R. G. Suny - The Making of the Georgian Nation (Studies of Nationalities)

THE MAKING OF THE GEORGIAN NATION SECOND EDITION

Ronald Grigor Suny

THE MAKING OF THE GEORGIAN NATION

THE MAKING OF THE GEORGIAN NATION Second Edition

Ronald Grigor Suny

INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRF.SS

Bloomington and Indianapolis

O 1'81. 1"4 br llou1d GriFr' Say

AD

riahta ma ftd

No pan of dais book ....,. be rcprocl.cecl or utilized iD any form cw br

any ..... demonic cw mtth•nial. . .. - . ~. . wl ~ ~ br ~ iafonnarioa ~and~~~ pernuWMI m wrttllll from the publilher. The A.acaatlOll al American Uniftnity Preues' Resolution on Pmninioal a>Mtituta the only cxcq>Cioa to dm prohibition. Manuhiaured iD the United States of America lilnry of ea.pa. C.WDti I ia Pablic•m o.ta

s.m,. Ronald Grip. The making al me Gcolgiu nation / llona)d Grip Suny. p.

2Dd ed.

cm.

lnduda bibliopapbical refamca and index. ISBN 0-253-35579-6. - ISBN 0-253-20915-3 (pbk.) 1. Georgia (llepublic:)-History. I. Tide.

DK67S.4.Sl6 1994 947' .9S-«20

l

l

3 ..

s

00 99 98 97 9' 91 94

94-6592

For Annena, in memory of our son, Grikor Martiros Suni (1978-1980)

Contents

Preface to

~ ~cond

&Jition

ix

Preface

xiii

Note on Transliteration and Dating

xvii

PAIO" ONE lHE RISE AND FALL OF lHE GEORGIAN MONARCHIFS

I

The Formation of the Georgian Nation

2

O.ristian Georgia: The First Thousand Yean

20

3

The Long Twilight of the Georgian Kingdoms

42

3

PART TWO GEORGIA IN IBE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

4

s

6 7 8

Russian Ruic and Georgian Society

63

Emancipation and the End of Seigneurial Georgia

96

The Emergence of Political Society

113

Marxism and the National Struggle

144

The End of Tsarist Georgia

165

viii

Contmts

PART 11-IREE REVOLlJTIONARY AND SOVIET GEORGIA

9

Revolution and Republic

185

IO II I2

Bolsbcvik Georgia

209

Stalin's Revolution

237

Stalinism in Georgia

260

I3

Georgia and Soviet Nationality Policy since Stalin

292

The Georgian Road to Independence

317

Glossary

337

Nous

343

Bibliographical Note

403

Inda

409

14

Preface to the Second Edition

In the decade after the first edition of The Making of the G~rgian Nation was written, a number of coincidental procenes changed the landscape for the study of nationalism. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet empire, acrompanied by the resurgence of ethnic conflict and eYen genocidal nationalism, the intdlectual foundations of much of social science were also shaken. The post-strucruralist and post-modernist challenges to modernist narratives of development, among them Marxism, coincided with a new and critical interest in the idea of the nation. Even as nationalists insisted on the primordial and irreducible nature of the national, scholars moved in precisely the opposite direction. Employing the insights of post-modernist thinking, many questioned the certainties of accepted master narratives and of given social categories and proposed that the nation was the product of specific discourses, of widely accepted uniVCflCI of meaning, that became dominant among masses of Europeans and non-Europeans only in the relatively recent historical past. Key to the "rise• of the nation were those historic patriotic intellectuals and activists who worked hard to submerge certain identities, localist or univenalist, in order to promote paramount loyalty to the nation. Talking about nationality, that is to say nationalism, was central to the generation of nationality from thousands of individual experiences and undentandings. Understandings of ethnic and social differences, themselves always in the process of construction and contcstation, were available to the intdlectuals and activists who, in tum, privileged a particular perception of

x

Prefau to the SeCOJUl &lition

society and history and worked to consolidate a social formation or political movement for the ends they considered desirable. They found, borrowed, or invented the social and ethnic "traditions" they needed, reviving symbols and rituals that soon appeared to have a naturalness and authenticity that originated deep in history and possessed clear legitimacy for shaping the future. 1 . When the 6nt edition of this book wu being written, &om the midl 970s to the early 1980s, the transformation of the study of nation making and nationalism bad not yet taken place. Still, the inadequacy of primordial notions of nationality and idealist formulations of the national spirit, both embedded in a grand narrative of the always emerging nature of the nation, had already encouraged some writers to attempt a more socially grounded and bistoricized story of the making of nations. 2 However •modem" the nation is now seen to be by most scholars, the dominant practice of historical writing on nations until quite recently has been to reproduce what is talcen to be a continuous revealing of an ethnic, cultural, perhaps religious, essence. This was especially true for those nations, such as the Jews, Greeks, A.nnmians, and Georgians, that can trace back to ancient times a presence on territories they call their homeland. This study of the Georgian nation was influenced by what might now be described as the tint "tum" in the historiography of nationalism, the tum from the ideal and the essentialist toward the social constructivist interpretation of nation making. Beginning with the groundbreaking work of Ernest Gellner, historians and anthropologists elaborated the social and cultural processes that created communities of shared interest and distinguished those communities from •othcn." Nation making was conceived increasingly as a process shaped by socioeconomic and political developmans and articulated in an emerging national discourse, taking place as territOrial, cultural, linguistic, religious, or social links tied some people together and distanced them &om others. Nationality was formed u those links were undentood through experience to be the most meaningful in promoting and protecting a people, and when people found they could communicate more easily with some than with others. The book that stood on the border between the social consuuctionist approaches that emphasized communication and more culturalist approaches that focused on discourse in the consuuction of the nation was Benedict Anderson's seminal work, lmagiMd Communities. Andenon redirected focus from social facton to culture, rhetoric, memory, and con· ccpts of time. Here the nation was seen as an imagined political community, imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. Like many of the other "modernists" writing on nationality-coming as they did from a Marxist tradition-Anderson was less than enamored with nationalism. •Regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each," he wrote, •the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.

Preface to the &cond Editio,.

xa

Ultimatdy it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings. •l My own approach to the problem of nation making attempts to employ both the new appreciation of the importance of discourse and the contributions of the older social analysis. In order to understand why the discourse of the nation resonated so powerfully among so many for such a long rime, the social and political context in which it arose and dominated must be considered. However artificial the emphasis on the nation may have appeared in the work of early intellectuals, the material, social, cultural, and political transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries created an environment in which nationalism gained unexpected power. Capable of homogenizing certain differences and emphasizing others, nationalism achieved an enormous following-first among large numbers of educated people and then within the broad populace-until it promised to displace all rival forms of loyalty and identity. Even when it met serious rivals in socialism, particularly Marxism with its emphasis on class, and in religion and other supranational discouncs, the discourse of nationalism gave meaning and purpose to historic social and cultural developments and convinced large numbers of people that their fate was one with the nation. Nationalism, which argued in the name of popular sovereignty, resonated with other dominant discourses of the post-American and French revolutionary period, those of democracy and self-determination. Moreover, the discourse of the nation as the family writ large, sharing a myth of common origin, acquired the attributes of a force of nature rather than a product of history. The argument &om nature-that the nation is in the blood-in tum imparted an almost irresistible power to nationalism. Within the complex political contestations over identities and meanings of our times, those that could speak in the name of blood and kinship, homelands and shared history, the struggles of the people for respect, rights, and land, were able to combine rational claims to recognition and dignity with emotional appeals to past wrongs and humiliations and have proven enormously powerful in mobilizing populations. In this hybrid approach, bringing social, historical, and discursive approaches together, nationality is not understood to be •objective" in the sense of existing outside the constitutive practices of its members and its opponents. Though it might be thought of as •subjective" (in the sense that it exists when it is perceived to exist by its constituents and outside obscrvcn), the •existence" of nationality is historically related to the actual practice of human actors, both individually and collectively, within changing social and discursive frameworks. Historical and social locations, themselves constantly being constituted, make up the context in which national identification is constructed.4 Tb~ Making of the Georgian Nation, then, is an attempt to combine

social, cultural, and discursive analysis in order to reconstruct tbe rontinuitia and discontinuities in the story of the Georgians and the other peoples who live among them. This story will not satisfy nationalists convinced that an independent, aovercign (and fairly homogcocous) nation-state is the na~ rightful, perhaps inevitable outcome of their national struggle. Few of them will accept that their political claims are the specific product of historically derived discourses of our own times. The story told here is not about the working out of a natural or historical logic or a sociological derivative, but rather examines the complex interaction of empire and environment; the agency of leaden and mass actors; social, cultural, and discursive inputs; contingencies as well as historically determined ltl'Ucturcs and conjuncturc1. Such a story, it is hope~ will assist us in undcntanding both the triumph of nation aeation and the suppressions and cxduaions that constantly threaten to challenge the limited imagination of nationalism.

