"Unity in language, thoughts, deeds": the ideas of Ismail Gasprinskii and conceptualization of Turkic nationalism in Turkey

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

“Unity in Language, Thoughts, Deeds”: The Ideas of Ismail Gasprinskii and Conceptualization of Turkic Nationalism in Turkey

N.Ye. Tikhonova, A.S. Ryzhenkov

Abstract

At the last decades of the long 19 th century, a prominent Russian Muslim journalist and educator, Ismail Gasprinskii (1851-1914), promoted a cultural-political project for Russian Muslims, which after the Revolution of 1905 gradually shifted to the idea of national-cultural autonomy within Russian empire, long after some of Gasprinskii's ideas were reinterpreted and he personally became known as a pan-Turkist, especially in the USSR and in Turkey. This case study aims at examining how the image of Ismail Gasprinskii was embedded into pan-Turkic discourse in Turkey. Hence, we focus on key authors, including founders of pan-Turkism Yusuf Ak^ura and Ziya Gokalp, who initiated the process of portraying Gasprinskii as one of the “ideologists of pan-Turkism”. Following the main aim of the study, we also briefly analyze Gasprinskii's cultural-political project for Russian Muslims, along with the ideas of pan-Turkism per se. We argue that there are two central narratives, which solidified the imagination of Gasprinskii as a “pan-Turkist”. First, the myth of his studying in Moscow military gymnasium amidst the “militant pan-Slavism”, and second, the pan-Turkic reinterpretation of the slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds”, which appeared on the heading of Gasprinskii's newspaper Perevodchik-Terjiman in October of 1912, two years before his death.

Keywords: Ismail Gasprinskii, Yusuf Ak^ura, Ziya Gokalp, Perevodchik-Terjiman, Russian Muslims, pan-Turkism, pan-Slavism.

Аннотация

«Единство в языке, мыслях, делах»: идеи Исмаила Гаспринского и концептуализация тюркского национализма в Турции

Н. Е. Тихонова1, А. С. Рыженков

На рубеже XIX-XX вв. российско-мусульманский просветитель и журналист Исмаил Гаспринский (1851-1914) выступил с культурно-политическим проектом для российских мусульман, который в условиях Первой русской революции (1905-1907) трансформировался в идею мусульманской национально-культурной автономии в составе Российской империи. Позднее некоторые идеи И. Гаспринского получили новые интерпретации, а сам он стал известен, в первую очередь в СССР и Турции, как идеолог пантюркизма. Рассматриваются процесс встраивания образа Исмаила Гасприн- ского в пантюркистский дискурс в Турции и авторы, способствовавшие включению И. Гаспринского в число идеологов этого течения. Среди них основоположники пантюркизма в Турции Юсуф Акчура и Зия Гёкальп, которые в своих канонических текстах популяризировали соответствующий образ И. Гаспринского. Вместе с тем дается краткий анализ мусульманского культурно-политического проекта, предложенного Исмаилом Гаспринским, наряду с ключевыми идеями пантюркизма. В ходе исследования удалось выделить два центральных нарратива, на основе которых в Турции закрепился образ Гаспринского-пантюркиста, -- миф о его обучении в Московской военной гимназии в условиях «воинствующего панславизма» и пантюркистская интерпретация лозунга «Единство в языке, мыслях, делах», под которым с октября 1912 г. выходила газета Исмаила Гаспринского «Переводчик-Терджиман».

Ключевые слова: Исмаил Гаспринский, Юсуф Акчура, Зия Гёкальп, газета «Переводчик- Терджиман», российские мусульмане, пантюркизм, панславизм.

Introduction

During the 37th session of the UNESCO General Conference in Paris in November 2013, at the suggestion of the Turkish mission to the organization, supported by the Ukraine, the Russian Muslim enlightener, publisher, and journalist Ismail Gasprinskii (1851-1914) was included in the annual list of Anniversaries of historic events and of eminent personalities celebrated by Member States and Associate Member in association with UNESCO in 2014. Even though he was the only one of the four nominees from Turkey to be included in the list, several Turkish newspapers declared this event as an official declaration of 2014 as the year of the memory of Ismail Gasprinskii. The question is, why was it Turkey that come up with such an initiative, and why is Gasprinskii's image so relevant to internal Turkish discourse?

The first appearance of the slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds” on the heading of the Terjiman newspaper (Terjiman, 1912, No. 1, October 7).

Ismail Gasprinskii is known for his multiple achievements in journalism, public education, literature, and socio-political life of Russian Muslims in late imperial period. For more than 30 years, from 1883 to 1914, Gasprinskii published in Bakhchysarai a bilingual newspaper Perevodchik-Terjiman, which until 1905 was the central informational platform for the discussion of the “Muslim question” in Russia. Later, the newspaper was inherited by his son Refat, who published it until closure in February 1918 during the Civil War.

