This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]
On: 18 July 2013, At: 10:41
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Central Asian Survey
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccas20

From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893: Ismail Bey
Gasprinskii's journey to Central Asia
Edward J. Lazzerini

a

a

Associate Professor of History, University of New Orleans,
Published online: 13 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Edward J. Lazzerini (1984) From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893: Ismail Bey Gasprinskii's journey to
Central Asia, Central Asian Survey, 3:4, 77-88, DOI: 10.1080/02634938408400488
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02634938408400488

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893:
Ismail Bey Gasprinskii's Journey to
Central Asia
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

EDWARD J. LAZZERINI

During the nineteenth century a trickle of determined people
attempted the long, arduous journey to Central Asia. Their purposes
were as varied as were their backgrounds and national origins; some
even acquired deserved reputations for their exploits, wild adventures, and daring escapes from dangers natural and human. A
substantial, often romantic, usually colorful literature flowed from
the pens of these intrepid travellers, whose descriptions provide much
of what the world knew then and what it knows now about life in the
region. Although the catalogue of such accounts would be quite
extensive, any briefer listing would invariably include works by
Arminius Vambery, the Hungarian orientalist, confidant of Sultan
Abdulhamid II, frequent intelligence agent for the British government, and adamant russophobe; Eugene Schuyler, who spent almost
six years from 1870 until 1876 in St. Petersburg serving with the
American legation; Januarius Aloysius MacGahan, a correspondent
of The New York Herald; Frederick Gustavus Burnaby, a captain of
the British Horse Guards; and Henry Lansdell, an Anglican cleric
and philanthropist, with a passion for prison reform.1
In May, 1893, another man, little known outside of his native
Crimea, journeyed to Central Asia for reasons shared by no other
traveller before or since. The man was Ismail Bey Gasprinskii, a
forty-two-year-old visionary zealously committed to the modernization of the Islamic community in Russia and elsewhere.2 He set out
for Central Asia to persuade both local Russian officials in
Turkestan (that portion of the region only recently annexed to the
Tsarist Empire) and the Emir of Bukhara (whose territory was a
Russian protectorate) to sponsor educational reforms in schools for
native children along the lines of what was called the "new method"
(tisul-i cedid). Originally designating a phonetic approach to more
effective linguistic instruction, "new method" had broadened to
encompass an entirely different notion of education in general.

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

78

Edward J.Lazzerini

Ultimately, Gasprinskii viewed it as the way to lift the albatross of
tradition from the neck of the Islamic umma (community).
Thorough reform of education would replace (modernize) the
stultifying mentalite that had long provided meaning, but now set
terrible limits, to all the important elements of life, both substantial
and symbolic.
Gasprinskii had been working toward these ambitious goals since
the late 1870s by advocating current European principles of
education, especially in his bilingual newspaper Tercuman/Perevodchik
(The Interpreter). For two decades, however, he had concentrated
his efforts close to home in the European part of the Russian Empire,
particularly among the large Muslim communities in the Crimea,
along the Volga River, and in the Caucasus. To be sure, he had
exhibited passing interest in his more distant co-religionists
inhabiting the deserts and oases of Central Asia, but lack of
resources and minimal public encouragement kept him from
launching a major effort in that area prior to the early 1890s. The
closing decade of the nineteenth century, however, offered new and
different opportunities, while his own stubbornness, unbounded
optimism, and moderate success encouraged him to expand his
activities geographically. Looking cast Ismail Bey became convinced
that a vast market existed for his ideas. His plans for the region, the
experiences of his journey, the responses of native and Russian
officials to his overtures, and the consequences of the entire episode
are the subject of the. following pages.