NOTES 1. Ericj. Hoblbawm and Taence Ranger, eds., Tiu lllVMlio# o{TtMlilioll (Cambridge: Cambridge University Presa, 1983). 2. Karl Deutsch, Natioludiml Sodal UJHUH-ic.atiolt: AN '""'"" iltto the ~ of N~ (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1953); Emat Gellner, •Nationalism,• in ThoNgbt ad Cbangt! (Ollcago: UniYCnity of ClUcago Press, 1964), pp. 147-78; Ernest Gellner, Nations ad Nlltion4lisM (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Presa, 1983); Miroslav Hroch, IM Vorluartpfn *r ~ Bet.vqtarg l¥i de1i lt.lftun ~ms EllrofHu, Acta Univenitatis Carolinac Philosopbica ct Historica, monographia 24 (Prague, 1968); Mirollav Hroch, Social Preconditicms of NmioNll Rwi&wl in &rope: A Comparlltivtt Alllllysis of dH Social ~ of Patriotic Groll/ls 11m0116 tlH Sm"'1er &ropetm N4tions, trans. Ben Fowkes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Tom Nairn, Modern Janus,• New Uft Revillw, no. 94 (Noyember-December 1975): 3-28; The Bruit.,,, of Brit4ill: Oisis lllfll Neo-N@oNt11isw (London: NLR, 1977); Eric J. Hobtbawm, •Some Reflections on 'The Break-up of Britam,•• New Left Review, no. 105 (September-October 1977): 3-23; Geoff Eley, •Nabooalism and Social History, • SocUd History 6 (1981): 83-107; Maximc Rodinson,~ Ghetto, tnSd StaU: The hnistenu of th• /.wish QwsticM (London: Al Saqi Boob, 1983), pp. 80-81; Benedict Anderson, l,,.,,,m.d ~: Re{l«tiolu on th. Origils """ Spread of N«tioulism (London: Veno, 1983; rev. ed., 1991). 3. Anderton, l,,,.,;.d Qmmram;fia (ttY. ed.), p. 7. 4. For a fuller discussion of this question, sec Ronald Grip>r Sony, The Rewmg• of tlM Pat: N"'"""""'", Revol#tion, """ the C.Ollapu of the SotMt U..W.. (Stanford: Stanford Uniftnity Praa, 1993), especially pp. 1-19.

w.

'°"'

•n.e

Preface

The writing of national history is most olten a labor ol. love performed by patriots who, in the process of creating a narrative unity fur their people's past, senc as both chroniclers and inventors ol. tradition. Their selection of an ethnic group or a specific territory as the focus of a history spanning many centuries-in the case of the Caucasian peoples, seYCral millennia-is prcdiated on an assumption that nationality or geographical space is the most appropriate boundary fur historical investigation. The consequent synthesis will primarily be meaningful to the inhabitants of that cultural space, either as a contribution to self-knowledge or as advertisement for the outside world. The nineteenth-century flourishing of national histories, in the period of nation-fonnation and the proliferation c:J. nationalisms, testifies to their importance and influence. Together with grammars, dictionaries, and primers, national histories shaped the self-image and perceptions ol. ethnic groups as they dCYClopcd their own cultural and political agenda. "The history which became pan ol. the fund ol. knowledge or the ideology of nation, state or mOYetncnt," writes Eric Hobsbawm, "is not what has actually been p~ in popular memory, but what has been selected, written, pictured, popularized and institutionalized by those whose function it is to do so." 1 The undertaking of a national history by a scholar of another nationality, in a country that has itself been radically "denationalized" and in a time when historians are interested in specific social-historical problems rather than narrati\IC reconstruction c:J. the past, presumes a different motivation. The initiating interest in this work was not a desire to depict past glories or the "rise and fall" ol. an ancient people, but rather to address the broad

xiv

Preface

sociopolitical question oJ. nariooal lormation. The central question posed is, 1-Jow did the Georgians become the Georgian nation? How did their particular historical experience shape them as a people, later as a self-conscious nationality, and still later as a nation with its own political institutions and the trappings ci a kind ci sovucignty? More specifically, this study explores the impact on Georgia ci. its powerful neighbors-Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, and Russians-and attempts to understand how the imposition ci foreign rule, and change directed by imperial powers, affected the making oJ. the Georgian nation. The first section oJ. the book, "The Rise and Fall of the Georgian Monarchies," briefly suncys the ethnogcnesis of the Georgians and traces their political and social development from a variety of linguistically and culturally affiliated tribes to a single, though still inchoate, ethnic formation divided by loyalty to various princes. The Georgian chronicles (kartlis tskbovreba) and their commentaries dictated a primarily political history fur the first two millennia ci Georgia's C\'Olution. The available sources largely tell us the exploits oJ. royal houses and stories ci foreign invasion and domestic rcYOlt. At this level the history ci Georgia is a montage of rapidly shifting monarchs, alliances, conquerers, and rebels. But beneath the political veneer much slower, and more permanent, processes of social and cultural formation were shaping Georgian civilization-the adoption of Chakedonian Christianity, the establishment of a "dynastic-feudal" hierarchy, and the settlement on the land of the great majority ci the Georgians. Culturally and politically, Georgia, like its neighbor to the south, Armenia, represented a blend of Western (Greco-Roman and Byzantine) and Eastern (Persian, and to some extent Turkish) influences, which were reflected in language, social structure, and cultural practices. Despite the near-extinction oJ. the Georgians at the end ci the eighteenth century, their way ci ·life had retained its time-sanctioned traditions and patterns, which were more similar to those of the Georgians' Islamic overlords than to those of their fellow Orthodox Christians to the north. Part II d this wlumc, "Georgia in the Russian Empire," deals with the impact on Georgian society ci Russian rule in its bureaucratic-absolutist Conn. The Georgians' lranizcd social conventions, their decentralized political structure, and the customary tics between lords and peasants were radically altered by the arrival ci tsarist officials in liflis. Within half a century Georgia was integrated into Russian administrative practice, serfdom had been systematized (only to be abolished soon after), and the Georgian nobility had become part of the Russian ruling elite, the dvorianstvo. With the integration ci Transcaucasia into the Russian empire Western influences, both cultural and material, penetrated Georgia rapidly, creating new social groups to challenge the dominance of the native nobility. Urban life revived, and Armenian merchants secured the dominant position in the local commercial and industrial environment. A Georgian intel-

Preface

xv

ligentsia emerged and fashioned both nationalist and socialist ideologies with which to oppose tsarist authority. Ultimately, the Russian impact contributed to a new national awarmcss among Georgians and their emergence as a culturally and politically conscious nationality. When the Russian monarchy fell, a local Georgian leadership was already in place to assume political authority and to lead the Georgians to nationhood. Pan Ill, "Revolutionary and Sovie· Georgia," parallels Pan II. Once again a relari\'Cly independent Georgian state was OYCrwhelmed by Russian occupation. Bolshevik troops invaded the Menshevik republic, and a radical transformation of Georgia's social and political life was imposed from alxwc, this time by a Soviet gOYCrnment. Once again the paradoxical impact of the new goYCmment was the creation of a deep national awareness and, eventually, a new nationalism. In Georgia, as in other republics of the USSR, the Soviets diminated full political SOYereignty but initiated a process through which Georgians took OYer the institutions of their own republic, dominated the political and educational system, and expanded their own national cultural production. The Soviet period witnessed both the restraint of separatist and politically nationalist aspirations and the institutionalization of cultural, linguistic, and historical awareness. In a sense the Georgian nation was remade, this time in a Soviet mold. Its current predicament is the product of the tension between Soviet promotion of cenain national forms and Soviet restrictions on their full development and expression. A work al this sort, spanning the history ol a people from the "primeval ooze" to the present, can neYer be the product of one person's re.search. As a historian of modem Transcaucasia, I am particularly indebtrd to those Kholars who have written on the period before the Russian annexationCyril Toumanoff, G. A. Melikishvili, N. A. Berdzenishvili, Sh. A. Meskhia, W. E. D. Allen, David Marshall Lang, and many others both in the West and in the Soviet Union. P.an I is the most derivative, based as it is on the e:xpcrt knowledge of those working in that field and on advice received from friends and teachers. Special thanks are due to Peter Golden and to my teacher of Armenian history, Nina G. Garsoian, for their learned readings of the early chapten. My colleagues at the University of Michigan-Geoff Eley, William G. Rosenberg, and Roman Szporluk-concentrated on the modem period, as did the detailed and perceptive critique of Moshe Lewin. All their comments improved the tat in innumerable ways. Aside from a handful cl Soviet works and collections of documents, there arc no adequate histories of Georgia in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The bulk cl my own research has been concentrated in this period. During the three research trips I made to Georgia under the auspices oi IRE)(, I benefited from consultation with Soviet scholars, most notably Akaki Ncstorovich Surguladze. Of the few colleagues in Georgian studies in the Wes~ the most important sources of advice were David Barren of the Wardrop Collection in the Bodleian Library, L. Hamilton ("Tony")