“Unity in language, thoughts, deeds” (Dilde, fikirde, i§te birlik) was the slogan that appeared in the heading of the Terjiman newspaper in October 1912 (Fig.), two years before Gasprinskii's death. This slogan can be described as an essence of Gasprinskii's project, aimed at unifying Russian Muslims within Russian empire. Accordingly, Terjiman assumed common Turkic to become a common literary language for this group of population. Still, this project was never fully implemented. cultural political autonomy muslim

At the turn of the 20th century the technological progress in transportation and communication accelerated time and reduced distances. Therefore, Gasprinskii as a man of the day traveled a lot within Russia and beyond, especially to the Ottoman Empire, where he even stayed for a year in 1874-1875. Additionally, Terjiman was distributed not only in Russia, but also abroad in such countries as the Ottoman Empire, Persia, and China. At the same time, Gasprinskii was known to Turkish readers of the day primarily as a Russian Muslim journalist and a great supporter of the idea of “Russian-Turkish rapprochement”. At least this is how he was described by the pan-Turkic magazine Turk yurdu in 1911-1912 [1, pp. 37-38].

Still, in the making of pan-Turkic discourse in Turkey during and after World War I (1914-1918), when Gasprinskii himself was no longer alive, the newspaper slogan and the idea of a common literary language for Russian Muslims were significantly reinterpreted, therefore affecting the imagination of Gasprinskii as an ideologist of pan-Turkism In this study, we use the “pan-Turkism” term to denote the idea of political unification of various Turkic peoples under the auspices of Turkey. [1-3 etc].

Thus, according to Pierre Bourdieu, “Texts circulate without their context; they don't carry with the field of production they come from, and the receivers, themselves integrated in a different field of production, reinterpret them in accordance with their position in the field of reception”. Namely, authors and translators who interpret the ideas of foreign intellectuals in their own country always predetermine the perception of these ideas [5, pp. 539-553]. Meanwhile, the books of such Turkish authors as Yusuf Ak^ura and Cafer Seydahmet Kirimer, in which Gasprinskii was portrayed as a protagonist of pan-Turk- ism, remain the most quoted sources on his biography and ideological persuasions [3; 4]. Moreover, these books somehow influenced the Western research tradition as well [6; 7 etc]. At the same time, regardless the Turkish or Western cases, similar attitude to Gasprinskii was also relevant to Soviet historiography, in which thanks to such a marker as “bourgeois nationalist” he was labeled as a pan-Turkist [8, 9]. However, as Mustafa Tuna notes: “With hindsight, we know that the global threat of pan-Islamism (or pan-Turkism) was fiction, at least until the First World War, and that no concerted Russian Muslim movement against the tsarist state ever existed” [10, p. 213].

In this study, mostly referring to internal Turkish narratives, we analyze how exactly it appeared to be, that Ismail Gasprinskii became known as an ideologist of pan-Turkism in Turkey. With this aim in view, first, we are going to reconstruct the essence of Gasprinskii's project; then, give a brief review of a history of pan-Turkism in Turkey; and finally, define and chronologically compare those of Turkish studies, which marked Ismail Gasprinskii as all-Turkic nationalist or pan-Turkist.

Ismail Gasprinskii and his project for Russian Muslims

As a part of his project, Gasprinskii dealt with a wide range of cultural and socio-political issues for Russian Muslims, including creation of a national media, reformation of traditional system of Muslim education, partial restructuration of Muslim Spiritual Administrations, emancipation of Muslim women, as well as development of a common literary language and European-style literature [11].

According to Gasprinskii, this project aimed to “preserve unity within Russia, while preserving our ethnic nationality [natsional'nost']", in other words, to create a “Muslim nation” within the Russian Empire [12]. While speaking of “nation”, however, Gasprinskii has never appealed to independent nation-state for Muslims. What he actually advocated for was to provide conditions for further integration of consolidated Muslim community into imperial socio-political space.

As Gasprinskii testified to himself in 1911, the main aspects of this project were outlined in his pamphlet Russkoye musulmanstvo: mysli, zametki, nablyudeniya musulmanina [Russian Mohammedanism: thoughts, notes, observations of a Muslim], first published in 1881 [13]. In this work, Gasprinskii suggested Russian authorities to apply a system of governance “based on respect for ethnic nationality and full equality of all the tribes inhabiting the state” [14]. Well after that, in a significantly differed political atmosphere in the Russian empire amidst the Russian Revolution of 1905, this idea of Gasprinskii was rethought into the claims for “national-cultural autonomy” for Russian Muslims, promoted by the all-Russian Muslim Union “Ittifak al-Muslimin”.

National-cultural autonomy, according to Gasprinskii and other leaders of the “Ittifak al-Muslimin”, meant spiritual autonomy for Russian Muslims whose educational, religious, and to some extent also legal issues would be dealt within the community under the supervision of a unified Muslim Spiritual Administration (“Mahkam-i Islamiya”) [15]. Significantly, since the very establishment of the Terjiman in 1883, Gasprinskii systematically advocated for gradual unification of the four existing Muslim Spiritual Administrations (three for Sunnis and one for Shias), as well as for their supplementation with the secularly educated Muslims [16; 17]. However, he appealed not to eliminate but partially restructure existing institutions, which dealing with administration of Muslim community.

