Post-revolution oriental studies in the ussr: correspondence between v. V. Bartold and a. Y. Krymsky in the 1920s

The primary reason for writing this article is a very special date – the 150th anniversary of the birth of academician and Orientalist V. V. Bartold, an event celebrated in Russia in 2019. At the turn of the twentieth century the scholar and humanist wrote: "Under the influence of the Golden East, Wonderland works written by European orientalists, the East of One Thousand and One Nights gradually retreats into the realm of legends; instead, the picture of the actual life of the Eastern peoples unfolds before us, and we find out the reasons that determined the course of their history and their role in the history of humankind.1 " Famous intellectuals and thinkers V. V. Bartold (1869-1930) and A.Y. Krymsky (1871-1942) and their legacy vividly showcase the earthly fate, scientific achievements and spiritual experience of the history of classical Oriental studies in Russia and Europe. The collections of the Institute of Manuscripts of the V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine hold 10 letters written by V.V. Bartold addressed to A.Y. Krymsky, while the St. Petersburg Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences keeps seven response letters from A.Y. Krymsky. Although the extant correspondence covers a period of twenty years, from 1908 to 1928, this article will focus on the significance of letters dating from the 1920s. The legacy of A.Y. Krymsky and V. V. Bartold has great historical, scientific and cultural weight in the history of Russian, Ukrainian, and European Oriental studies. The article analyzes the unpublished correspondence between V.V. Bartold and A.Y. Krymsky between 1922 and 1928. It contains valuable data which helps reconstruct the main trends of contemporary academic life and improve understanding of existing problems in the field of Oriental studies in Russia in the 1920s. The correspondence of these distinguished scholars showcases their common professional interest in both the state of Oriental studies and the educational system.


INTRODUCTION
Petersburg State University and 120 years since the creation of the Oriental Institute in Vladivostok. From their very inception, the interaction and cooperation of these leading centers of Asian and African studies of Russia and Europe was organic, and influential in the history and culture of the peoples of Russia and the development of Oriental studies. In the chain of salient scholarly events of 2019 in Russia, the 150th anniversary of the birth of V. V. Bartold has acquired great significance due to his prominent position as founder of the historical school of Oriental studies. Studies of Russian orientalists were known to have a wide regional, chronological and topical range. In many ways, the local and international influence of Russian Oriental studies began to grow in tandem with the studies of classical and modern disciplines. Russian Oriental studies helped interpret and explore the greatness and tragedy of the history and culture of the various peoples of multiethnic and multi-religious Russia. Scholars honed in on the interaction between European and Asian historical and ideological symbols, as well as the geographical and historical-cultural interaction between Russia, the East and the West. In the study of the phenomenon of oriental studies in Russia and the Soviet Union, special attention is paid to the epistolary legacy of Russian Orientalists. What is being conducted currently is the search, study, systematization, and publication of the correspondence of the prominent Arabist, Semitologist, Turkologist, Iranian scholar, and Slavist A. Y. Krymsky with prominent Orientalists V.R. Rosen, V.V. Bartold

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
Our systematic methodology of addressing "documents of personal origin", namely the correspondence of eminent Russian Orientalists, is represented by a combination of four key research methods. In first place is the search, processing and expansion of the archival-epistolary base through comprehensive study of the personal collections of Orientalists in the archives of Russia and Ukraine (other countries may be added as necessary). In addition to correspondence, additional materials are consulted, including official documents, plans, and notebooks, among others. Following this first step is the search and systematization of bilateral correspondence (Krymsky -Rosen, Krymsky -Bartold, Krymsky -Minorsky, etc.). The third step encompasses the historiographic, source study-related and thematic search for and synthesis of historical and scientific facts and information presented in the correspondence. Once the synthesis is complete, the process is finalized with subsequent categorization and analysis to reach conclusions about the nature of the relations between the aforementioned academics and to establish the picture of scholarly life in the Russian Empire in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries.