xvi

Prefau

Rhinelander, and David Marshall Lang. I 'WOuld like to thank my teachers in Tbilisi, Jondo M~li and Nia Abcsadze, for their introduction into the beauties and complc:xitics ci the extraordinary Georgian language, and our friends, the Mkrtchians, who accepted my wife and me as family and made our lives in Georgia CJCtrcmcly pleasant. Many institutions have supported my research OYCr the last decade. I would like to express my gratitude to Oberlin College, the National End~ ment i>r the Humanities, the Harriman Institute for Advanced Russian Studies of Columbia University, the Russian Research Center of Harwrd University, the University cl. Michigan and its Center for Russian and East European Studies, and the john Simon Guggenheim Foundation. In addition to these institutions, I have been privileged to 'WOrk at the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, the British Library, the Lenin Library, the Karl Marx Library (Thilisi), the library cl. Tbilisi State University, the Institutes of Party History in Erevan and Tbilisi, and the Hoover Institution Library and Archi~. Special thanks arc due to Victor Khomerilci for aid in securing permission to work in the Georgian Archive of the Houghton Library, Harv.ard University; to Dr. Ramishvili for materials on Georgian social democracy; and to the late Anna Milchailovna Bourgina for showing me materials in the Nicolacvsky Collection of the Hoover Institution Archives. Earlier versions of parts cl. this study have been published in the Russian Review and Nationalities Papers; in R. G. Suny, ed., Tramcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change: Essays in the History of Armenia, Aurbaijan, and Georgia (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, t 983); and in Stephen F. Cohen, Alexander Rabinowitch, and Roben Shadet, eds., The Soviet Union Since Stalin (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, t 9soi Two people made the completion of this project possible. One has no idea c:l her contribution, but ScYan SiranoushSuni made the sun shine again. Her mother, Annena Mardcrosian, accompanied me to Tbilisi twice, endured endless conYCrsations in languages she did not understand, and found the courage and joy in life to pull us both through when our lives together almost stopped. It is to her, in the memory of our son, that I dedicate this

book.

Note on Transliteration and Dating

Although some exceptions h:n'C been made to conform to more familiar usage, in general names and words from Georgian, Armenian, and Russian have been transliterated according to the Library of Congress systems, with a few modi6cations. Armenian transliteration is according to the east Armenian dialect, that spoken in the Russian empire and Persia. Georgian words (CYen titles oE books and newspapers) are not capitalized, since Georgian docs not use capital letters. Personal names are capitalized, hCMa"Cr, and are usually gi\'Cll as they would be transliterated from Georgian. Thus, the more familiar Dzhugashvili (Stalin) is given as Jughashvili, Ordzhonikidze as Orjonikidze. An attempt has been made to translitrratt Anncnian names according to their Armenian originals (Shahumian instead oE the Russian version, Shaumian) and Russian names according to their Russian originals. Certain inconsistencies, howeYer, actually make the text dearer. For instance, the Georgian form is used for the name cJ. the penultimate Georgian king, Erekle U, a monarch who operated in a Georgian context; but the Russian form cJ. the same name has been used fur Iraldii Tscrctrli, the social democrat who made his reputation in Russia proper. In Part I the capital of Georgia is referred to by its Georgian name, Thilisi, and not (except in direct quourions) as liflis, the name by which it was generally known to non-Georgians. In Pan 11 liAis, the commonly used foreign form, is used. liffis is replaced by Tbilisi in chapter 11, that is, from about the year 1936 when the Georgian name was officially revived.

xvm

Notes on Translation and Dating

Unless otherwise nmd, dates before February 1, 1918, which refer to e'fellts in Georgia, Armenia, or Russia arc given in the Julian calendar, which was thirteen days behind the Gregorian calendar cl. the West in the twentieth century, ~Ive days behind in the ninetttnth century, eleven days behind in the eighteenth century, and so on.

THE MAKING

OF THE GEORGIAN NATION

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GEORGIAN MONARCHIES PART ONE

."

Map I -

·~ ·:.

.

,

..""'-..

4

ALANS

8----··"·\ A S G

fEG111s1;

Black

Georgia, 1st to 4th Ceoturies, A.O.

--......

1 A

,-. L..../'\ l.'-

Y·"---' (

SHIDA

KARTLI

J-rkheopolia

oAGHesrAN1

)

TRIBES

"'-....___

Sea

'""'

KAKHETI

-\,

I

.(

~ KVEMO

I._

Kereeunt

KARTLI

/".

'\-........_

..........~

PONTUS

.

•Dvin

M E N JMH

A

·j,.~~·· ....

u

~\.11

. ~~ \

1

The Formation of the Georgian Nation

A favorite story of modem Georgians relates how God came upon the Georgians only after he had parceled out all the countries oi the world to other nationalities. The Georgians were in a typically fcstiYC mood and invited the Creator to join them in wine and song. The Lord so enjO)'Cd himself that He decided to give these merry and carefree people the one spot on the earth that He had rescrYCd for Himself-the valleys and hills that lie to the south cl. the great Caucasus Mountains. Unfortunately, the actual cthnogencsis of the Georgian people is far more obscure than this anecdote allows, and to probe its mysteries scholars have used linguistic as well as historical and archaeological evidence. The Georgians call themsclYCS kartveli and their country sak.artvelo, "the place of the Georgians." But the latter term was not used until the clCYCDth century, when Georgia was first united. Unity was brief, howeYCr, and for most oi history the lands in which Georgian speakers ha\'C lived h3"C been divided into two principal pam, separated by the Surami mountain range. Wcsu:m Georgia, lying in the basin ci. the Rioni (Phasis) RiYCr, was in ancient times known as Colchis and later as Lazica, Abasgia, or lmerctia. Among the Georgians western Georgia was first referred to as Egrisi, later as Abkhazeti, and most recently as Imereti. Eastern Georgia, larger in territory and running along the Kura (Cyrus) RiYCr, was called Iberia (Hiberia) by the classical world and Kartli by the Georgians. Less well ltnCM'll but historically a part of Georgia is . an area lying to the southwest of lmereti, in the valleys cl. the Chorokhi and the upper Kura, a land referred to as :Z.Cmo Kartli (Upper Iberia) or Mcskhia. The lands to the south cl. the Kura but east of Upper Iberia are sometimes referred to as K\'Cmo Kanli (Lower Iberia), while the lands to the nonh, on the other side cl. the Kura~ are called Shida Kartli (Inner Iberia~ Upper Iberia

4

THE GEORGIAN MONARCHIES

consisted d the lands in the basin d the Chorokhi-Achara, Nigali or Ligani, Shavshcti, Cholarunc or Klarjcti, and T~and the. lands in the basin d the Kura-Samtskhe or Meskhia, Javakhcti, Anani, and Kola. 1.nM:r Iberia included the lands d Trialcti, Gachiani, Gardabani, Tashiri, and Abotsi. 1 To the cast d Kartli proper lie the regions d Kakhcti and Kukhcti, the easternmost territories historically inhabited by Georgians. As the eminent scholar d Caucasian history, Cyril Toumanci.£, points out: 11 Most d these lands were, historically no less than geographically, GcorgioArmenian marches, and so a battle6cld bc~cn two neighboring monarchies. The struggle over them is still going on-on the battlefield of historiography. " 2 The languages ci the Georgian peoples arc not part of. the Indo-Europcan, Altaic, or Rnno-Ugric language families. Rather they belong to the southern Caucasian language group known as KarMlian (kartveluri) and have descended from an original, proto-Gcorgian language that began to break into sewcral distinct but related languages about four thousand years ago. The first to break away was the Swn language (svanuri), in about the nineteenth century e.c., and by the eighth century e.c. zarruri, the basis ci Mingrclian (megruli) and Laz (chanuri), had become a distinct language. 3 On the basis of language it has been established that the Georgians were made up d th~ principal, related tribes-the Karts, the Megrclo-Chans (Zwns), and the Svans-but in addition there were other Georgian-speaking tribes in Asia Minor, among them the Kashkai (Gashgai, Gashgash, Kashku, Kaska), the Mushki (Moskhi, Moschi, Mcskhi), and the libal (fabal, libar~ The distinguished Soviet in~tigator d ancient Georgia, G. A. Mclikishvili, writes that the peoples speaking these Ibero-Caucasian languages "in all probability ha\'e been settled in the territory of Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus from the molt ancient times." Ancient place names testify to their piesence in the earliest records, and archaeological research does not indicate any great changes in the ethnic composition d the peoples ci Caucasia. 4 The antiquity of. the division into myriad language groups is testified to by Herodotus, Strabo, and Pliny. The mountainous terrain tended to separate and isolate related peoples from one another and encouraged the devdopment ol dozens ol separate languages and dialects. Strabo, for example, writes that in the Greek port cJ. Dioscurias in western Georgia ~nty tribes gathered to buy and barter: "All speak different languages because d the fact that by reason d their obstinacy and ferocity, they live in scattered groups and without intercourse with one anothcr."5 Evidence indicates that primitive peoples have been living in Georgia since the early Pa.lcolithic period, more than fifty thousand ,-ears ago. In southern Oscti and along the Black Sea coast, in Abkhazcti, crude stone tools have been unearthed. Archaeologists have investigated late Paleolithic CaYC dwellings in Devis Khvreli, Sakazhia, Sagvarjile, and Gwtjilas klde. 6 There have been settlements in the Kura basin since the fifth millennium e.c.

