskikh kazakov v X V III v.,“ Sbornik X (1910): 105-139. “ Proizkhozhdenie vol'nago donskogo kazachestva i pervyia sluzhby dontsov Rossii,” Sbornik XU (1914): 43-84. Savelov, L.M. "Borshevskii monastyr i ego sinodik, kak material dlia genealogii donskikh rodov" Sbornik III (1902): 35-48. Donskie Dvorianskie Rody. Moscow: Tovarishchestvo I.N. Kushnerev i K, 1902. Donskoe dvorianisvo. Moscow: Tovarshchestvo Pechatnia S.P. Iakovleva' 1905. Savel'ev, A.M."Materialy dlia ugolovnoi statistiki voiska Donskago" Trudy I (1867): 137-141. "Novocherkask po perepisi 15-go Dekabria 1872 goda" Trudy II (1874): 95-111. Statisticheskie obozrenie Voiska Donskogo za 1868 goda. Novocherkassk: Tipografiia gazety Donskoi Vesinik, 1869. 366

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Trekhsotletie Voiska Donskogo. Ocherki iz istorii donskikh kazakov. St. Petersburg, 1870. Savel'ev, E.P. Ataman M l. Platov i osnovanie Novocherkasska. Novocherkassk, 1906. — Istoriia Kazachestva (Istoricheskoe izsledovanie). 3 Vols. Novocherkassk: Donskoi pechatnik, 1915-1918. Ocherki po istorii torgovli na Donu. Obshchcstvo torgovykh kazakov. 1804 • 1904. Novocherkassk, 1904. Voiskovoi krug na Donu: Istoricheskii ocherk. Novocherkassk, 1908. Kto hyl Ermak i ego spodvizhniki: Istoricheskoe izsledovanie Novocherkassk, 1904. V.M. Sebriakov "Sidor Nikiforovich Sebriakov i razvoiniki na r. Medveditse (1737 1747 gg.)," Don 6 (1887): 1-22. Seniutkin, M.Kh. Dontsy: V2-kh ch.: Istoricheskie ocherki voennykh deistvii, biografti starshin proshlogo veka, zametki po sovremennogo byta, vzgliad na istoriiu voiska Donskogo. Moscow, 1866. Shchelkunov. S.Z., "Donskie atamany pervoi poloviny X VII veka, " Sbornik X III (1915): 114-159. "Voisko Donskoe pri atamane Aleksee Ivanoviche Ilovaiskom" Sbornik X (1910): 22- 68 .

“ Vol'nye liudi i ikh sluzhba na Donu,’’ Sbornik X II (1914): 85-139. —

“ Vstrecha poslov na Donu v X V II veke,” Sbornik XI (1912): 144-152.

Shchelkunov, Z.I. "O b ustroistve kazach'ikh poselenii i ob iurtovykh pri nikh dovol'stviiakh" Sbornik V II (1907): 51-65. “ Prestupleniia protiv ‘voiska’ po drevnemu kazach’emu pravu” Sbornik V III (1908): 164-169. “ Sostav i rost naseleniia Oblasti Voiska Donskogo za 10 let (1902 -1911 g.)" Sbornik X II (1914): 1-23. 367

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Skalon, D.A. (ed.). Sloletie Voennogo Ministerstva. 13 Vols. St. Petersburg: Sundal'naia tipografiia, 1902-1914. Smolenskii, S., "Zametki po povodu kazach'iago voprosa" Voennyi sbornik 5-6 (1872). Sukhorukov, V.D., Istoricheskoe Opisanie Zemli Voiska Donskogo. Novocherkassk: Chastnaia Donskaia Tipografiia, 1903. Sulin, I. M. (ed.) "Akty, otnosiashchiesia k bytovoi istorii Donskikh kazakov," Sbornik IV (1904): 140-147. — “ Materialy k istorii zaseleniia Miusskago (nyne Taganrogskago) okruga," Sbornik V (1905): 81-132; VI (1906): 131-154; V ll (1907): 123-147. — “ Materialy k istorii zaseleniia Cherkasskago okruga," Sbornik V III (1908): 179-220. — "Ob uchrezhdenii v Novocherkasske publichnoi biblioteki" Sbornik II (1901): 125131. Teteriviatnikov, Ia.L., "Statitisticheskie zametki o poseleniiakh Donetskago okruga," Trudy II (1874): 96-112 . Timoshchenkov. I.V., “ Kobylinskaia stanitsa. Statistiko-ekonomicheskii ocherk." Sbornik V II (1907): 98-109. — "Obshchestvennyi byt i narodnye obychai Kazanskoi stanitsy," Trudy II (1874): 139150. — "Ocherk pereseleniia kazakov s Dona na Terek, Kuban i Sunzhu," Sbornik I (1901): 62-77; 11(1901): 3-13. — “ Sidorskaia volost’ , Ust’ -Medveditskago okruga,” Sbornik V (1905): 66-80. — “ Stanitsa Nizhne-Chirskaia. Statistiko-ekonomicheskii ocherk,'' Sbornik VI (1906): 107-130. — “ Vtoroi Donskoi okrug oblasti Voiska Donskago. Statistiko-ekonomicheskii ocherk,” Sbornik V I (1906): 83-106. “ Torzhestvo v pamiaf pokoinnago general-leitenanta lakova Petrovicha Baklanova 15 368