RESULTS ANALYSIS
The first decades in the history of Russian Oriental studies after the creation of the Soviet state were marked by significant scientific achievements, the beginning of the Soviet institutionalized system of education, and the development of fundamental and applied studies of the East, as well as a few tragic events that affected the fate of the academic community. In this paper there is no need to delve too deep into the biographical milestones of famous Russian orientalists Vasily Vladimirovich Bartold (1869Bartold ( -1930 1 and Ahatanhel Yukhymovych Krymsky (1871Krymsky ( -1942 2 , because there is extensive modern historiography and an already formed source base. They belonged to the same generation and even had similar social and academic values but they had very different ethnic, social and cultural backgrounds. Both had excellent education and both ended up becoming outstanding scholars representing important centers of Oriental studies -St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev. Both did research in a broad variety of fields related to Arab and Islamic civilization. Both were elected academicians (V. V. Bartold became a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1913, while A. Y. Krymskyas a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in 1918). In 1928 in a letter to academician I.Y. Krachkovsky A.Y. Krymsky noted: "However, a thought occurs to me: how did orientalists of St. Petersburg miss the anniversary of another scholar that is a treasure of Russian orientalism? I am talking about Bartold. It is clear that as soon as anyone raises an idea of publishing a collection of articles dedicated to himthe entire Europe will immediately respond, and this collection will come out no less impressive and valuable than, for instance, similar collections dedicated to Nöldeke, Browne, etc. < > And it is clear that such a collection would be a worthy review of the old forces of orientalism and a collective document (alas, maybe the last of its sort) of something that is about to die and that the subsequent generation of orientalists will not be able to replace" 3 . In 1941 academician I. Y. Krachkovsky, in highlighting the events dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the birth of Ukrainian academician A. Y. Krymsky, wrote the following: "It is a pleasure for our Academy to note that A. Krymsky from the early years of his work had a close-knit relationship with it. His relationship was preserved until his last years. 4 " A.Y. Krymsky's personal and professional connections are in many ways organically related to academic Orientalists of the Petersburg center of Oriental studies. This is especially evident in the aforementioned "documents of personal origin"the correspondence of V. V. Bartold 5 Letters from V.V. Bartold and A.Y. Krymskytwo participants in the tumultuous political and academic events of the 1920sconvey the spirit of the era and shed light on the sweeping changes in Asian and African studies in Russia during the first decade after the Revolution of 1917. Their pre-1917 letters are mainly devoted to the discussion of academic topics and issues of the study of the East, while their subsequent correspondence to a greater extent reflected upon socio-political and cultural problems and reflections. The works and the legacy of the two outstanding orientalists of Russia of the late 19 thfirst several decades of the 20 th centuries, and in particular the Soviet period, have showed the following trends: the development of Oriental studies in Russia/USSR becomes one of "the most important factors of the Russian culture", and a natural connection is established "between the development of Russian orientalism and the achievement of political and cultural goals of Russia in the East" (V. V. Bartold). Attay was elected the director of CIMOL. In October of 1921 the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) adopted a resolution on the merging between CIMOL and the Oriental Department of Moscow University and the creation of a single united educational institutionthe Institute of Oriental Studies. The late 1920s and the 1930s mark the beginning of the Academy of Sciences reorganization. In 1929 a special government committee was conducting a thorough inspection of the Academy of Sciences, conducting checks on both its work and its members. In 1930 the Academy adopted its Charter, which stated that all academic work must