Formation of the Georgian Nation

5

Radiocarbon dating at Shula\'tri indicates that the earliest settlements there date from 4659 8.C., plus or minus 210 years. Signs of Neolithic culture, and the transition from foraging and hunting to agriculture and stockraising, are found in Georgia from 5000 8.c., and settlements such as those at Tsopi, Aruchlo, and Sadachlo along the Kura in eastern Georgia are distinguished by a "culture marked by its long duration, its distinctive architecture and its relativity crude but easily recognizable pottery, with its considerable skill in stoneworking. " 7 In a very real sense, then, the highlands of eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia were one of. the "cradles of civilization," fur in those areas the right combination d domesticable animals and sowable grains and legumes made possible the earliest agriculture. "In shon," the Cambridge Ancient History states, "the highland zones of the Near (and Middle) East tum out to be the areas in which these earliest developments occurred, and those in the lowland plains date from later periods, thus reversing the old theories that Mesopotamia and Egypt were the birthplaces of civilization." 8 The entire area oi Transcaucasia and eastern Anatolia was, in the period beginning in the last quarter of the founh millennium 8.C., inhabited by people who were probably ethnically related and of Hurrian stock. (The Hurrians, a people spread throughout the Near East in the third millennium a.c., spoke a non-European language closely related to what later became Urartian.) The ethnic and cultural unity oi these two thousand years is characterized by some scholars as Chakolithic or Eneolithic. British scholars Charles Burney and David Marshall Lang refer to these years as the period oi "Early Transcaucasian Culture," although some Soviet paleohistorians prefer the term "Kuro-Araxes Culture." Whattvcr the label applied, it is clear that during this era economic stability based on cattle and sheep raising was achieYed, and as a result there was noticeable cultural stability as well. About 2300 B.C. this unified and flourishing culture went into a gradual decline, and after a period oi stagnation it broke up into a number oi regional cultures. By 2300 B.C. the peoples oi the Kura-Araxes area had already made contact with the more advanced civilization of Akkadian Mcsopotamia. 9 At the end d the third millennium, the Indo-European Hittites entered eastern Anatolia and established their rule OYCr Asia Minor and Syria, a dominion that lasted over a thousand years. During the Hittite period Georgia entered the Bronze Age (the Middle Bronze Age in Transcaucasia is dated &om 2000 8.C. to 1200 8.C.), and there is evidence ol considerable economic dCYClopment and increased commerce among the tribes. In western Georgia and Abkhaz.eti, a unique culture known as Colchidic developed between 1800 and 700 B.c., and in eastern Georgia the kurgan (tumulus) culture oi Trialeti reached its zenith around 1500 B.c. The earliest written records of people living in Armenia come from Hittite tablets, which tell of wars fought by two Hittite kings, Suppiluliumas (1388?-1347 8.C.) and his son Marsilis I (1347?-1320 8.C.), against tribes inhabiting the Armenian plateau. J 0 No written records mention the lands oi Georgia, but the national

6

THE GEORGIAN MONARCHIES

epic of Amiriani may have originated in this early period. t t Late in the Hittite era, by the last centuries of the second millennium, ironworking made its appearance in Transcaucasia but, as Burney and Lang point out, "the true Iron Age only began with the introduction of tools and weapons on a large scale and of superior quality to those hitheno made ci copper and bronze, a change which in most c:l the Near East may not have come before the tenth or ninth centuries a.c. "12 The Hittite kingdom fell about the year 1190 B.c. under the attack ci the mysacrious 11 pcoples ci the sea" (so called in the sources) and ci IndoEuropeans-Thracians, Pbrygians, and proto-Armenians-moring from the west into Asia Minor. The political vacuum left by the Hittite collapse was quickly filled by the Phrygians in the west and the Assyrians in the east. The Assyrian Icing, liglath-pilcser I (1115-lOn a.c.), led SCYCral expeditions into the lands of Nairi, later to be central Armenia. Then= the Assyrians fought and defeattd the Phrygians, whom they called Mushki or Tabal, driving them to the north and west, where they came under the cultural influence of the waning Hittites. In the view ci Melikishvili, the Mushki, who settled in the upper Euphrates and along the Murad-su, were Georgian speakers, one of the Kart tribes. After the fall d the Hittites, the Mushki formed their own state in cast-central Anatolia, a relatively strong formation, known in the Bible as Mosoch.13 Other tribes mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions may also h&\'C been proto-Gcorgian tribes, notably the Kashkai and the Tibal (the biblical Thubal), who li\'Cd in eastern Anatolia. The Kashlcai had participated in the destruction ol the Hittite empire, then mr the municipal government ci. liffis, one that shifted the balance ci. local power away from the traditional guilds. Based on similar charters granted to St. Petersburg (1846), Moscow (1862), and Odessa (1863), the law d August 11, 1866, divided the propcnicd and tax-paying population ci liflis into four estates for purposes ci. choosing the city's gcwcmment. Each estate-the hereditary nobility, the personal nobility and eminent citizens, the "simple citizens'' who owned property or were engaged in business, and those who owned no real estate but paid city taxcs-clccted one hundred electors who then chose twenty-fi\lC delegates to the city assembly. A mayor, chosen by electors from all estates, had to be a person ci. substantial wealth, owning property worth at least ten thousand sil\lCr rubles. This electoral system brought the nobles into urban gOYemmcnt for the first time under Russian rule. Combined with eminent citizens, they made up less than 10 percent of the city's population, )'Ct they now became the de &cto rulen ci. liflis. 15 The so-called simple citizens made up about 16 percent ci. the population, and the propcrtyless about 45 percent, but neither had much influence in the assembly. One-half d the assembly, thus, was elected by 10 percent d the city's inhabitants. Most affected by these reforms were the guilds, which lost their former prominence. The \'Cry next year, the state reduced the powers cl the cr2ft guilds, abolished the merchant guilds altogether, and subordinated the remaining amkarebi to the city administration. Of approximaaely one hun-

Emergenct of Political Society

121

drcd guilds~ only ~teen remained alter 1867. For the tsarist bu~aucracy the lesson of 1865 was well expressed by Baron Nikolai: "The disorders which occurred in Tillis in 1865 revealed that corporations united thus, without any tics to gOYemmcnt, could be harmful to the public tranquility." 16 The law of 1866 represented the nadir of Armenian power in Tiflis in the ninettcntb century and the most concerted attempt to shift municipal power from the Armenian merchants to the Georgian nobility. As destructive as the reform was to the traditional guilds and their influence in government, it was only a temporary encumbrance to Armenian power. The integration ol Taflis into the urban administrative system oE the Russian empire was completed in 1874, when the municipal statute granted to Russian cities in 1870 was extrnded to certain cities in the Caucasus.17 By this law a municipal duma (council} WM to be ·dcctrd by adult males who owned real estate or paid taxes in the city. This was the widest franchise eyer enjoyed by urban dwellers in tsarist Russia and extended even to peasants who met the property or tax qualifications. Three curiae were established, based on the amount oE tax paid, and each curia dected one-third of the duma deputies. In practice this meant that a handful of the wealthiest men in the city elected the first third of the duma, the next wealthiest elected a second third, and hundreds of propertied people elected the last third. The durna then would elect an U/'f'ava (board) and a mayor. This novel system dispensed with the division ol. the population into estates (sosloviia) and instead distinguished by wealth and property. The tsenz or property qualification that gave a man the right to \'OtC established a new principle for political participation, one quite familiar to bourgeois Europe but new to tsarist Russia. The preponderance of power in the new duma lay with the few richest businessmen, who chose one-third ol. the assembly and from whose number the mayor was likely to emerge. Thanks to this law the Armenian bourgeoisie re-emerged as the leading political force in liflis. Tsarist law had a dual effect on the Armenian bourgeoisie, forcing its modernization by eliminating the merchant guilds and restricting the craft guilds while at the same time preserving, indeed exttndin~ its privileged political position within the municipality. The .. bourgeois'' principle of representation based on economic status rather than on birth and soslovie helped the Armenian moktilake maintain his paramount place in the city C'YCll as demographic mOYCmCDts were reducing his relative weight in population. Both the Armenian bourgeois and the Georgian noble were reduced to the position of citizen. The influence each held within Taflis in the next two decades depended not on birth or legal status but on property and wealth. As the Georgian nobility failed to adjust to the spreading market economy and lost its ancient lands to middle-class creditors or land-hungry peasants, it was also pushed aside politically.