The train of events leading to Gasprinskii's first journey to Central
Asia began in the autumn of 1891, when the Russian Ministry of
Internal Affairs dispatched to the Crimea a functionary identified in
the published sources only as Vashkevich. The Ministry assigned
him principally to prepare a report on the feasibility of reorganizing
the spiritual and educational administration of the region's Muslims.
Soon after his arrival he conferred with a number of local notables,
among them Gasprinskii, whom he subsequently charged with
drawing up a memorandum on the current condition of Muslim
schools in the Crimea. Gasprinskii fulfilled this task in due time, but
the specific content and fate of the memorandum as they related to
problems in the Crimea are unknown. According to Soviet
historians, at some point during 1892 he sent a copy of it to the
Governor-General of Turkestan, along with a proposal for restructuring the Muslim schools in that region as well as introducing
the "new method" of instruction. For his effort Gasprinskii received

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893

79

a typically curt, bureaucratic reply with assurances that appropriate
authorities would give his proposals serious consideration.
Subsequently, the Governor-General passed on the memorandum
to two men long associated with Turkestan and its people: Nikolai
Petrovich Ostroumov, at that time Director of the Turkestan
Teachers' Seminary, and Vladimir Petrovich Nalivkin, a prominent
specialist on the region. Not surprisingly, given the distrust common
to many in governmental service toward initiatives emanating from
society, both took exception to the memorandum. Ostroumov
expressed amazement that Gasprinskii, who held no position in the
Russian administration, would dare to offer an opinion on such an
important issue as the education of inorodtsy (literally "aliens," but
applied to certain non-Russian minorities inhabiting the Empire).
More than that, he felt that the matter should be left to Russians to
resolve; to entrust it to a Tatar would be absurd and potentially
dangerous. If the government's efforts to russify the peoples of
Turkestan were to succeed, Ostroumov reasoned, persons like
Gasprinskii would have to be watched closely, because they are men
"who strive to use all the advantages of Russian culture to defend
[their] own nationality."5 For his part, Nalivkin raised many of the
same arguments against Gasprinskii's proposal. "It would be
regrettable," he noted, "if the Russian government, in matters
relating to education in Turkestan, had to turn to Tatars in general,
and Gasprinskii in particular." And like Ostroumov, Nalivkin
recommended that Ismail Bey not be trusted, claiming that his
newspaper evinced an anti-Russian bias.6
Given these hostile opinions, it is small wonder that the GovernorGeneral decided not to act favorably upon Gasprinskii's recommendations. In fact, he apparently gave no further thought to them
or their author, failing even to inform Ismail Bey of what had
transpired.7
Unaware of his memorandum's fate, and perhaps having already
decided not to limit his efforts to official Russian channels or in
Russian-controlled areas. Gasprinskii turned his attention to the
natives of Central Asia. He seems to have concluded early in the
1890s that the Emirate of Bukhara, with its semi-westernized ruler,
Abdiilahad (1885-1910), offered the greatest opportunities for
advancing his cause. Beginning in 1891 a number of articles dealing
with Bukhara and its monarch appeared in Tercuman/Perevodchik.B In
them we find Gasprinskii drawing a positive, though exaggerated,
picture of developments in the emirate, noting the abolition of
slavery and unusual punishment, the establishment of banks, a
pharmacy, a hospital and telegraph and postal systems; he also
dwelled on Bukhara's ties to Russia, stressing the beneficial impact