serve the interests of the Soviet state. During the following years the work of the Academy was repeatedly discussed in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of People's Commissars (SNK). In 1934 it was passed under the supervision of SNK and transferred to Moscow. In 1935 a new Charter was adopted. The reorganization of the Academy also concerned the already existing institutions of Oriental studiesthe Asiatic Museum, the Board of Orientalists, the Turkology Institute, the Institute of Buddhist Culture, etc. The main result of the reorganization was the formation of the Institute of Oriental Studies in the structure of the Academy of Sciences. Orientalist academic centers and researchers were mobilized to achieve the goals of Soviet state-building and culture-building. The repressions of the 1920s -1940s did enormous damage to the Russian/Soviet orientalism, took the lives of a lot of scholars, broke off the succession of studies, scientific schools and disciplines, including ones at universities. Academicians V. V. Bartold and A. Y. Krymsky also experienced political and ideological crises. This was the dawn of an era of new institutions, new studies and new ideas in the history of Soviet orientalism, including academic disciplines and research fields focused on studying the East. In 1923 Y.N. Rerikh wrote the following in his article "Orientalism": "Just a very short time ago orientalism was still a closed field where profound academic research was conducted, but whose treasures were not accessible for the rest of the world and were hidden behind a thick veil of time". He optimistically noted that "the new stage in orientalism is the total synthesis that would reflect the historical development of the Eastern countries in general while meeting the requirements of modern science". The horror overwhelms me at the sight of this obituary. 7 " It was a reflection of the time that in 1922 A.Y. Krymsky did not immediately understand what the last phrase in V. V. Bartold's letter meant and asked him the following question: "You wrote: 'I.Y. Krachkovsky had to drop out from among our midst against his will'. What does it mean? Where is he?", and at the end of the letter he adds: "I would like to send my greetings to Krachkovsky by you, but from your letter I understand that he is not in Petersburg. I repeat my request, please let me know what has happened to him. 8 " During the initial years of Soviet power, the persecution of dissidents had not yet become a common phenomenon in the life of society, and for this reason, news about the arrest of Arabist I.Y. Krachkovsky (1883 -1951) blindsided A.Y. Krymsky. In the following letter V.V. Bartold was more specific: "I thought you would understand my 'descriptive' expression about Krachkovsky; now you probably already know from our newspapers, if they are reaching you, about numerous arrests among academics; Kr[achkovsky] is among them; although, as far as we know, he has always been very much distanced from politics. He has not yet been released; what he is accused of and what they intend to do with him is not yet known for certain. 9 " Academician V.V. Bartold then informs his respondent about the innovations in the field of Orientalism in the capital and complains that any information about Oriental studies in Ukraine is reaching him with great difficulty. In particular, V.V. Bartold 12 " Orientalists eagerly shared their plans for the future with each other. V.V. Bartold told one of his colleagues: "It is assumed that several scholars, including me, will travel to the West, but whether or not these trips will actually take place, it is difficult to say. It will be even more difficult to decide whether, at least in 1923, the supposedly 'all-Russian scale' congress of Turkologists will take place 13 . In any case, the survivors from among us still continue their work as far as possible, and they do not intend to cease it. 14 " Nevertheless, despite organizational and ideological difficulties, in the 1920s V.V. Bartold's research travel to several European centers did happen 15 . In his letters A.Y. Krymsky never ceases to be interested in the possibility of obtaining new materials necessary for him to continue his research. He asks V.V. Bartold: "Has Volume VI of Ibn Miskawayh already come out? 16 I desperately need it, and I can't get any information about it. 17 " In a reply letter V. V. Bartold, who had ample information on the subject, wrote the following: "The VI volume of Ibn Miskawayh you are interested in has been published [...] twice already, in facsimile and in print; we do not have it either. 