122

GEORGIA IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

By the last third ol the century Russian administration and the developing market economy were having prolound effects on Georgian national formation. From the dispersed, insecure pieces cl. seigneurial Georgia with its various princely houses and distinct economies, one national political and economic unit was being formed. The Georgian nation (en), consolidated out of the autonomous political units that had been eliminated by the 1860s, was being funhcr united as the isolated peasant villages, once largely sel~ sufficient and only distantly related to towns, were integrattd into a national economy. 18 & railroads, telegraphs, and imprcwcd roads made access to the cities and the outside world easier, increased contact with the towns, where people of different nationality liml, forged a growing sense of the distinctions between Georgians and other peoples. Thus, Russian colonial dominance ol Transcaucasia, which guaranteed a degree of peace, security, and economic progress in certain sectors, had fostered conditions for both national refo~ mation and ethnic confrontation. Not surprisingly, as this new nati.onal emergence began to be expressed in literature and political journalism, the dccpcr question ci. Georgia's future relationship with Russia appeared at the center of the national debate. Like other colonial relationships, Georgia's subordination to Russia was a mixture of benefits and burdens, and the attitude ol. many Georgians toward Russian rule was unawidably ambivalent. Protection by tsarist arms was both a necessity and a restrictive imposition for Georgians. The benefits of European civilization were greatly desired by a thin layer ol. Georgian society, and the road to the West lay through Russia. Generations ol. Georgian students trekked northward to Russian centers of learning to discover the latest intclleaual advances of European thinkers. Enlightenment was the means by which Georgia could escape the past dominated by the Muslim East and join the Christian, modem West. At the same time, contact with Russia and the West worked to awaken conscioumcss of Georgia's unique culture and fears that Georgia would be cwerwhelmed by foreign values, by Russian poljtical practice and by the alien economic operations of Armenian middlemen. This ambivalence toward "Europeanization" and Russian rule was a constant feature oi Georgian intellectual life through the nineteenth century into the twentieth. The emergence of a modem, secular Georgian national consciousness should not be understood as the simple product ci. the confluence ci. various social and political currents. The making ol. a nation in its full demographic, cultural, and intellectual sense requires more than the coming together ci. disembodied social forces or the repressive political intervention of imperial powers. Historically the creation ol. a Georgian nation was the resuh ol. imaginative work by intellectuals and political activists who first revi'w'Cd interest in the national language and historical past and lattr mobilized

Emergence of Political Society

123

popular sentiment tow:ard a reconceiYed national whole. Yet the development ci national consciousness cannot be reduced to a history ci the inr:rlligentsia, fur that history is always part of a broader social evolution. Cultural renOYarion by intellectuals and artists was essential for the dnelopment of secular nationalism, with its claims first to cultural autonomy and lattr to statehood, but the movement was effcctiYC because of the new world in which ethnicities found themselves after the French, and the industrial, revolutions. Moving beyond the earlier work of historians who conceived of nationalism primarily as a problem of intellectual history, more recent studies haw: emphasized the specific intellectual and political activity of "patriots," which, in an important sense, "inYCntcd" modem nationalism in the nineteenth century.1 9 From this perspective nationality does not possess an a priori, natural existence, but is the product of a particular cultural intcrYCntion by grammarians and philologists, historians and novelists, schoolteachers and journalists. After a series of dose empirical studies of small peoples in Eastern and Central Europe, Czech historian Miroslav Hroch proposes that nationalist m~mcnts go through three stages of gestation: Stage A, in which a small number of intellectuals begin the cultural work, largely in language studies and the recO¥Cry ci the national history; Stage 8, in which larger groups of "patriots'' spread the message ci the nation through schools and the press; and Stage C, when broader popular mobilization takes place. Without an unnecessarily rigid application of Hroch's model, it is possible in a discussion of the formation of the Georgian intelligentsia to trace a similar evolution-from the initial revival of the Georgian past and attention to the language in the lare eighteenth and early ninctccnth centuries through the journalistic activity of the 1860s and 1870s to the active political nationalism ol the turn of the century. In the second half ci the eighteenth century, at a rime when Russian letters were flourishing under the patronage ci Catherine II and the foundation ol the Armenian national revival was being laid by Catholic monks in Venice (the Mekhitarist fathers), Georgia was still imperiled by both the Ottoman and Iranian empires. Nevcnhclcss a printing prns was set up in Ttflis in 1749, and three decades later the clergyman Gaioz opened a school that taught Russian in the Georgian capital. Unfortunately these tentative shoots ol intellectual renewal were cut oif by the Iranian destruction oi liflis in 1795. Leaming in Georgia was almost entirely religious, and it is estimated that 85 percent oE. the output oE. the Georgian printers was clerical literature. 20 Yet some secular learning also was evident. It may be that twentieth-century historian Iv.me javakhishvili exaggerates somewhat when he speaks cJ. a strong rise in Georgian national self-consciousness in the eighteenth century, but his characterization oE. the process is very suggestive. "In distinction from the tendencies of the time oE. Vakhtang VI, when all attention was on the careful gathering ol the legacy oE. centuries, on the plCSCrvation of traditions as they had come down to that time, the basic motif

124

GEORGIA IN TI-IE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

d the epoch d Teimuraz and lraklii was the restoration d ancient Georgian traditions and the establishment and purging from them d mreign influences and distonions. 1121 The history d the Georgian national intelligentsia begins in the romantic age, when educattd young Georgians made their desperate attempt to ~the Russian connection. Lilce the Dccembrists, the conspiraton ci.1832 were much more influential in the afterglow d their failure than they had been before their arrests. Although the example d these last noble plotters was not followed by others, the surviving participants ft':taincd enormous prestige, and after they had made peace with the Russian presence many d them became leading figures, not only in Caucasian politics but also in

letters. By virtue both d their aristocratic status and their intellectual abilities, Alexandre Chavchavadzc (1786-1846) and Grigol Orbeliani (1800-1883) re-entered state service and rose to high positions. At the same time they became the leading literary lights in the romantic movement in Georgia. The poetry ci Chavchavadzc lamented the lost past of Georgia. In poems like "vai, droni, droni" (Woe, time, timch "isminct msmennon (Listen, listenerh and "kavkasia" (Caucasia~ the Golden Age ci Georgia was &M>rably contrasted with its mundane present. Orbcliani, who CYCntually became govcrno~cncral d 1iflis province, scncd loyally as a tsarist officer but in his poems called for restoration d Georgia's past glory. The dose social and intellectual tics d the Georgian romantics were exemplified in the life and ~ ci the finest poet d the period, Nikoloz Baratashvili (1817-1845~ The pupil d Soghomon Dodiashvili, one d the conspirators ci 1832, and the nephew ci Grigol Orbcliani, Baratashvili found his muse in Ekaterina Chavchavadzc, the second daughter of Alexandre, and wrote a series cJ. lyric poems to her. The romantic themes d patriotism and nostalgia for a lost past were refkcted in Baratashvili 's poem "bcdi kanlisa" (Fate c:J. Georgia), in which the poet reproduced the debate c:J. Erckle II, penultimate king ci Georgia, with an advisor who opposed the union with Russia. The wife cJ. the advisor asks her husband, in a lament that became familiar to all literate Georgians: "ra khelhqris pativs nazi bulbuli, galiashia daUJ~buli?" ("What pleasure docs the tender nightingale receive from honor if it is in a cage?") Romanticism in Georgia in the 1830s and 1840s was influenced by Russian poets cJ. the period and by Russian translations d European literature. But the pessimism and patriotism, the lyricism and longing d the romantics was anything but foreign to Georgian literatnre. Their poets d the snenteenth and eighteenth centuries, writing under Iranian and Turkish influence, had composed lyrical songs, elegant laments, and paeans to nature, quite close to whar Baracashvili and his contemporaries produced several generations later.22 Still, romanticism was the first literary movement in which Georgians engaged along with Russians. In a curious reciprocity,