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

80

Edward J.Lazzerini

that Russian culture was having upon Bukharan society and its
ruler.
It was upon the Emir himself, however, that Gasprinskii focused
most of his attention, realizing that only with Abdiilahad's vigorous
support could he hope to influence the reform of Bukharan schools.
A biographical and personality sketch of the Emir, originally
published in the Russian journal Isloricheskii vestnik,9 found its way
onto the pages of Tercuman/Perevodchik, and between December 1892
and March 1893, Ismail Bey provided his readers with a detailed
itinerary and account of the Emir's tour of Russia. The portrayal of
Abdulahad in these articles is complimentary, even glowing;
throughout, the reader is told that His Highness is an "enlightened
ruler,"" a "young ruler who desires to introduce many improvements into the administration and life of Bukhara,"12 and a monarch
under whose intelligent leadership "there is every hope that Bukhara
will move forward and become an enlightened land once again."13
The two men had established their earliest known contact almost
a decade before in the autumn of 1883 when the Emir, then heirapparent, wrote to Gasprinskii praising his reformist intentions and
requesting a subscription to the newly established Tercuman/Perevodchik.1* This initial correspondence, however, failed to contribute
to a' more substantial and lasting relationship; in fact, virtually
nothing concerning Bukhara or its ruler (Abdulahad succeeded to
the throne in 1885), appeared in Gasprinskii's writings for the
remainder of the decade. For that matter, Abdulahad's subscription
seems to have lapsed, for we find Gasprinskii recording in mid-1892
that the Emir had requested (once again?) that the newspaper be
sent to him regularly.
Not long after, the two men would meet for the first time when the
Emir visited the Crimea as part of a grand tour of Russia. With
undisguised pleasure Ismail Bey announced in Tercuman/Perevodchik
that extraordinary public enthusiasm, from Muslims and Russians
alike, had greeted the arrival of Abdulahad in Bakhchisarai on
February 6. Gasprinskii also reported his own attendance at a
luncheon to honor the distinguished visitor, after which the Emir
met with him privately and offered congratulations for his
journalistic endeavors.16 On two other occasions (the third in
Sevastopol') during his Crimean sojourn, Abdulahad granted
Gasprinskii an audience, and each time, so it was reported, "he spoke
many flattering words about Tercuman/Perevodchik and its editor."17
The sources, unfortunately, yield nothing of the more substantive
words exchanged; yet the two men must have discussed the trip that
Gasprinskii would shortly take to Central Asia in May. About this
journey he later wrote:

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893

81

Recently I was drawn to making a trip to the Turkestan region.
Ancient Bactria, with its sources of the most recent civilization;
the main operating base of the Turkic tribes from which they
moved in waves west to Vienna, northwest to Moscow, [and]
southwest to Cairo; and finally, the homeland of the greatest of
the Turkic conquerors, Tamerlane — all this held a great
historical and ethnographical fascination for me. I [was also]
interested in seeing a Muslim society that was touched very
little, if at all, by European culture and customs. [Furthermore]
in February of this year the Emir of Bukhara arrived in
Bakhchisarai and showed a flattering interest in me. This also
provided an impetus for my trip.18
The romantic imagery which these phrases conjure disguises more
than it reveals of Gasprinskii's motives for touring Central Asia. In
fact, from evidence offered below, it seems reasonable to conclude
that the trip was a response to a direct invitation from the Emir if
not also to the failure of the Turkestan Governor-General to answer
Gasprinskii's memorandum on educational reform for Muslims.
The primary source dealing with the journey is an account
entitled "Ot Bakhchisaraia do Tashkenta" which Gasprinskii wrote and
serialized in Tercuman/Perevodchik between August and December,
1893.19 Especially informative when describing his activities and
recording some of his observations of life in the regions through
which he passed, this account is, however, noticeably reticent about
certain major episodes, such as Ismail Bey's meeting with Russian
officials in Tashkent, his role in establishing the first "new method"
primary school (mekteb-i cedid) in Central Asia, and his conversations
with the Emir of Bukhara. Nevertheless, with the aid of several other
sources we are able to reduce the effects of Gasprinskii's self-imposed
censorship and offer a reasonably sound description and analysis of
the journey.
On 10 May 1893, Gasprinskii departed Bakhchisarai for
Sevastopol', where he boarded the Russian steamer "Alexander II"
bound for Batum. Disembarking at this southwest Georgian port, he
traversed the Caucasus, making brief stops of two or three days in
Tiflis and Baku. In both of these cities, as was his practice when
traveling, Ismail Bey spent his time circulating among the local
Muslim intelligentsia, or at least that portion that had had a
western-style education or in whom, as he noted, "the wisdom of the
East and the science of the West are reconciled."20 The Muslim
population of Baku particularly impressed him with its material and
intellectual achievements, its literacy, attendance at social gatherings,
and deep interest in progressive education. The emergence of a "new