At the same time, Gasprinskii's aspiration to develop a common literary language, national literature and press along with the reformed educational system could be better qualified as means to consolidate Muslim community within Russia. Meanwhile, he actively promoted knowledge of Russian among his Muslim readers, referring to possibilities of social mobility for those who speaks it [18]. In a similar vein, Gasprinskii advocated for women emancipation in order to socialize Muslim women, systematically promoting their education and active involvement into professional activities [19, 20]. Hence, this project aimed at Russian Muslims implied partial restructuration of the existing system of imperial governance towards Muslim subjects and reflected Gasprinskii's understanding of their internal needs in terms of integration and social mobility. However, there were no claims for national independence, not to mention the global union of Turkic peoples under the auspice of the Ottoman empire.

The formation of pan-Turkism in Turkey

Throughout much of the Ottoman history the part of empire's subjects, that will further be known as Turks, used to identify themselves not by ethnical but by confessional affiliation. They saw themselves as a part of Islamic Ummah, which doesn't imply any national or ethnical differences between its members. The history of the empire's Turkic substrate was almost completely forgotten and wasn't emphasized in any special way in the main narrative of Islamic history from the time of the Prophet to early 19th century [21, p. 1]. Moreover, the term Turk itself had negative connotations, marking mostly inhabitants of the rural areas, and gained a lower social status within the urban population, who preferred to talk about themselves as Muslims, not Turks [21, pp. 20-21].

Religious self-identification was also maintained by the empire's millet system, in which every major religious confession (Greek Orthodoxy, Judaism, Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Catholic Churches) had its own administrative institutions and could govern the communities on their own, on the condition of being loyal to Sultan and paying the property and per capita taxes right on time. In fact, there was a sort of autonomy for every millet within the Ottoman domain [22, pp. 24-42].

The concept of nation developed in the Ottoman Empire only in the 19 th century against the background of intensified contacts with Europe and new internal challenges to imperial unity. During this period the empire opened its permanent embassies abroad, sent students to study in Europe, invited foreign military advisors for army. At the same time the empire was challenged with an internal threat of disintegration, since its subjects, initially Christian ones, started to identify themselves in opposition to their “Muslim rulers. To prevent such tendencies the Ottoman state came up to ideology of Ottomanism in the Tanzimat period (1839-1871), which de jure inaugurated full civic and political equality of imperial subjects regardless of their religious affiliation. Previously, though, Ottoman Muslims were significantly privileged in a legal sphere [21, p. 3]. Despite its progressiveness, the new ideology was coldly greeted both by the Muslim elite and by the Ottoman Christians. Hence, the sultan Abdul Hamid II, who came to power with the liberal Ottomanist slogans, turned his attention to pan-Islamist ideas, which perfectly fitted with his Khalif title [21, p. 4].

The implementation of Ottomanism and pan-Islamism strategies in the empire tangibly failed by the beginning of the 20th century. Henceforth there was the pan-Turkism, which predetermined a public discourse in the last decade of the Ottoman empire [23]. After the Young Turk revolution of 1908, when the Committee of Union and Progress (It- tihat ve Terakki) seized a power, pan-Turkism gradually gained more influence on the official level. The government of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938), the founder of a new Republic of Turkey, inaugurated a gradual transition from pan-Turkic principles to Turkish nationalism. Henceforth the pan-Turkism in Turkey experienced whether complete prohibition and persecution of its followers or the periods of its prosperity and growth [24]. Nowadays, however, some of the nationalistic narratives in the modern Turkey -- such as reference of Turkic domain to be located “from the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China”--can be traced back to pan-Turkism discourse, which tangibly actualize itself in the periods of instability in the post-Soviet space.

Additionally, we assume that the pan-Turkism in Turkey is historically based on opposition to the Russian empire and pan-Slavism. Namely, the proponents of pan-Turkism appointed Russia to be a constituting Other for a common-Turkic identity, as on the make of pan-Turkism at the turn of 20th century the Turkic peoples of the world, apart from those of the Ottoman empire and China, were either under the rule of Moscow or in the process of joining the Russian imperial domain.

As Zaur Gasimov pointed out, the “circulation of ideas” between the Russian and Ottoman empires at the turn of the 20th century existed thanks to works of Turkic Muslim emigrants from Russia (Y. Ak^ura/Akchurin, C. S. Kirimer, A. Agaoglu/Agaev), who subsequently influenced a lot on formation of pan-Turkism in Turkey. According to Gasimov, moreover, future pan-Turkists were impressed by pan-Slavic [sic!] texts of N. Danilevsky, F. Dostoevsky or K. Aksakov, which constituted a dream of a pan-Slavic state under the auspice of Russia with a capital in Tsargrad (Constantinople). Such appeals, accordingly, were perceived by them as a great threat to the Ottoman empire [25, pp. 448-472].