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

marta 1909 goda,” Sbornik IX (1909): 148-149 Trailin, F.K., O poseshchenii Ikh Imperatorskimi Velichestvami s naslednikom tseravich, avgusteishim atamanom vsekh kazach'ikh voisk, goroda Novocherkasska - 5, 6, i 7 maia 1887 goda. Novocherkassk, 1888. V.Z. "K biografii E.N. Katel'nikova," Sbornik II (1901): 95-96. "Voiska Donskago general-maior G avriil Ambrosievich Lukovkin (Biograficheskii ocherk)" Don 7-8 (1887): 1-12. Voiskovoi Krug na Donu 8 - 2 0 Dekabria 1909 goda. (voiskuvoe soveshchatel'noe sobranie) Rostov-on-Don: Donskaia Rech’ , 1910. Z.V. "Iz kazach'ei sluzhby v Gruzii (Vospominaniia i razskazy)" Don 9 (1887): 1-21; 10 (1887): 1-22. Zhirov, M.S., **17-ia Donskaia kazach'ia batareia.” Sbornik X (1910): 69-78. “ Donskaia voennaia starina,” Sbornik V III (1908): 224-236. “ Donskoi No. 17 polk v 1852 g. na Kavkaze,” Sbornik IX (1909): 88-102. “ Geroi Dona. Pavel Dmitrievich Ilovaskii 2-i,” Sbornik X III (1915): 10-22. — “ K delu o prieme beglykh krest'ian na Donu,” Sbornik X III (1915): 171-185. — “ Materialy dlia biografii grafa Matveia Ivanovicha Platova,” Sbornik XI (1912): 92143. Zubrilov M.. “ Urozhai khlebov v Oblasti Boiska Donskogo v 1909 godu po svedeniem dobrovol’ nykh korrespondentov” Sbornik X (1910): 140-146.

Secondary sources Anderson, Benedict Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread o f Nationalism. London and New York: Verso, 1991. Armstrong, John A., Nations before Nationalism. Chapel H ill, NC: University o f North Carolina Press, 1982. 369

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Ascher, Abraham, The Revolution o f 1905. 2 Vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988. Astapenko, Mikhail Pavlovich, Donskie kazaki. 1550-1920. Uchebnoe posobie. Rostovon Don: Logos, 1992. Ego nazivali civtorom "Tikhogo dona." Rostov-on-Don: Edinstvo, 1991. Avrich, Paul, Russian Rebels, 1600-1800. New York-London: Norton, 1976. Bakic-Hayden. M ilica, “ Nesting Orientalisms: The Case o f Former Yugoslavia" Slavic Review 54, No. 4 (1995): 917-931. Barrett, Thomas M. At the Edge o f Empire: The Terek Cossacks and the North Caucasus Frontier, 1700-1860. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999. "Lines o f Uncertainty: The Frontiers o f the North Caucasus” Slavic Review 54 No. 3 (1995): 578-601. Becker. Seymour, Nobility and Privilege in Late Imperial Russia. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 1988. Beliaevskii, V.A. Don i Rossiia: skazanie o zemle rodnoi kazach'ei donskoi. San Francisco, 1968. Bogaevskii, A.P., "M itrofan Petrovich Bogaevskii" Donskaia Letopis'2 (1923): 200-204. Brower, Daniel. "Urban Revolution in the Late Russian Empire," in Michael Hamm (ed.) The City in Late Imperial Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986, pp. 319-353. and Edward Lazzerini (eds), Russia s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Eley, Geoff and Ronald Grigor Suny (eds.), Becoming National. A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Emmons, Terence. The Formation o f Political Parties and the First National Elections in Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.

370

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

— and Wayne S. Vucinich (eds.). The Zemstvo in Russia: An Experiment in local selfgovernment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Fischer, George, Russian Liberalism: from Gentry to Intelligentsia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958. G illis, John R. (ed.) Commemorations: The Politics o f National Identity. Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1994. Goehrke, Carsten, "Historische Selbstilisierung des Kosakentums: Slandische Tradition als Integrationsideologie" in Osteuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festschrift fa r Gunther Stokl zum 60 Geburstag. Cologne and Vienna. 1977. Gubarev, G.V. and A.I. Skrylov, Kazachii Slovar'-Spavochnik. 3 Vols. Cleveland-San Anselmo, CA, 1966-1970. Haimson, Leopold, “ The Problem o f Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905-1917,” Slavic Review 23, No. 4 (1964): 619-642. Holquist, Peter Isaac. “ From Estate to Ethnos: The Changing Nature o f Cossack Identity in the Twentieth Century,” in Nurit Schleifman (ed.), Russia at a Crossroads: History, Memory, and Political Practice. Portland, OR: Frank Cass. 1998, pp. 89-123. Hroch, Miroslav Social Preconditions o f National Revival in Europe. A Comparative Analysis o f the Social Composition o f Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. lanov, G.P.. "Donskiia nastroeniia ko vremeni revoliutsii" Donskaia Letopis' No. 1. 1923, pp. 61-68. Istoriia Dona s drevneishikh vremen do Velikoi Oktiavrskoi sotsialisticheskoi revoliutsii. Rostov-on-Don, 1965. Iz istorii Dona (XWI - XX w .) Sbornik stalei. Rostov-on-Don. 1956. Kakliugin, K. "M.P. Bogaevskii. Kharakteristika.," Donskaia Letopis' 1 (1923): 43-59. Kazachii soiuz, Kazachestva; Mysli sovremennikov o proshlom, nastoiashchem i budushchem. [facsimile o f 1928 edition] Rostov-on-Don: Rostovskoe knizhnoe 371