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

82

Edward J.Lazzerini

breed of businessmen," like Haji ZeynQPabedin Tagiev the industrialist, who were earnest patrons of modern learning and social
welfare, captured Gasprinskii's imagination as well, and were offered
to his reading audience as models worthy of emulation.
From Baku, which he ranked above all other centers of Muslim
life in Russia and Central Asia, Ismail Bey sailed across the Caspian
Sea to Uzun Ada, which since the mid-1880s had been under
Russian occupation. Reflecting the frontier atmosphere of the region
and the continuing role of the imperial army there, Uzun Ada
seemed to Gasprinskii "neither a village nor a city, but rather like a
military camp." Clearly offering little to detain him, he immediately
boarded the train that would carry him the nearly eight hundred
miles to Bukhara via Kizil Arvat, Gok Tepe, and Merv.22
Upon arrival in the Emirate's capital and major urban center
(probably around 23 May), Gasprinskii was met by the highest
ranking Bukharan official after the Emir, the Kushbegi Mirza Khan.
Director of the civil branches of the central government and
responsible for the reception of foreign envoys and travellers, the
Kushbegi informed Ismail Bey that he was to be a royal guest during
his entire sojourn in Bukhara. Taken to grand quarters usually
reserved for visiting ambassadors and provided with a four-horse
carriage and coachmen for his travels in and around the city,
Gasprinskii was appropriately impressed and honored.23 Having
turned aside Ismail Bey's protestations at the extravagant treatment
accorded him, the Kushbegi further informed the traveler that
Abdulahad, presently at his summer retreat in §ekri-Siabz, would
send for him on 9 June in Samarkand.24
Gasprinskii remained in Bukhara for four days — barely
tolerating the heat, he declared — during which time he visited some
local schools, had a meeting with the Emir's finance minister
(Divanbegi), and enjoyed a serious discussion of the "new method"
and educational reform with the Kadi Kalan, one of the most
prominent members of Bukhara's ulema (religious intelligentsia) and
the man in charge of justice and education. According to
Gasprinskii's account, the Kadi Kalan completely approved of the
Tatar reformer's projects in principle; he felt, however, that the cedid
primer designed to promote literacy more rapidly and thoroughly
ought to be written in Persian and not in Turkic. Ismail Bey argued
that although Persian was the literary and official language of
Bukhara, a Turkic primer (in the manner of Hoca-yi Sibyan that
Gasprinskii had written in 1884), would prove more sensible because
almost all the inhabitants of the Emirate spoke Uzbek, that is, one of
the Turkic tongues.25
Regrettably, Gasprinskii's account offers no hint of a resolution to