18 " Later, in 1925, in "Zapiski istorichno-filologichnogo viddidu UAN" ("Notes of the historical-philological faculty of UAN"), A.Y. Krymsky's new work came out, entitled "Pers'kij teatr, zvidki vin uzyavsya i yak rozvivavs'" ("Persian theater, how it was formed and how it developed"), in which, by his own admission, he widely used the work of Ibn Miskawayh 19 . In several of their letters, the participants of the correspondence address a problem that continues to be relevant todaythe problem of the use of the Ukrainian language in science. Bartold and Krymsky did not reach an understanding on this issue, instead agreeing to disagree. A.Y. Krymsky was known to have been not only a famous Orientalist, but also an outstanding Ukrainian linguist, writer and poet. His poetry collection "Pal'move gillya" (Palm tree branches) 20 includes not only his own poems, but also his translations of poetry classics from around the world, including ones made from original poems written by Arab-Muslim authors. Its third part began with the "V Trapezunti" ("In Trebizond") poetry cycle, dedicated to the author's stay in 1917 in Trebizond, which was occupied by Tsarist troops. Together with well-known Byzantinist and collector of Oriental manuscripts F.I. Uspensky (1845-1928), A.Y. Krymsky was dispatched there by the Russian Academy of Sciences to describe and study ancient manuscripts stored in local monasteries and mosques. In a letter dated August 6, 1922, V.V. Bartold thanked A.Y. Krymsky for the poetry collection he had sent him, but at the same time he expressed his own opinion about it: "Personally, I would find it more desirable if Ukrainian literature were limited to the field of dialectical poetry and if the language of Russian science was the one language that was developed, as we know, with the active participation of Ukrainians by birth; but, of course, I cannot convince you of this. In any case, it would seem that it is possible to write in Ukrainian without that hatred of anything Moscow-related that your book is imbued with [...] It is hardly necessary to prove, especially after your poetry pieces [...] that the army that was standing in Trebizond was not a Moscow army but an All-Russian one; there is also no evidence that the 'vandal' acts were committed solely by Russians; not to mention the fact that you were just one of many individuals sent there by the Academy, and not even the main person in the mission, and that the ancient monuments are to be protected not only from military operations but also from all other accidents. 21 " It took A.Y. Krymsky some time to formulate his position on this burning issue. On August 19, 1922, he sent V.V. Bartold a message that was so remarkable that it has been quoted here almost in full, with only small redactions in the translation. "I have received your letter...", A.Y. Krymsky wrote, "and it has unspeakably saddened me. A reproach of hatred to all things Russian is a very harsh and offensive one for me, because I actually belong to those Ukrainians who struggle here, in Kiev, against any sort of enmity to Russians and Russian culture and get accused of 'Russophilia to the point of betrayal of one's own culture'. The generations that are younger than me were even ready to cross me out of the list of Ukrainians but, unfortunately for them, there were two serious circumstances against that, the first being that Krymsky cannot be simply crossed out of the history of Ukrainian literature in which he played not the least of roles by having contributed to it for thirty years, while the second is that Krymsky is a more natural Ukrainian than most new ones, and that these superpatriotic people are forced to acknowledge that Krymsky has a most respected place in terms of Ukrainian language competence and the mastery of its style in all its subtleties. In any case, I hear enough sour words about my 'Russification', and sometimes certain methods are adopted to get rid of me in the cases where I am deemed 'harmful' [. .] will in no case find any anti-Russian antics in my poetic cycle "In Trebizond". As for non-Ukrainian readers, it is also clear: before making conclusions that are offensive for the author, they should have confidence that they have correctly understood the Ukrainian text.