So, Yusuf Ak^ura Yusuf Ak^ura (Ak^ura, Ak^uraoglu) (1876-1935) was a cousin of Ismail Gasprinskii's wife Zuhra and was known in Gasprinskii's house. He descended from a rich Tatar family of Ak^uras from Simbirsk (present-day Ulyanovsk). After the death of his father, his family went to Constantinople where Ak^ura finished school and a military academy. He returned to Russia in 1903 and played a major part in All- Russian Muslim congresses (1903-1905). Moreover, since 1904 he was a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Russia. After Young Turks gained power, he came back to the Ottoman Empire, where starting in 1911 he published pan-Turkic journal Turk yurdu (Turkic Motherland). After 1915 he was interested in realizing the pan-Turkic project and even had a meeting with Vladimir Lenin in Zurich., while in Russia in 1904, anonymously published a three-part article called “Three Policies” (Ug tarz-i siyaset) [26], which is considered to be a ground-breaking text for pan-Turkism. According to Ak^ura, these `three policies' were the Ottoman- ism, Islamism and pan-Turkism. He briefly observed their history and then counted the pros and contras of each, therefore coming to conclusion, that the only fitting ideology for the Ottoman empire was the pan-Turkism.

Noteworthy, that the “Three Policies” to a great extent predetermines even modern studies of pan-Turkism. Nearly every related case-study reiterates the same arguments against the Ottomanism and pan-Islamism as those of Ak^ura, while explaining the reasons of their failure to consolidate the late-imperial Ottoman community.

Ismail Gasprinskii within the pan-Turkic discourse

One may say that there are two basic texts about the history of pan-Turkism. It is “Principles of Turkism” (Turkgulugun esaslart, 1923) by Ziya GokalpAfter the establishment of the Republic of Turkey he became a strong follower of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. In 1931 an influential Turkish Historical Society (Turk tarih kurumu) was founded under his supervision. Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) was a Turkish political figure, thinker, writer and publicist who was also engaged into conceptualization of pan-Turkism. He was a member of the Committee of Union and Progress which came to power in 1908 and was quite inclined to pan-Turkism. [2] and “History of Turkism” (Turkgulugun tarihi, 1928) by Yusuf Ak^ura [3].

According to both Gokalp and Ak^ura, `Turkism thought' was inspired by European authors such as Arthur Lumley Davids, Joseph de Guignes, Arminius Vambery, and Leon Cahun, whose works were the first academic research on Turkic history with an image of the heroic ancient Turkic warrior, opposed to then-modern lazy and decadent Ottoman. As for Turkic founders of “Turkism” (i. e. pan-Turkism) there were listed Mustafa Celaled- din Pa§a (formerly known as Konstanty Borz^cki), Suleyman Pa§a, Ahmet Vefik Pa§a, Ne- cip Asim Yaziksiz, Mehmet Emin Yurdakul, Mirza Fethali Ahundov, Ismail Gasprinskii, Ahmet Agaev, Yusuf Ak^ura, and Ziya Gokalp, most of whom were either of Polish origin or originated from the Russian Empire. Interestingly, that the historiography of Turkish nationalism usually reiterates this list to a word.

At the same time, Ziya Gokalp only briefly touched on the Gasprinskii's role in the history of pan-Turkism: “the second [of two “fathers of pan-Turkism” from Russia] was Ismail Gasprinskii who was publishing the Terjiman newspaper in Crimea, which promoted one of the main principles of Turkism about “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds”. “The language of Terjiman was understandable for both eastern and western Turkic peoples. They understood that there was a need in common language for all Turkic speakers. This newspaper is a living proof that there is a possibility to unify all Turkic peoples with one language” [2, pp. 12-13].

Ak^ura, however, gives a detailed biography of Gasprinskii in the “History of Turkism”, highlighting, in particular, his stay in Istanbul in 1874-75. According to Ak^ura, Gasprinskii repeatedly sought to get a job in one of the Ottoman governmental structures and, at the same time, he was writing the articles about the city and the empire for various Russian newspapers, therefore starting his journalism activities [3, p. 96]. Indeed, Gasprinskii was a reporter of a Russian newspaper Novoye Vremya (New Time) in this period [27, p. 176]. Contrary to Ak^ura's belief, however, Gasprinskii was going not to get a job in Istanbul but to enroll to a military college Then-ambassador of the Russian empire Count Ignatiev protested Gasprinskii's appeal to the Grand Vezier Mahmud Nedim Pa§a and Gasprinskii therefore was refused entry. [28, p. 128].

Ak^ura also draws much attention to an early stage of Gasprinskii's publishing activities, pointing out that even before Terjiman he published two volumes of collected articles in 1882, Tonguch (First-born) and Shafak (Daybreak). According to Ak^ura, there are some examples of Gasprinskii's pan-Turkic views in these volumes, which by the way are very few and could be found only by reading between the lines. Additionally, Ak^ura insists on “pan-Turkic” meaning of Terjiman's slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds” [3, pp. 104-106].