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893

83

so fundamental a dispute as that over language of instruction.
Neither are we provided with any indication of the Kadi Kalan's
relationship to the Emir or the Bukharan ulema. When he spoke to
Gasprinskii of educational reform, for example, was he expressing
merely personal and private views that might link him to the small
group of progressive but politically ostracized intellectuals gathered
around Ahmad Mahdum Donish?26 Or was he speaking for the Emir
as well? For that matter, since we do not hear of the Kadi Kalan
again in Ismail Bey's travelogue, and since, as we shall see,
Gasprinskii's visit to Bukhara proved singularly unproductive, was
the Kadi Kalan what he seemed: a powerful religious leader
ostensibly holding "liberal" views in a society known for its intensely
conservative attitude toward Islam, learning, and education? Or was
he more likely a man who knew how to flatter others, how to "agree
in principle" without truly agreeing in fact? These questions, even if
unanswerable, are far from trivial, for the Emir himself played to his
audiences in just such a manner when it came to matters of reform
and imitation of Western models and attitudes. To Gasprinskii and
other "foreign" contemporaries, he seemed unquestionably enlightened, a force thrusting Bukharan society into the modern world;
but to those with a more critical eye and with the advantage of
hindsight, his commitment to reformism is surely suspect.27
After four days of the relative comforts of Bukhara, Gasprinskii
boarded a train for the fifteen-hour journey to Samarkand. There,
following a meeting with a local Russian bureaucrat named
Kulchanov, for whom he had a letter of introduction, he called upon
Count A.Ia. Rostovtsev, the nachal'nik (head) of Samarkand oblast'
(region). Not surprisingly, given the major purpose of Gasprinskii's
travels, the problems of native education dominated their conversation. During their talk — the details of which are not presented —
Rostovtsev suggested that Gasprinskii introduce himself to the
teacher in Samarkand's Russo-Native school in order to obtain firsthand information about local conditions.28 Since no reference to
such a meeting is later made, we may surmise that it never took
place.
Gasprinskii's apparent failure to pursue Rostovstev's suggestion
may be explained by his involvement in an enterprise much more
important: the establishment of the first "new method" mekteb in
Central Asia, about which he would write only much later in 1912.29
At the time of his arrival, Gasprinskii was invited to a banquet
hosted by Abdulgani Bey Hiiseynov, a millionaire Tatar merchant
originally from Orenburg but now residing in Samarkand. HQseynov,
like his two brothers Ahmed and Mahmud, was long familiar with
Gasprinskii's work and was involved in philanthropic endeavors that

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

84

Edward J. Lazzerini

focused especially on education.30 To honor his Crimean visitor he
proposed establishing a mekteb-i cedid. During the ensuing days he
undertook the task of organizing the school and assembling its first
student body (some twenty-thirty young boys); he also provided its
financial base. Since no local teacher familiar with the phonetic basis
of the "new method" was available, Gasprinskii requested his
traveling companion, Sultan Mecid Ganizade, an instructor of
Russian in Baku, to remain behind as the mekteb's first instructor
until he could train one or two local replacements. Within five weeks
Ganizade had placed the school on a sound footing and departed for
home; unfortunately, whether owing to opposition from local
mullas,31 the failure to obtain permission from local Russian
authorities, or a combination of the two, the police soon ordered the
school's closure.32
Meanwhile, Gasprinskii was completing his itinerary with a
stopover in Tashkent before meeting with the Emir. For lack of
information we can only speculate that his primary interest in
visiting the city was to discover first-hand something of the fate of
his 1891 memorandum. Although a meeting with the GovernorGeneral seems not to have materialized, he did see Ostroumov
whom he described as his "amiable colleague . . . who actively
participates in the region's educational affairs."33 We need only
recall Ostroumov's vigorous dissent from Gasprinskii's views and his
longstanding public opposition to the cedid phenomenon generally to
appreciate the irony of this characterization and wonder whether
Gasprinskii was being naive or merely polite. If he learned anything
of the handling of his memorandum, he never made such knowledge
public.
When Ismail Bey returned to Samarkand on 8 June he was met
by a royal entourage. The following morning he was taken to §ekriSiabz where special accommodations were provided. On the tenth,
one of Abdiilahad's military commanders informed Gasprinskii that
the Emir would see him on the first day of Kurban Bayram (the
Muslim "Festival of Sacrifices"), following the mosque service.34
The celebration commenced on the twelfth, a day that ought to have
been the culmination of Gasprinskii's Central Asian experiences.
Instead we are confronted with silence concerning the day's
activities save for little more than a passing reference to a morning
meeting lasting fifteen minutes and a second, presumably as brief,
audience around four o'clock in the afternoon. To render Gasprinskii's final day in §ekri-Siabz all the more puzzling, he left for
Samarkand immediately the next morning to begin the long trek
home.35
With some cause we can surmise that his terribly brief contact