[…] I very rarely write letters, except short and dry ones, purely about business. But this time I have changed my custom, and I have answered your letter with an entire epistle. Sorry for the outburst [...] You think it would be better for Ukrainians to stick to the All-Russian language and confine themselves to the dialectical area [...] Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion: die gedanken sind zollfrei. But I assure you that your opinion is striking in its colossal incongruity with the facts of reality. When Ukrainian is a working language for 12 universities, when this language abundantly manifests itself in science, in social and political life, in legal relations, in legislation, administration, etc., thinking like you do means chercher midi a quatorze heures. So, without a shadow of chagrin, but only with amazement I have read your opinion…" 22 V.V. Bartold's reply to A.Y. Krymsky's emotional message followed quickly enough: "...I do not deny the Ukrainian movement, only I do not approve of it, as well as of many other things in the course of historycertainly, without imagining for a minute that the course of history will adapt to my tastes or that I can turn the wheel of history back with my own hand [...] you know, the Russian language, especially in science, is not substituted with the natural, vigorous Ukrainian of the 'working-class people' but with an artificial language that people have learned in an artificial way. There is nothing like this in any other country, nowhere, if I am not mistaken, does the common literary language not lose its once won positions. On the contrary, it usually expands the sphere of its domination more and more... None of us is quite aware of what is going on in Ukraine; it seems, no one here knew that 'Muscovite' now means 'Russian' in Ukrainian. […] In human life, too, just as in the life of nature, next to the real movements there are imaginary ones. Which of them the Ukrainian movement belongs to, only time will tell. 23 " Unfortunately, in the surviving letters of the two men there is no information about the further course of this heated discussion. Five years after V.V. Bartold's death (1930) A.Y. Krymsky wrote the following in a letter to I.Y. Krachkovsky, who had sent him prints of his latest articles: "Bartold's obituary is extremely well-written. It was a surprise to me to see that writing about him and his merits is finally permissible 24 . Mentioning him here is a taboo. About three years ago I was invited to read an essay about him denouncing his bourgeois, counter-revolutionary activities, and we are not allowed to say anything other than that about him. Naturally, I refused this idiotic proposal; but I was then told that in St 27 . In a response letter A.Y. Krymsky expressed his sincere admiration of the report that V.V. Bartold had sent him regarding his research trip to Turkestan: "Today I have received your report about your trip to Turkestan in 1920. You have no idea with what great interest, with what avidity I have read it. Everything in it was a revelation to me. I most sincerely thank you!" 28 . A.Y. Krymsky was also very much impressed by V.V. Bartold's lecture course "The place of the Caspian regions in the history of the Islamic world" 29 . "I was actually enjoying myself when I read it", A.Y. Krymsky wrote to the author. "The very form of its presentation, the lecture form, with questions from the listeners, not only did not weaken my interest, but, on the contrary, enhanced it, as if taking me directly into that lecture room, making me feel that I was sitting there among the curious listeners. I mentally pictured this audience before me, I vividly felt that Oriental studies in Russia cannot stall, despite all the heavy blows to it, and my soul was elevated by the gratifying feeling of communication between all of us. 30  have to develop Oriental studies in full, and the academic library, which never ceases to be enriched by new inflows of books, will truly become very useful" 37 . In 1926 V.V. Bartold completed a voluminous course of lectures on the history of the Turkic peoples, which he delivered to students of Istanbul University at the request of the Turkish government 38 . This is what he wrote in a letter to A.Y. Krymsky from Istanbul: "Lectures are delivered for a relatively large number of listeners, more than 20; [they] are devoted to the history of the Central Asian Turks; I wrote them in Russian, and then a Turkish translation was made by Validov 39 and reviewed by me; in general, the translation seems to me very well done. The final lectures will be translated by local young Turkologist Raghib Hulusi, a linguist, who has recently arrived from Budapest, where he studied under Németh 40 and received his doctorate. 41 " On his way back from Istanbul V.V. Bartold visited Kiev, but he was not able to get in touch with A.Y. Krymsky there. "My first impression of Kiev [...] is certainly a good one;" writes V.V. Bartold, "apparently, people here are trying to do what they can under rather difficult conditions, especially with regard to the premises; so, everyone will be struck by the extreme lack of space in the museum." Comparing Kiev to Istanbul, he wrote: "I am perhaps even more impressed by this crampedness and lack of space compared to Constantinople that I only just left, where accommodation conditions in educational institutions may be better than anywhere else, but where this vast amount of space is relatively little used due to the lack of trained people, both among teachers and employees, and among students and postgraduates. 