As we assume, there is an intertextual myth about Gasprinskii's studying in a Moscow Military School in 1864-1867, which predetermines his future image as a pan-Turkist. According to this myth, his school life was amidst the atmosphere of a “radical pan-Slavism”. Consequently, Gasprinskii with his friend Mustafa Davidovich left school and sought to escape to Turkey to take part in Cretan Revolt of 1866-1869 on the Ottoman side. In a similar vein, some authors insisted on Gasprinskii's acquaintance with the editor of Mosk- ovskiie vedemosti (Moscow News) Mikhail Katkov (1818-1887), whose “pan-Slavic views” supposedly influenced Gasprinskii's national identity and political views.

This myth traced back to Ak^ura's “History of Turkism”, which states:

“National feeling and national consciousness awakened in him during his years in Russian military school. The reason for this were the articles about the Cretan Revolt, written by Katkov and targeting Turks, as well as following discussions in an ultra-nationalist Russian family, in whose house Gasprinskii has been spending Sundays. At that time Ismail-bey was 14-15 years old. Passionate articles in Moskovskiie vedomosti, where Mikhail Katkov harshly criticized Turks and Muslims, angered Ismail-bey some much, that in the summer of 1867 he with his friend (Mustafa Mirza Davidovicz) decided to go to Crete and offer all his military skills, that he gained during his years in a military school. But in Odessa gendarmes took his friend and him off the boat because of absent passports and sent them home to their parents” [3, pp. 93-95].

Despite Ak^ura's close acquaintance with Gasprinskii, who was a husband of his cousin Zukhra Ak^urina, Yusuf Ak^ura was hardly an impartial expert on the latter's biography. Thus, according to the official excerpt from the Moscow military gymnasium, Gasprinskii didn't finish the whole course there, while being “dismissed for family reasons” [29, p. 215]. That consequently casts doubt over the Ak^ura's version about Odessa adventure.

Moreover, it remains unclear whether Gasprinskii and M. Katkov were acquainted at all. At least none of them leave a record on this point. Incidentally, however, in August 1887, two weeks after the death of the editor of Moskovskiie vedomosti, Gasprinskii published in Terjiman an obituary, highlighting Katkov's prominent contribution to Russian journalism [30].

Nevertheless, the history of Gasprinskii's acquintance with Katkov was furthered in a very popular in Turkey and frequently quoted biographical book Gasptralt Ismail-bey, published in 1934 in Istanbul. The author is Cafer Seydahmet Kirimer (1889-1960), a widely known Crimean-Tatar politician, high-rank administrator in the Government of the Crimean People's Republic (December 1917 -- February 1918) and a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sulkiewicz's Crimean Regional Government (June-November 1918), who emigrated to Turkey in 1918. In Kirimer's book, M. Katkov is mistakenly named Ivan and has a professor degree. Kirimer also repeats the story of Gasprinskii's attempt to participate in a Cretan Revolt [4, pp. 17-18].

In all probability, it was in this book exactly that Gasprinskii was named in a Turkish manner as “Gaspirali” for the first time [4, p. 16]. This form later was fixed in a Turkish and partially in a Western discourse. Gasprinskii himself, however, has never used this “Gaspirali” form, signing only by his official surname. Moreover, this book, despite several blunders, predetermined Gasprinskii's image as an initiator of a Turkic-Muslim struggle for independence from the Russian Empire [For example: 31, pp. 970-980; 32, p. 392].

Thus, according to V. H. Basher, one of the authors of an influential pan-Turkic journal Turk yurdu, Kirimer's book was one of a few sources about Gasprinskii's biography in Turkey as before the collapse of the USSR Turkish scholars lacked access to archives of the “Terjiman” and other sources, located in the Soviet Union [33, p. 84]. Notably, as early as in 1934, a Berlin-based magazine Osteuropa published an article “Ismail Gasprinskii: on the issue of national movement of Russian Turks” (Ismail-bey Gasprinskii: zur nationalen Bewegung der Russlandturken) by Gerhard von Mende (1904--1963) Gerhard von Mende was born in the Russian Empire, in Riga, in a rich banker's family. In 1918 his father was killed by Bolsheviks and the family escaped to Germany. During World War II he served as head of the Caucasus division at the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territory, but despite his nationalistic views wasn't a nazi himself. He actively participated in the formation of volunteer Muslim SS army units. After the end of the war he was one of the leading specialists on USSR's Muslims and was the head of Eastern European Research Center sponsored by German Ministry of Foreign Affairs [34, 24-27]., a German orientalist close to the SS. This article was actually a positive review of Kirimer's book and was focused on strengthening the narrative of Russian Turks as a “single nation”, actively struggling for its independence from the Russian Empire [6, pp. 39-44].