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893

85

with the Emir and swift departure on the thirteenth reflect
Gasprinskii's failure to win the active support of the monarch for
educational reform in Bukhara.36 Abdulahad, during earlier conversations in the Crimea, had unquestionably given the reformer
reason to expect positive results from a visit to Central Asia. Yet,
Gasprinskii may have been guilty of wishful thinking and an
exaggerated opinion of the Emir's power and will. Whereas the Emir
could play the enlightened ruler without restraint when "abroad,"
within the boundaries of his own territory he was much more subject
to the pressures of a militantly traditionalist ulema and entrenched
social elite. More than likely Abdulahad found himself faced with
strenuous and widespread objections whenever he raised the specter
of reform, no matter how innocuous the proposal might appear.
Since the traditional educational system was essential to preserving
the way of life that existed in Islamic Bukhara, any attempt to
tamper with it would certainly engender protest and possibly even
popular revolt.
Beyond the question of the Emir's sincerity as a reformer, strong
pressure for change clearly existed in the Emirate — from Russian as
well as Bukharan sources — that complicated Abdulahad's ability to
exercise the authority that he could claim as ruler. That Gasprinskii
may have been caught between reformist and traditionalist forces,
with the latter able to quash his hopes for the region, is a serious
possibility. Evidence to support this hypothesis is inconclusive, yet
suggestive. The inaccessibility of the Emir during Gasprinskii's
sojourn would not be so curious if it reflected a struggle of opposing
views around the throne. Moreover, the timing of Gasprinskii's
meetings with Abdulahad — on the first day of a religious holiday —
seems scarcely accidental or without obvious significance. Finally,
the appearance in Tercuman/Perevodchik not long after Gasprinskii's
return from Central Asia of a didactic tale entitled "Dva Khana,"
which I am convinced was addressed to Abdulahad, deserves
consideration.37
The plot is a simple one. In typical allegorical fashion, there once
lived two khans, each of whom proposed to perform a good deed.
The first, following the suggestion of his counsellors, decided to build
a mosque; the second, heeding the advice of his youngest vezir,
determined to construct and support a medresse (upper-level school
for training scholars) whose curriculum would comprise both
religious and secular subjects. After several centuries had passed,
travellers to the land of the first khan noted that its inhabitants were
ignorant and the khanate showed no signs of progress. On the other
hand, in the realm of the second khan the people were literate and
appreciated the sciences. There society flourished because centuries

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

86

Edward J. Lazzerini

earlier a sagacious ruler had grasped the positive correlation
between education, love of knowledge, and social well-being.
The lesson for Abdulahad was clear; his ability, or even desire to
heed it was less so. When Gasprinskii met with him again in
Bakhchisarai and Yalta in the summer of 1894, he reported that
their conversations "above all dealt with education" and that they
left him convinced of the Emir's sincerity "to do good for his
subjects."38 Whatever the genuineness of Ismail Bey's feelings for
Abdulahad, his expectations were never fulfilled, even decades later
when in 1908 he journeyed once more to Central Asia to lend
support to the cause of the cedid movement there. His early hopes for
spreading the "new method" to the region must have been dealt a
severe blow in 1893 by the Emir's lack of concrete support, as they
must have been by the indifference, or worse, hostility of those in the
Russian ranks most responsible for the education of the inorodtsy. But
Gasprinskii was accustomed to the latter, having struggled with
Russian authorities for years over this and other issues. The Emir
was another matter. In him Ismail Bey thought he saw an ally with
the power to introduce change from the top, a man who would
generate a modern Islamic society with close and friendly ties to
Russia, whose successes would accomplish two larger goals: (1)
convince the Russians that their fears of an Islamic renaissance were
groundless, and (2) inspire in the Empire's Muslims the necessary
changes in mentalite that would lead to material improvement in their
lives. If what was published in Tercuman/Perevodchik is any indication
of Gasprinskii's expectations for Central Asia, then the dramatic
decline in the number of articles on the region after his experiences
there is telling.39 So too is the fact that he would return to Central
Asia only after a fifteen-year hiatus, and then under rather different
and more propitious circumstances.