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

izdanie, 1992. Kenez, Peter, "The Ideology o f the Don Cossacks in the C ivil War" in R.C. Elwood, (ed.), Russian and East European History. Selected Papers fo r the World Congress fo r Soviet and East European Studies. Berkeley, 1984,pp. 160-183. Khodarkovsky, Michael, Where Two Worlds Met: The Russian State and the Kalmyk Nomads. 1600-1771. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Kohut. Zenon, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy: Imperial Absorption o f the Hetmanate, 1760s-1830s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 1988. Komblatt, Judith Deutsch The Cossack Hero in Russian Literature: A Study in Cultural Mythology. Madison, WI: The University o f Wisconsin Press, 1992. Kozlov. A.I. (ed.) Problemy istorii kazachestva X\'I-XX w. Rostov-on-Don: Izdatel'stvo Rostovskogo Universiteta, 1995. Linin, Anatolii Mikhailovich, A S. Pushkin na Donu. Istoriko-literaturnye ocherki. Rostov-on-Don: Rostovskoe Oblastnoe Knigoizdatel'stvo, 1941.

Longworth, Philip, The Cossacks. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Luckyj, George S.N. Young Ukraine. The Brotherhood o f Saints C yril and Methodius in Kiev, 1845-1847. Ottawa: University o f Ottawa Press, 1991. Menning, Bruce W., "A .I. Chernyshev: A Russian Lycurgus," Canadian Slavonic Papers XXX (No. 2, 1988): 190-219. —

"The Emergence o f a Military-Administrative Elite in the Don Cossack Land. 17081836" in Walter M. Pintner and Don K. Rowney (eds.) Russian Officialdom: The Bureaucratization o f Rusian Societyfrom the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century. Chapel H ill: The University o f North Carolina Press, 1980, pp. 130-161.

McNeal, Robert, Tsar and Cossack, 1855 -1914. London: MacMillan Press, 1987. Muzhev, I.F., Kazachestva Dona, Kubani i Tereka v revoliutsii 1905 - 1907 gg. Ordzhonokidze, 1963.

372

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Nash krai. Dokumenty po istorii Donskoi oblasti (XVII - nachalo XX veka}. Rostov-onDon, 1967. Nelepin, R.A. Istoriia Kazachestva. 2 Vols. St. Petersburg: Pravoslavnaia Rus\ 1995. O’ Rourke, Shane, Warriors and Peasants: the Don Cossacks in late Imperial Russia. New York, St. M artin’s Press in association with St. Antony's College, Oxford, forthcoming. “ Women in a warrior society: Don Cossack women, 1860-1914," in Rosalind Marsh (ed.) Women in Russian and Ukraine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 45-54. Prymak. Thomas. Mykota Kostomarov: A Biography. Toronto: University o f Toronto Press, 1996. Reshetova, N.A., Intelligentsia Dona i revolutsiia. Moscow: Rosspen. 1998. Rich, David Alan The Tsar's Colonels : Professionalism, Strategy, and Subversion in late Imperial Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Rigel’ man, A.I., Istoriia Hi Povestvovanie o Donskikh kazakov otkol ’ / kogda oni nachalo svoe imeiut, i kakoe vremia i iz kakikh liudei na Donu poseliliskakie ikh byli dela i chem proslavilis' / proch. [reprint o f 1846 edition] Rostov-on-Don: Rostovskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1992. Robbins, Richard G. The Tsar's Viceroys. Russian Provincial Governors in the Last Years o f the Empire. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1987. Samarina, N.V., Donskaia Burzhuaziia v period imperializma (1900-1914). Rostov-onDon, Izdatel'stvo rostovskogo universiteta, 1992. Starr, S. Frederick. Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, 1830-1870. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. Stites, Richard. The Women s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Stokl, Gunter, Die Entstehung des Kosakentums. Munich: Isar Verlag, 1953.

373

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Svatikov, Sergei G. Rossiia i Don (1549-1917): izsledovanie po istorii gosudarstva i administrativnago prava i politicheskago dvizheniia na Donu. Vienna, 1924. "Donskoi Voiskovoi Krug" Donskaia Letopis'No. 1, 1923, pp. 169-266. Thaden, Edward (ed.). Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland. 1855-1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Zolotov, V.A. (ed.) Istoriia Dona Epokha kapitalizma. Rostov-on-Don, 1974.

374

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.