Getting back to the subject of acquaintance between Gasprinskii and Katkov and former's supposed escape to Turkey, there are some contemporary studies, which continue the line, suggested by Ak^ura. For instance, a modern Turkish scholar Y. Sarinay, with the reference to M. Saray, believes that Katkov was one of Gasprinskii's teachers in a military school, even though Katkov has never taught there [35, p. 54]. C. W. Hostler, the author of a “Turkism and the Soviets, claims that Gasprinskii spent a summer with Katkov's family [36, pp. 127-128]. Additionally, Turkish historian I. Turkoglu describes Katkov as a friend of Gasprinskii's parents, who took Gasprinskii under his wing during latter's school years in Moscow [37, pp. 1445-1446].

The similar narrative can be found in a modern four-volume set Ismail Gaspirali. Selected Works (Ismail Gaspirali. Segilmi§ eserleri), edited by Y. Akpinar and published by Otuken publishing house Otuken is one of the main Turkish publishing houses, focused on literature about Turks, Turkic peoples, Turkish nationalism and nationalists. The very name of this publishing house refers to a heritage of ancient Turks.. In the foreword to the 4th volume, Akpinar states: “Pan-Slavism or Russian ultra-nationalism became a widespread and important ideology among Russian military man and intelligentsia in the middle of the 19th century and was very influential in military schools. Gasprinskii's national identity started to form in the atmosphere of hostility to Muslims and Turks, which he learned and observed in a Moscow military school” [38, p. 12]. Akpinar also repeated the myth about Gasprinskii's escape to join the Cretan Revolt.

At the same time, there is another significant point to predetermine Gasprinskii's image as an ideologist of pan-Turkism. It is a slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds”, which for the first time appeared in a heading of Terjiman only in 1912, two years before Gasprinskii's death. The authors, who seeks to embed this slogan into pan-Turkic discourse, however, believe that the essence of Gasprinskii's longstanding editorial policy in Terjiman was to unite all Turkic peoples under the auspice of Turkey (for example: Gokalp; Ak^ura; Kirimer).

Moreover, several Turkish newspapers and magazines of pan-Turkic orientation use the slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds” to present themselves as followers of “Gasprinskii's principles”. First of all, there is the oldest pan-Turkic magazine Turk yurdu Magazine's web pag Turk yurdu was published in 1911-1918 in Constantinople and was connected to “Turkish hearths”. The magazine renewed its activity in Ankara in 1923-1931. Between 1943-1987 publishing was not very regular. Since 1987 magazine was reborn and now issues regularly as the official mouthpiece of modern Turkish Hearths. It is typical pan-Turkic perception of all Turkic languages as dialect of common Turkic language. Even so separate languages are called “Turkish Turkic”, “Azeri Turkic”, “Tatar Turkic”. The magazine owned by Professor Mehmet Oz, who leads the head office of the “Turkish Hearths” organization -- a cultural wing of an ultra-nationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), associated with pan-Turkic ideology. This newspaper is one of the main informational sources about Crimean Tatar diaspora of Turkey, publishes information about the life of different Turkic communities on a regular basis and has a special section “Turkic world”. The newspaper is published in latinised Crimean Tatar language, but some of the articles are in Turkish or Azerbaijanian. For example Initially, Emel was established in Romania, being published there from 1931 to 1941. In 1941 magazine's editor-in-chief M. Ulkusal emigrated from Romania to Turkey and then re-established the Emel magazine in Ankara in 1960. M. Ulkusal was born in the Romanian part of Dobruja region, inhabited by a Crimean Tatar community up to this day. During the short existence of Crimean People's Republic (December, 1917 -- February, 1918) he moved to Crimea and collaborated with the republican government under the leadership of Noman Chelebijihan and Cafer Seydahmet (Kirimer). After the crushing of the government, Ulkusal returned to Romania and later left to Turkey after closing of “Emel” magazine in 1941. In 1942 after complete German occupation of Crimea he visited Berlin with Cafer Seydahmet Kirimer trying to find support among the leaders of the Third Reich for the idea of creating a Crimean Tatar Government on the peninsula. They did not get what they sought and returned to Turkey empty-handed. (Turkic motherland), which was founded by Y. Ak^ura and publishing intermittently form 19118. The magazine is issued in Turkish or, upon its own statement, in Turkish Turkic language9. Its logo consists of the symbol of pan-Turkism: a “Bozkurt” (“Grey Wolf”), the slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds”, and the year of its establishment, 1911. One of its main sections is a “Turkic world”.

The second is a Turkey-based Crimean Tatar newspaper Qtrtm'tn sesi10 (Voice of Crimea). It presents itself as the heir of Terjiman, using the slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds” to promote the unification of all Turkic peoples of the world under the auspice of Turkey. The newspaper, in the line with pan-Turkic discourse, names different Turkic peoples according to their living area -- “Crimean Turks” (Crimean Tatars), “Azerbaijan Turks” (Azeris), etc. At the same time the date of the newspaper's first issue (27th of February 2015) refers to “the anniversary of Crimea's occupation by Russia” -- namely, the 27th of February 2014, when the Russian flags were put up on the state institutions after a demonstration, held the day before near the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Crimea in Simferopol11.