Emngmct of Political Society

125

Russian poetry ~rtilized the work cJ Georgian poets, while the Caucasus and Georgia became a rich image for the exotic and romantic in Russian literature. Pushkin, who visited Georgia in 1829, and Lermontov, exiled to the Caucasus in 1840, used Caucasian motifs and characters and helped raise the Caucasus in the popular imagination from a backwater outpost to a land of passion and temper, violence and adventure. Interest in Georgian history and language expanded along with the new literature. French scholar Marie-f-Clicite Brosset was invited to St. Petersburg in 1837 and made a member of the Academy of Sciences in order to permit him to continue his Georgian studies. Three years later Brossct published a Georgian-French-Russian dictionary with D. I. Chubinashvili (Chubinov) and a year later completed his translation into Russian of Rustaveli's twelfthcentury epic poem, "vepkhistqaosani." Late in the 1840s Viceroy Vorontsov invited Brossct to lead an archaeological expedition in Georgi~ and thereafter a steady stream of translations and critical editions of the major Georgian chronicles appeared under Brosset's name. With the attention paid to it by a renowned European scholar and in travel accounts of European visitors as famous as Alexander Dumas, Georgia not only became known in Western Europe but became the subject ol heightened literary and scholarly interest among the Georgians themselves. Native Georgian scholarship had already produced a short history oi Georgia in Russian, Kratkaia istoriia Gruzii (St. Petersburg, 1805) by Prince David Bagrationi, and a geographical survey ol the country, Obounrit tsarstva gruzinskogo naroda (St. Petersburg, 1814) by Prince Vakhtang Batonishvili. But the first critical history in Georgian was written by Prince Tcimuraz in 1848. Under the impact ci Russian rule Georgian intellectuals initiattd their own search into their country's past, a search that immediately raised doubts about Georgia's present and future while at the same time it cruted a congenial view oi the past and a source ol national pride. Thus historians, like the poets, provided the small Georgian reading public with the images required to regard Georgia as a nation. The first members ol the Georgian intelligentsia, known later as the "fathers," were a small, dose-knit group oi aristocratic writen who shared with a kw others oi their noble brothers the benefits oi Russian state service. They met occasionally in literary salons to read their works .and discuss current issues. With the expansion of education under Viceroy Vorontsov, the number of noble sons and young people of other social classes who gained access to schools rose rapidly. Tilose who completed their secondary education in the Caucasus and wished to continue had to enroll in one ol the halfdozen Russian universities. From this newly expanding educated grou~ with its close contact with Russia proper, a rival tendency emerged within the intelligentsia, soon to distinguish thcmsel\'CS as the "sons." Called in Georgian tergdaleulni (literally, "those who drank the watrr ol the Terek," the river that separated

126

GEORGIA IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

Georgia from Russia), the sons wea: distinguished by their Russian education from their older compatriots, known as the mtkvardaleulni (.. those who drank the water cl the mtkvari [Kura]," the river that flows through TIA.is~ Together the two groups made up what later would be referred to as the pnwli dasi, or .. first generation," of the Georgian intelligentsia. The members cJ this tiny intellectual world "Were similar in social background but their literary tasta and political outlooks differed greatly, and those differences can be ttaccd to the unique c:xpcriencc ol the sons in Russia in late 1850s and early 1860s. At the beginning of the reign cl Alexander II Russian intellectuals were engaged in an intense public discussion c:J the backwardness c:J Russian society, so graphically mealed by the empire's dckat in the Crimean War. The debate OYCr emancipation and the literary-political polemics in the pages c:J the radical journal Sovremennik (Contemporary) stimulated cffom at sclfeducation by the students in Russia's universities. One d those students, the Georgian raznochinets Niko Nikoladzc 0843-1928), remembered the euphoria c:J the early 1860s as a kind cl "early spring, not only br me, but for all c:J Russia and eYCll Europe. After the heavy opp~ion imposed after 1848, here and there flashed the glow d dawn." 23 Numbering about thirty in the early 1860s, the Georgian students in St. Petersburg liYCd separately from the Russians. When the various non-Russian minority groups in the university decided to form iemliachestva (circles ci people from the same town, region, or ethnic group), some Georgians argued in fa\'Or ol a pan-Caucasian r.emliachestvo. The majority, ~r, were convinced by the young writer Ilia Chavchawdzc (1837-1907) to form separate Georgian, Armenian, Russian, and "Lczgin,, organizations with strong tics among them. 2... At first the Georgians were isolated from the growing tensions in the university, but by the summer c:J 1861 the radicalization of the Russian and Polish students affected some of the Caucasians. Inspired by the liberation mOYCments in Italy and Hungary, the more zealous among them began wiearing their hair like Garibaldi. R!rhaps the most volatile and politically active was the young Nikoladzc, an avid reader c:i Sovremennik and Poliarnaia zvezda (Polar Star), published abroad by Russian socialist Aleksandr Hencn. Sympathizing with the views ol the lcafJet K molodomu pokoleniiu (To the Young Generation), Nikoladze and his friends joined other students in the demonstrations rJ. ~mbcr­ Octobcr 1861. Arrested and expelled from the uniYCrSity, they were ordered to leave the city and return to Georgia. Their formal education in Russia was OYCr, but they were proud rJ. their participation in the first political action against Russian authorities in which Georgians had engaged together with Russians, Poles, and other nationalities. When his father's scnant came to fetch him home, Nikoladze went willingly: "Petersburg was opprcssi~ to me; I no longer expected any kind rJ. reYOlution there. " 25

the

Emergence of Political Society

12 7

The acknowledged leader of the tergdaleulni was the more moderate Ilia Chavchavadze, the orphaned son of a prominent Kakhctian family. As a child he had learned to love Georgian literature from his mother and to read his native language from a village clergyman. At age clCYCn he had gone to liflis for his studies, first at a private boarding school and later at the noble gimnaVia. Fundamentally affected by the time he spent at the juridical faculty at St. Petersburg University (1857-1861~ Chavchavadzc used these )'Cars to write a remarkably rich body of poetry and prose. He and his contemporary, poet Akaki Tsereteli, ~re the first imponant Georgian poets to shift from the patriotic romanticism of Orbeliani and Baratashvili to a less rhetorical, more critical realism. In his verse "pocti," written during his student years, Chavchavadzc announcc•I his view of his literary and social obligation: I do not learn from the birds in flight,

I listrn to anothtt wice.

Not for sweet songs Was I sent by h~ to earth. To become a brother to the people, A friend in joy and sorrow, so that its suffrring in pain lights fire to my soul.

The Russian radical intelligentsia made social commitment to the people the touchstone of its ideas and behavior and this had a profound effect on the Georgians who studied in the north. Akaki Tscreteli remembered the great influence of the radical "sons'' ot the Russian intelligentsia-Nikolai Chemyshcvskii (1828-1889) and Nikolai Dobroliubov (1836-1861)though he rejected their almost total denial cl. esthetic values in literature. The social role ol art was a key political issue, and Tscrctcli's unwillingness to subordinate his art to political ends cost him his friends. 26 The way that commitment was manifested-whether in practical application of the principles of reform or in alliance with the fledgling miolutionary oppositiondecply divided the Georgian intelligentsia during the years &om the emancipation to the rewlution. Returning to Georgia, the tergdaleulni arrived just as peasant emancipation was being extended to Transcaucasia. In general, these )'OUng noblemen fa¥ored a liberal and generous emancipation and w.:re disappointed both by the attitudes cl. the majority ot the nobility and the final settlement granted by the gayemmcnt. But their energies w.:re turned away from spcci6cally political and economic activity to culture and education, journalism and literature. Despite the first stirrings cl. romantic literature and the promotion

128

GEORGIA IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

oi a

Georgian drama by \brontsov, the actual achinmtcnts ol the li~ratc elite were still quite meager by the 1860s. The Soviet historian Sh. Chkhctia laments: In Georgia up to the 1860s, i.e., in the course ol almost three-quarters of. a century, not mon: than 160-180 boob had been printlcd in the Georgian language; ... in Georgia in all that time not one [permanent) Georgian theater had exis!N; ... in Georgia in that time not one Georgian cultural and scientific institution had been founded; ... in all ci Georgi.a up to the

1860s only three Georgian prin="~ had aistrd, and the number ol

printing preucs with Georgian

DCYCr

ocettdcd

two,27

Ocarly not acn the Georgians themselves yet valued their own literature; not enough interested readers could be found to suppon a modest press for "YCry long. According to the early Marxist historian and activist, Pilipc Ma.kharadze, the Georgian language "gradually lost significance in the eyes ol Georgians thcmscl\ICS since knowing only their own language Georgians could not enter state or public service. " 28 Central to the question oi ethnic identity in Transcaucasia was the use of language. While Armenians had a distinct brand oi Christianity and a separate church with its head at holy Echmiaclzin, the Georgians we.re religiously merged with the Russian Onhodox Church. In terms oi social eswes Georgian nobles and peasants were roughly equivalent to Russians cJ. the same order, though ethnicity and culture, acceptance and prejudice, always colored social relations and influenced political advancement. But language-the knowledge cJ. Georgian and the degree cJ. fluency in Russian-was a key to social and political mobility and to the degree cJ. identity with one's own people or the dominant nationality. From 1868 Georgian was clearly inferior to Russian, not only in popular attitudes or the views ol officials, but in the law as well. The teaching ol Russian was required in all schools in the empire, and Georgian was no longer a required subject. Beginning in the 1870s only private schools taught courses in Georgian, usually on the primary ICYCI, with Russian gi"YCn as a special course. When a student reached middle school the courses were taught in Russian, with Georgian giYCn as a separate counc. As the result of state policy and legal discriminations, the percentage of schools that taught a local Caucasian language steadily declined and those that taught all subjects in Russian increased. 2 9 As early as 1860 Niko Nikoladu discerned this tendency in his first published article, "Do We Need the Georgian Language?" This painful question was addressed in the first influential and long-li\o'Cd Georgian journal, uiskari (Dawn~ which appeared briefly from 1852 to 1853 under the editorship cJ. playwright Giorgi Eristavi (1811-1864) and enjO)"Cd a longer run (1857-1875) under Ivane Kereselidzc (1829-1883~ In its pages younger Georgian writers engaged in the debate OYCr serfdom then