NOTES
1. For citations to the English-language writings of these and other travellers to
Central Asia, see Harry W. Nerhood (comp.), To Russia and Return: An Annotated
Bibliography of Travelers' English-Language Accounts of Russia From the Ninth Century

to the Present (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1968).
2. Gasprinskii's life and thought are the subjects of my doctoral dissertation:
"Ismail Bey Gasprinskii and Muslim Modernism in Russia, 1878—1914,"
University of Washington, 1973. Except for Cafer-Seydahmet's Gaspirali Ismail
- Bey (Istanbul, 1934), in Turkish, nothing substantial has been published about
this Tatar social activist despite the large volume of information and sources
available and his central role in the history of the cedid movement.
3. A.V. Piaskovskii, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov v Turkestane (Moscow, 1958), p. 99,

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

From Bakhchisarai to Bukhara in 1893

87

n. 180; and K.E. Bendrikov, Ocherki po istorii nandnogo obrazovaniia v Turkestane
(1865-1924 gody) (Moscow, 1960), p. 253. Vashkevich's mission may have been
part of a larger governmental concern in the 1880s and 1890s with several
matters affecting Russia's Islamic communities, including the management of
vakif (philanthropic) properties and the disposition of their revenues, reform of
the Muslim Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and the training and certification of
mullas (members of the religious intelligentsia). None of these issues, despite
their fundamental importance to the study of the relationship between the
tsarist regime and Russian Islam in the last decades of the old regime, have
received any scholarly attention.
4. A.V. Piaskovskii, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov, p. 99. The Governor-General is
incorrectly identified as Nikolai Ottovich Rozenbakh, replaced in that position
in 1889 by Baron Aleksandr Borisovich Vrevskii, some two years or more before
Gasprinskii submitted his memorandum.
5. K.E. Bendrikov, Ochtrki po istorii, p. 255. Ostroumov maintained a lifelong
hostility toward Gasprinskii and the cedid movement that is reflected in much
of his writing: for example, see Chto takoe Koran? Po povodu statei I. Gasprinskago,
Devlet Kil'deeva i Murzy Alima (Tashkent 1883); Koran i progress (Tashkent,
1901); "Musul'manskie maktaby i russko-tuzemnyia shkoly v Turkestanskom
kraie," Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, N.S., I, No. 2 (1906),
pp. 111-166; and "K istorii musul'manskago obrazovatel'nago dvizheniia v
Rossii v 19 i 20 stoletiiakh," Mir Islama, II, No. 5 (1913), pp. 302-326.
6. K.E. Bendrikov, Ocherki po istorii, p. 255.
7. A.V. Piaskovskii, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov, p. 99. K.E. Bendrikov, Ocherki po
istorii, p. 255.
8. For example, the serialized article "Bukhara," Tercüman-Perevodchik, No. 23 (14
July 1891), pp. 46-47; No. 24 (21 July 1891), pp. 48-49; and No. 25 (30 July
1891), p. 50.
9. "Emir Seid Abdul-Agat," Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 27 (31 July 1892), p. 53.
10. See issues 45, 47, and 48 (1892), and 1 through 8 (1893).
11. "Priiezd Emira," Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 30 (23 August 1894), p. 59.
12. "Priiezd bukharskago Khana." Tercuman/Perevodchik, No. 45 (16 December
1892), p. 89.
13. "Bukhara," Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 23 (14 July 1893), p. 47.
14. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 19 (1883).
15. "Emir Seid Abdul-Agat," p. 53.
16. "Puteshestvie bukharskago Emira," Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 5 (10 February
1893), p. 9. The Emir also presented Gasprinskii with a medal, the Golden
Order of the Rising Star, third degree.
17. "Priem Emirom redaktora," Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 5 (10 February 1893),
p. 9. Gasprinskii was not the only Tatar to follow the Emir's trip with interest.
Musa Bigi, who would earn a reputation as a progressive member of the ulema,
and Muhammed Zakir Bigiev, a budding writer of the "new" type, both
attended Abdülahad during his stopover in Rostov. Bigiev took the occasion to
request permission to publish a newspaper in Bukhara. See "Puteshestvie
Bukharskago Emira." Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 1 (9 January 1893), p. 1.
18. "Ot Bakhchisaraia do Tashkenta," Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 29 (31 August
1893), p. 57.
19. The account ran in fourteen issues beginning with No. 29 (31 August 1893),
and ending with No. 43 (17 December 1893).
20. His journey as far as Baku is chronicled in issues No. 29, 30 (9 September
1893), and 31 (18 September 1893).
21. Tagiev continued to receive plaudits from Gasprinskii for years after. The