Another media outlet in this list is a Turkey-based Crimean Tatar magazine Emel (Aim)12. Its founder was Mustejip Ulkusal (1899-1996), -- a prominent Romanian-Turk- ish activist of Crimean Tatar origin, close fellow of C. S. Kirimer13. Despite the magazine is issued in Turkish, it believes itself to be those, who maintain and develop the Crimean

Tatar language. The official mission of the “Emel Kirim” foundation The foundation was established in 1986 for publishing the magazine, which owning the magazine, is the following: “According to aims of Crimean Tatar national movement and pledge of “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds” bequeathed to us by Gasprinskii, to investigate in a scientific and popular format the culture, civilization, history, language, literature and art of Turkic peoples of the world, especially Crimean Tatars, and promote research works of this kind, spread and popularize them” More details.

Additionally, there are many scientific and public events, which held in Turkey under the slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds”, particularly those are under the auspice of the “Turkish Hearths” For example https://www.turkocaklari.org.tr/haberler/eskisehir-subesi-dilde-fikirde-iste-birlik-siari- yla-faaliyetlerine-devam-ediyor-10170. Moreover, even prominent Turkish politicians use this slogan in their speeches. Among them are the current president of the Republic of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan For example: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/politika/mhp-genel-baskani-bahceli-turkce-durus-

gosterirsek-milli-vicdanin-cagrisini-isitiriz/1264754, and leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Devlet Bah^eli For example: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/cumhurbaskani-erdogan-bir-kere-yukselen-bayrak- bir-daha-inmez/1613417, who is currently a coalition partner of Erdogan.

All of the aforesaid answer the question, that we posed in the beginning of this article. Namely, why exactly it was Turkey, who suggested Gasprinskii to be included in an annual UNESCO-list of historic events and of eminent personalities in 2014.

Conclusion

Gasprinskii's project, aiming at consolidating and empowering the Russian Muslims as a particular group of imperial subjects, was based primarily on the aspiration to provide the conditions for their better integration into imperial society. Gradually, though, this project evolved into the idea of national-cultural autonomy for Muslims within the Russian Empire.

However, the transfer of this ideas without their context and their adoption in Turkish “national field” amidst the conceptualization of pan-Turkism in the late decade of the Ottoman Empire, led to their significant reinterpretation.

Popularization of Gasprinskii's image as an ideologist of pan-Turkism became possible thanks to his aspiration to create common literary language for Russian Muslims as well as thanks to his slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds”, which seamlessly blended into the pan-Turkic discourse as a “unifying principle” aiming at political consolidation of different Turkic peoples under the auspice of Turkey.

In the line with the pan-Turkic discourse in Turkey many significant aspects of Gasprinskii's biography along with the actual essence of his project were either eliminated from narratives as irrelevant or significantly rewritten. This is how the myths of Gasprinskii's acquaintance with M. Katkov as well as of his attempt to participate in the

Cretan Revolt emerged, both objectifying the struggle against Russian pan-Slavism. At the same time, the fact that Gasprinskii's project was focused on Russian Muslims and, therefore, was not applicable for non-Muslim Turks or Turks from abroad, was also concealed. Moreover, the slogan “Unity in language, thoughts, deeds” was portrayed as Gasprinskii's long-standing editorial policy in the “Terjiman”, even though this slogan did not exist until October of 1912.

Thus, Ismail Gasprinskii was listed among the proponents of the pan-Turkism in early 1920s, well after his death, in the classic works of Ziya Gokalp and Yusuf Ak^ura, the founders of this ideological bent in Turkey. Henceforth, such an image was furthered in a biographical essay of Gasprinskii written by C. S. Kirimer in 1934, never afterwards being revised in Turkish historiography.

References

1. About Turkish-Russian contiguity. Turkic Motherland (1911-1912), vol. 1, 1998. 438 p. (In Turkish)

2. Gokalp Z. The Principles of Turkism. Istanbul, Anonim Yayincilik, 2017. 144 p. (In Turkish)

3. Ak^ura Y. History of Turkism. Istanbul, Otuken, 2015. 272 s. (In Turkish)

4. Kirimer C. S. Gaspirali Ismail Bey: Unity in language, thoughts and deeds. Istanbul, Avrasya bir Vakfi Yayinlari, 1996. 266 s. (In Turkish)

5. Bourdieu P. Social conditions of international circulation of ideas. Acts of Social Science Reseach, vol. 145, issue 5, 2002, pp. 3-8. (In French)

6. Mende von G. Ismail Gasprinsky: on the issue of national movement of Russian Turks. East Europe, 1934, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 39-44. (In German)

7. Meyer J. Turks across empires. Marketing Muslim identity in the Russian-Ottoman bourderlands, 1856-1914. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014. 211 p.