Emergence of Political Society

129

dividing Russian society, and a newel that passionately attacked serfdom (suramis tsikhe [Surami Fortress)) appeared from the pen of Daniel Chonlcadze (1830-1860~ Yet in 1860 only 180 subscribers could be found to support the journal, and through the decade there was little improYement and occasionally considerable losses. Tsiskari, propped by the generous subsidies ol Alexandre Orbcliani, generally reflected the views oi the conservative "fathers" and used an archaic Georgian (sashualo) based on the medieval language of the church (maghali). The "sons," led by Ilia Chavchavad~ began a campaign for the use ci the Georgian vernacular (dabal1l in published prose and poetry. Up to this time the language of ordinary people was thought appropriatt only for the comedies oi Giorgi Eristavi and other writers for the theater. In April 1861 Chavchav.adze published his article on Prince Revaz Eristavi's translation of Kozlov's Bezrmma (Madwoman) in tsislt.ari and thus opened a long feud with the older generation. Chavchavadzc's suggestions were rather modest, an orthographic and stylistic reform, but the conservatives were incensed by the attempt to reduce the elevated language c:i Georgian literature to the ICYCI oi the spoken word. Similar struggles ewer the archaic literary language oi the upper classes and the church and the '"democratic" reform of the written language were then dividing the Armenian intelligentsia and had stirred hostilities a generation earlier among Russian writers. The debate became heated and toqk on political overtones when Chavchavadze answered Grigol Orbeliani's "pasukhi shvilta" (Answer to the Sons) with his "pasukhis pasukhi" (Answer to the Answer), which contained the harsh indictment: "Our country, killed by you, did not sell itself for ranks as you did. . . . Liberalism and patriotism, we hel\'C not turned into curse words." From St. ~tersburg Akak.i Tsereteli, Giorgi Tsercreli (1842-1900), and Kiril Lordkipanidze wrote in support ol Chavchavadzc, signing their letters "tergdaleuli." They emphasized that the true Georgian was the peasant; his language was the essence of the narional language. No longer able to work together with the "fathers," the tngdaleulni issued their awn periodicals. The first, sakartvelos moambe (Georgia's Herald), was edited by Chavchavadzc; although it lasted only one year, this literary iournal was enormously influential. Years later Prince Giorgi Tumanov remembered its impact: I speak ci 1863 when the joumaJ ci I. G. Chuchavadze, Georgian Herald (sakartvelos moamb"), began to come out. This was a time ci general awakening. This was a time of great hopes. The men in the Sixties-realists and mattrialists in principle-actually woke up the beat feelings of man· kind. E"YCn I, a child ci eight, was inttrestcd in the journal. From Cltavchawdze's journal I first learned of the existtncc oi Bclinskii, Dobroliubov, Proudhon, and Basriat. But they were linle understood by me, and my sympathies were ~ attracted by Victor Hugo (his newel Ln

130

GEORGIA IN TIIE RUSSIAN EMPIRE Miserables was published) and by the editor himself. Herc for the first time appeared the llr export. In time they con\'Crted land from other crops to the profitable com. Only by selling to the grain collectors could these peasants hope to make the money necessary to pay off their various obligations to the state and to their landlords. But once agriculture was determined by international exchange rather than local needs, the small producers became vulnerable to the vicissitudes c:J. the market. The boom and bust c:J. the world market had begun to ha¥C disastrous effects in Transcaucasia by the end oi the century. From the 1880s Georgian com met American competition, and a series cJ. cvcnts seriously damaged its position in the market. A .famine in central Russia in 1891 brought a temporary ban on com exports. By the time trade was permitted again in 1892, many markets had been lost. World com prices fell through most c:J. the 1890s, and a pood oi Georgian com sold for an average c:J. thirty-five kopeks instead c:J. the SCYCnty-6\'C kopeks c:J. a decade earlier. The com crisis was discussed in the press and all over the countryside; as liflis's Novae oboumie reported: "Now in the depths oi the villages they are speaking c:J.

Marxism and National Struggle

151

American competition, ol American com; the fall ol the price ol com is

making itself felt more and more." 16 As com from America, India, and Australia undersold com from Kutaisi province, the peasants who had become dependent on foreign markets faced ruin. Guria and Samcgrclo were particularly hard hit. 17 Only toward the end of the 1890s and in the 1900s did prices for Transcaucasian grain begin gradually to rise. But by that time some Georgian farmers were convening from grain to cash crops less threatened by compcritors-rker and a printer in Tiflis) until he went abroad to continue his studies. PtlYeny forced him home after two years in France, and be found work in the &thschild refinery in Batumi. There be was thrown into the depths of the agony ci the new working class, and he began to describe what he saw in a series cJ. short stories and novels: On one side cl the city cl Batumi, a little above the oil refineries, arc stmvn in one spot a bunch cl wooden structures with large ~ which m into the mud. The swamps in which this area abound an: filled with various stinking pieces cl filth, and the evil secnch rising from them poi10ns and in'=cts the surrounding atmosphere; such a smell hangs ~ constantly the a person used to dean air cannot pass through without awering ltls nostrils. In these buildings there are no beaten. Each room has only one window, and niai on dear, sunny days, darkness and gloom reigns in them. Ir is ttue that the rooms haYe numerous cracks and holes in them, but more ohm and more strongly wind comes through rather than light. These buildings sene as the place cl shelter for seYeraJ thousand labom-s. All the

Marxism and National Struggle

157

rooms are damp and too small, though in each ol them live ten to twelve

workcrs.33 Despite their misery, or indeed because of it, these workers inspired lngoroqva toward a new political analysis. That summer (1889~ as he later wrote to a friend, he "read a great deal" and "seriously studied those questions which interest us. I have come to the conclusion that Marx and Engels and their young Russian disciple, Georgii Plekhanov, are our leaders and teachers lighting for us the way. The working class! Here it seems is the motive force, the wheel of history. The labor movement-here is the turning ci the wheel. And if this wheel begins to mOYC here in our country, if the labor mOYCment develops, then a complete change will take place in our

life. " 34 Himself too sickly to remain in Batumi, lngoroqva left for the small town of Kvirili, where he found office work at Gogoberidzc's manganese firm. His influence rcd an "anncxarionist" peace. For the Georgian Mcnsheviks, like their oomrades in Russia, the iaue c:l the narure ol the go't'Cmmcnt w.11 crucial, for it would establish not only which social class would haye its inieresu prornottd by the state but also whether the .. bourgeois-democratic" revolution would continue or be transformed into a "socialist" one. Sharing the Menshcvik view that the essential preoonditions for a socialist reYOlution simply did not exist in Russia, Zhordania concluded that the parties d the "democracy" should neither form their own government nor join an essentially bourgeois coalition. For the Mensheviks in Georgia (unlike Tscreteli and Chkheidzc in Petrograd), the interests of the lower classes we~ simply understood to be opposed to those of the propcnicd classes. Gegcchkori told the Tallis soviet: "If the socialist wing ol the Provisional Government acts in the inte~ ol the democracy but without a socialist outlook, then it will deserve the just protests ol the proletariat; if it acts in the interests of the proletariat, then this will alienate the bourgeoisie from the other remlutionary strata ol society, and this will be the beginning cJ. the end. " 8 Early in April the Petrograd soviet clashed with Miliukov over the government's war policy. Crowds in the street backed the soviet and forced Miliukov"s resignation. The "April Crisis" forced changes in the first Provisional ~mment and intensified the tensions in the dcmoaaric alliance of workers and soldiers in Tiflis. 1be Menshevik-led workcn' soviet opposed formation cJ. a coalition government (April 29) and promised it only conditional (postol'ku, poskol'ku) support (May 6i The soldiers' soviet, led by the Socialist Revolutionaries, came out for unconditional support cJ. the new government (May 16), defeating a motion by Zhordania. The Menshcviks tried to hold the front together by merging the two soviets (May 26), and Bolsheviks who agitated among the soldiers against the war wctt arrested. 9 Not surprisingly, Mcnshevik effons to keep the Bolsheviks within a common social democratic organization failed. The Bolsheviks formed their awn party in early June, sharply separating themselves and their advocacy cJ. "all power to the soviets!" from the moderate socialists who supported, however tmtatiYCly, the coalition government. The liflis Bolsheviks were supported largely by militant soldiers and, to some extent, Russian workers. For the first two months cJ. revolution the only social democratic newspaper in the Russian language was Kavkazslt.ii rabochii (Caucasian Worker), the organ cJ. the Bolshevik faction; the Menshcviks' Bor'ba (Struggle) did not appear until May. Bolsheviks began to make serious inroads among the soldiers once it became dear that the government, instead cJ. bringing the war to a speedy conclusion, was planning a major campaign in the summer. Embarrassed by the so-called Ke~ky oifcnsiYC, a desperate attempt by the weakened Russian army to ~rse recent losses to the Germans, the liffis soviet on June 23 adopted a lukewarm ~olution calling the offensiYC "one of