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 10:41 18 July 2013

88

Edward J . Lazzerini

publication of a twelve-page supplement to Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 17 (3 May
1903), entitled "Tagievskaia fabrika v Baku," epitomizes the latter's attention.
22. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 32 (26 September 1893), p. 63.
23. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 35 (21 October 1893), p. 69.
24. Tercüman/Perevodckik, No. 37 (7 November 1893), p. 73.
25. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 36 (29 October 1893), p. 71, and No. 37, p. 73. A year
and a half earlier Gasprinskii had written a series of articles entitled "Bukhara"
in which he commented favorably on the work of Mir Ali Shir, "a purely Turkic
writer and patriot . . . famous for his efforts to develop a native Turkic speech."
As if anticipating the Crimean reformer, Mir Ali Shir wrote that "Turks should
prefer their own language to Persian." See Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 25 (30 July
1891), p. 50.
26. Donish (1827-1897), largely influenced by personal observations of Russian
developments during the era of Great Reforms, was a sharp critic of
contemporary Bukharan society and an advocate of educational reform as the
principal vehicle of modernization.
27. For a balanced, thoughtful assessment of the Emir's personality and the
question of his commitment to reform, see Seymour Becker, Russia's Protectorates
in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865-1924 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1968), pp. 195-201.
28. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 40 (26 November 1893), pp. 25-26.
29. Gasprinskii recounted the events surrounding this episode in a brief article
entitled "Maşinali Mekteb," published in B. Şeref, Gani Bey (Orenburg, 1913),
pp. 126-128.
30. On the Hüseynovs and their activities, see B. Şeref, Gani Bey; Rizaeddin
Fahreddin, Ahmed Bey (Orenburg, 1911); Dzh. Validov, Ocherk istorii obrazovannosti i literatury tatar (do revoliutsii 1917 g.) (Moscow, 1923), pp. 58-62; and
A. Rorlich, "The Roots of the Tatar Bourgeoisie: Its Financial Support of the
Jadid Education," unpublished paper.
31. Citing archival materials, A.V. Piaskovskii, Revoliutsiia 1905-1907 godov, p. 100,
n. 183, writes that the local religious authorities had declared the school to be in
violation of Islamic law.
32. I. Gasprinskii, "Masmali Mekteb," P. 127.
33. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 41 (2 December 1893), p. 32.
34. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 42 (10 December 1893), pp. 33 and 36.
35. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 43 (17 December 1893), pp. 37-40 (supplement).
36. Seymour Becker claims that Gasprinskii "secured the emir's promise not to
block the establishment of new-method schools in the khanate, . . ." See Becker,
Russia's Protectorates, p. 203. I have found nothing to substantiate this assertion.
37. Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 32 (26 September 1893), pp. 1-3.
38. "Emir Bukhary," Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 32 (9 September 1894), p. 65.
39. Abdülahad returned to the Crimea on another of his trips to Russia in June,
1898. Other than noting his arrival in Bakhchisarai, Gasprinskii devoted
nothing of the attention he had lavished on the Emir at the beginning of the
decade. See Tercüman/Perevodchik, No. 24 (21 June 1898), p. 93.