8. Arsharuni A., Gabidullin H. Outline of Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism in Russia. Moscow, Bezbozhnik Publ., 1931. 140 p. (In Russian)

9. Klimovich L. At the service of education. About the first Turcophonic newspaper “Terjiman” and its publisher I. Gasprinskii. Ismail bey Gasprinskii. Russia and East. Kazan, 1993, pp. 98-122. (In Russian)

10. Tuna M. Imperial Russia's Muslims: Islam, Empire and European Modernity, 1788-1914. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015. 292 p.

11. Tikhonova N. The Crimean Tatar “Perevodchik-Terjiman” newspaper and its role in Russia's political and ethno-cultural discourse in the 1880s-1910s. ...PhD of Historical Sciences: 07.00.02. 203 p.

12. Our program. Terjiman, 1905, November 2. (In Russian and Turkic)

13. Publication break. Terjiman, 1911, April 15. (In Russian and Turkic)

14. Gasprinskii I. Russian Mohammedanism: Thoughts, Notes, Observations of a Muslim. Simferopol, Spiro Publ., 1881. 45 p.

15. III all-Russian Muslim congress. Kazan, Kharitonov Publ., 1906. 20 p.

16. Answer to Ziya newspaper. Terjiman, 1883, October 12. (In Russian and Turkic)

17. Tiflis newspapers are reporting. Terjiman, 1888, November 4. (In Russian and Turkic)

18. Russian-Muslim institute. Terjiman, 1884, November 20. (In Russian and Turkic)

19. Sharia also allows girls to study. Terjiman, 1899, October 7. (In Russian and Turkic)

20. On the women's issue. Terjiman, 1904, November 2. (In Russian and Turkic)

21. Kushner D. The Rise of Turkish Nationalism, 1876-1908. London, 1977. 126 p.

22. Barkey K., Gavrilis G. (2016) The Ottoman Millet System: Non-Territorial Autonomy and its Contemporary Legacy, Ethnopolitics. Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 2016. Vol. 15:1, pp. 24-42.

23. Fadeeva I. Official Boctrines in the Ideology and Politics of the Ottoman Empire. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1985. 271 p. (In Russian)

24. Zhukov K. The political and intellectual atmosphere of Istanbul in 1911-1912 (Based on journalistic materials by A. V Tyrkova-Williams). Balkanistika, Altaistika. Obshchee iazykoznanie: Pamyati A. H. Girfanovoy (1957-2018). Saint-Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriya, 2019, pp. 459-507. (In Russian)

25. Gasimov Z. From Pan-Slavism through Pan-Turkism to Eurasianism. Post-Panslavism. Slavdom, Slavic Idea and Antislavism in 20th and 21st century. Gottingen, 2014, pp. 448-472. (In German)

26. Ak^ura Y. Three Policies. Istanbul, Bilge Yayinevi, 2018. 288 p. (In Turkish)

27. Zaytsev I. V. Ismail Gasprali's Letters to Alexey Suvorin (1876) and Pavel Vyazemski (1882). Crimean Historical Review. 2019, no. 1, pp. 175-179. (In Russian)

28. Count Ignatyev N. P. and the Orthodox East: documents, correspondence. Notes on Russian Politics in the East, 1864-1887. Moscow, Indrik, 2015. Vol. 1. 840 p.

29. Ismail-bey Gasprinskii. Historical-documentary collection. Kazan, Zhiyen, 2006. 560 p. (In Tatarian)

30. M. N. Katkov. Terjiman, 1887, August 6. (In Russian and Turkic)

31. Togan Z. V Gasprali (Gasprinskii), Isma`il. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, vol. 2. Leiden, Brill, pp. 979-981.

32. Kirimli H. Gaspirali Ismail bey. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Istanbul, 1996. Vol. 13, p. 392. (In Turkish)

33. Ba§er V. H. Gaspirali Ismail Bey (Unity in Language, Thoughts and Deeds). Turkic Motherland, 2015. Vol. 335, p. 84. (In Turkish)

34. Meining S. A Mosque in Germany: Nazis, Secret Services and the Rise of political Islam in West. Munich, Beck Verlag, 2011. 316 p. (In German)

35. Sarinay Y. Evolution of Turkish Nationalism in History and Turkish Hearths. Istabul, Otuken, 1994. 391 p. (In Turkish)

36. Hostler C. W Turkism and the Soviets: the Turks of the World and Their Political Objectives. London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1957. 244 p.

37. Tiirkoglu 1. Ismail bey Gaspirali on 100. Anniversary of his Death. Belgi Journal, 2015, vol. 1, issue 10, pp. 1445-1453. (In Turkish)

38. Ismail Gaspirali. Selected Works: Educational writings. Vol. 4. Istanbul, Otuken, 2017. 590 p. (In Turkish)

Размещено на Allbest.ru