42 " Starting from the mid-1920s A.Y. Krymsky described the Kiev academic environment to V.V. Bartold I did all my life), not to take any part in the local social life, to only mind my Oriental studies and nothing else, and not to give anyone a reason and a right to dig into my national or ethnic beliefs... an importunate question is nagging me with special force: 'But when, at last, will I be able to live and breathe only the interests of Oriental studies!'" 45 However, in 1929, after the General Assembly of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences once again re-elected A.Y. Krymsky academician-secretary, the authorities did not confirm his appointment. In a letter sent by him to V.V. Bartold  feeling that a lot has not been completed and, perhaps, will remain uncompletedthis feeling is burning me from inside. 46 " This letter reads almost like a confession and indicates that A.Y. Krymsky often shared his innermost thoughts with V.V. Bartold, thoughts that were not intended for anybody else. The final part of the correspondence between the two luminaries of Russian and Ukrainian Oriental science mostly concerned the circumstances of their personal life and academic subjects. In 1928, after the death of his wife Maria Alekseevna, V. V. Bartold received from A.Y. Krymsky a letter of condolence, imbued with sincere sympathy and concern for the state of his colleague after his loss. In the same letter A.Y. Krymsky mentions a collection of articles he had received that was dedicated to V.V. Bartold by his Turkestani friends and colleagues 47 . He also reports that together with I.Y. Krachkovsky he was ready to organize a similar publication in honor of the upcoming birthday of V.V. Bartold (he turned 60 in 1929). In a response letter V.V. Bartold thanks his colleague for his support at this difficult time (in his own words, he had "returned to normal work in less than a week after the death" of his wife) and adds: "The collection presented to me by the Turkestani colleagues made me and especially my late wife very happy [...] We both thought that having a collection like this dedicated to you is much nicer than those kind of formulaic collections that are usually devoted to scholars of 'global renown' (who I never considered myself to be)" 48 . And that is why he asks A.Y. Krymsky to abandon the idea of publishing a collection in his honor, and at the end of the letter he returns to the subject of the state of academic affairs. "I have heard amazing rumors about the 'audit' of the Ukrainian Academy," V.V. Bartold writes 49 . In 1930, a radical restructuring began in the Academy of Sciences of the USSR: a new charter was adopted, which effectively made all academic work subordinate to the interests of the Soviet state. V.V. Bartold did not live to see this happen. He died on August 19, 1930. This was the beginning of a dramatic chronicle in the history of Soviet Oriental studies of the 1930s.

CONCLUSION
Eminent scholars and professors V.V. Bartold and A.Y. Krymsky were brought together by their shared professional and human interests. These brilliant researchers of the Eastern world could not be separated by any differences in views on social and political processes because they were primarily interested in the science of the East. The epistolary legacy of A.Y. Bartold and A.Y. Krymsky preserves the warmth that existed in the relationship of these respected representatives of Oriental studies and remains a significant factor in the history of the Oriental science in Russia, Ukraine and Europe. The epistolary legacy of A.Y. Y. Krymsky, especially as regards his correspondence with Russian Orientalists, is important for contemporaries. Firstly, the correspondence is a collection of handwritten documents from the most prominent Russian Orientalists of the 19thearly 20th centuries. Secondly, these letters present the personal views of two high-profile scholars and outstanding individuals. Thirdly, the documents reveal a unique assessment of the state of Oriental studies at that time, specifically in the Arabian, Iranian and Turkic fields of research and the roles of leading Russian academicians and thinkers. Fourthly, the letters convey the personal opinions and sentiments of these men and scholars particularly sharply. On the whole, the content of the correspondence can serve as original material for the academic biographies of outstanding Orientalists and the history of Russian and European Oriental studies of the 19thearly 20th centuries. The correspondence of these well-known Orientalist scholars, not yet introduced into scientific circulation, is the object of research within the framework of a scientific project whose goal is to study, systematize and prepare for publication the previously unknown epistolary legacy of Orientalists in Russia, Ukraine and Europe who worked at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, and specifically research work with the correspondence of A.