R~lution

and Republic

189

the military episodes in the world war which in no way changes our aims in it." The next day four thousand soldiers gathered in the Aleksandr Garden and adopted a Bolshevik resolution calling for the end c:J the offcnsiYe. 10 Following the lead c:i their comrades in Petrograd, the Tiflis Bolsheviks organized a protest march for June 25. As in the capital, the moderate socialists tried to coopt the demonstration by rescheduling it and providing their own slogans and orators, but the demonstrators, some ten thousand soldiers, shouted down the Menshcvik speakers and applauded only the Bolsheviks. This meeting also adopted a Bolshevik resolution opposing the Kerensky offensiYe, and added a call for a guld afford to pay, could in the long run be got only by fighting the It.Jolt and collectivizing production.•'

Only as a more aggressive posture was adopted toward the villagers in late 1928 and early 1929 were the more moderatt wiccs within the party effcctiYCly silenced. From the last }'Cal' of the decade, political survival in the USSR depended on close identification with the "general line" promoted by the Stalin faction, CYCn as it swayed and ~ned through the course ol a war initiated by the state against the peasants. "By the autumn and winter of 1928," Moshe Lewin writes, "implementation of the Stalinist Yersion cX the smychka [unity oi. peasant and worker] had begun. Stalin's formula was as follows: all possible aid was to be giYCn to the bcdnyaks [poor peasants], and war was to be waged on the kulaks [rich peasants} in order to achieYC mastery OYCr the scrcdnyaks [middle pcasants}." 17 The year of drift came to an end; the last opposition was routed; and the campaign against the kulaks began. By early 1929 a tense atmosphere had dCYClopcd within the Soviet Union. The political conflict within the party was only pan ol a more generally strained environment. Pcrcci'Wed dangers from abroad and the isolation ci the USSR internationally made solution ci the grain crisis imperatiYC. The Soviet hancst ci 1928 was 5,000,000 tons lower than the record harYCSt ci 1926. With increased demand for agricultural products, particularly from the state engaged in industrial growth, supply simply could not keep up. Extrarural marketings oi grain and milk declined in 19281929; meat increased only because ci unusually high slaughter. ·Rationing had to be introduced; the gYe and j. Ncwth write that these areas should not be seen as colonies ci Russia.

a

It is a charaamstic c:i colonial status ... that the dominant ~ uses the economy c:i the c:ok>ny for its own benefit, keeping it industrially relatil'Cly undcMleYdoped, extracting profit &om in"'tmcnts, underpaying colonial labor, neglecting education and so on. None c:i these ieaturcs ci traditional colonialism can be discerned in an impartial analysis ol Soviet policy in the rq>ublks. Far from there being any economic exploitation, it is reasonable on the evidence to assen that industrialization, especially in Central As~ has been financed .with money raised in Russia proper. In other words, c.apital has tended to move to those outlying undcr-devdoped areas and there h• been vinually no counterbalancing~ c:i remittances cl profit or

Stalinism in Georgia

291

incercst, because in the Soviet Union capital grants arc not repayable and do not bear interest.

The evidence also shows that "each of the republics has very little political power and that this is panicularly significant in a country in which politi· cians claim the right to decide far more than is considered 'political' in a Western country. " 92 But political subordination, in their view, is not equivalent to colonialism so long as economic exploitation is missing. The very ambivalence of the Nove·Newth formulation illustrates the difficulty of rendering judgment on the Stalinist system of political subor-dination and forced economic dcvclopment. Another conception of Soviet colonialism, proposed by Alvin W. Gouldner, avoids the ethnic dimension and suggests that "what had been brought into being was an urban·ccntered power elite that had set out to dominate a largely rural society to which they related as an alien colonial power; it was an internal colonialism mobilizing its state power against colonial tributaries in rural tcrritorics." 93 For the Georgians, who entered the Stalinist period as a largely peasant nation, the relationship with the Great Russian center was marked by this kind of "internal colonialism." As part of the Soviet Union Georgians were "modernized" in a particular way and, like most peasant populations in the world, not by choice. just as in tsarist Russia or Safavid Iran, Georgians were changed by their imperial experience without having been able to determine their own fate. The Stalin years eliminated once and for all Georgia's basically peasant economy and in one desperate push accclerattd the creation of a primarily urban and industrial society. Without gaining the full at· tributes of political SOYCreignty, Georgians naiertheless remained a cohesi\'C and conscious nationality in possession cJ. irs own territory and prepared, should the opportunity arise, to improve its social, material, and cultural life.

13 Georgia and

Soviet Nationality Policy since Stalin

Seldom has the death of an individual, even that of a great tyrant, so definiri~ly marked the end of a political era as did the passing of Joseph Stalin. The Soviet system, in so many essentials the creation of his peculiar understanding of Russia's needs and his personal requirements for the maintemmce of a monopoly ol pnner serf freed by his lord . .Aosauri (pl. -n•) (Gcorgian)-Gcorgian petty noble, landlord, or warrior, parallel to the out c1 Armenia; the trrm was first applied to all nobles, but in the latrr Middle Ages a deam- distinction WIS made between an IJDl4ll1'i (dependent noble) and a llWaJj and mtavari (dynastic prince); from the fifleenth century the avunlri was coosidcred a qma (slave) c1 his lord. ~

(Georgian)-nobility

Bagratid.-Armmo-Georgian family that ruled both in Armenia as presiding princes (7-8th centuries) and as kings (884-1045), and in Kartli u presiding princes (hum 813) and as kings (888 until the ooming c1 the Russians in the ninetftflth century); Bagraids also ruled in lmcreti (13-Hth centuries) and in other Georgian and Armenian lands.

&gara (Georgian)-duty, service; for peasants, labor obligation banbchina in Russian).

Bog11110 (Gcorgian)-landlcsa peasant. rmer OGPU, was pixed within NKVD; in 1941 NKGB (Narodnyi komissl.rilt gosudantwnnoi be~) left NKVD as a scpara11e commissariat; in 1946 NKVD became MVD and NKGB became MGB.

Obosoblmnost' (RU11ian}-r OIMl'llllill sian Army~ Patroni (GeorgianHord; muter; owner.

OI'

~ill

cash.

llmliia (Detached Cauca-

Glossary

341

'""°"""'°""

(Georgian}-feudalism; the seri-owning syaan. Pood (Russian}-wright measurement eqll21to16.38 kilograms or 36 pounds.

Postavlui (pl. -1) (Russian)-re the emancipation in Georgia, see Zhordaniia, K voproSM, pp. 70-113. Following the &cad cl historians like M. V. Ncchkina, Zhordaniia at1empts to show that a ·~lutionary situarion" ais~ in Georgia, which contribu~ to the goycmment'I resol\'C to cmancipa the serfs. He

Notes for pages 97 to 98

363

produces much evidence of peasant discontents-flight &om landlords, complaints to

dficials, and refusals to pay dues-but it is dear thar these incidents were isolated and uncoordinated. Peasant discontents, fostcted by the landlords' attmlpts to get more income &om peasants before emancipation, did not lead to a massivie peasant movement, except in Samegrdo in 1857. It docs not appear that the emancipation in Georgia was primarily moriv.ated by a developing .. revolutionary situation,.. as Zhordaniia proposes. But it is clear that for a least a decade before the rebrm, r:3uesrion al liberation of the land1ord peasants, in Niko Nikoladze's words, .. ,ti all clements of Georgian society" ("Osvobozhdenie krest'ian v Gruzii," Kololtol, no. 198, June 15, 1865). And peasant prottsts ~re connecttd in many minds with the hoped-for rebrm. Nikoladu bc1~. for example, tha rumon of liberation at the beginning of 1858 led to an incmase ol peasant mdts. Motivations are difficult to isolate, but it seems likely th• the peasants' sporadic resistance and the officials' anticipation ol further trouble played a part in the administration's determination to carry out the rebrm against the cxprased wishes of the local nobility. Another important consideration was the administnbon's plan to intrgrate as fully as possible the Transcaucasian provinces into the all-Russian governmental system; to diminatc, as much as Transcaucasian conditions would permit, local peculiarities and deviations &om the Russian patterns of landholding and peasant-noble relations. 7. Avaliani, Krest'Umsltii vopros, W>l. 1, p. 189; Chkhctiia, Doluunenty, p. xix. Despi~ the gcMmmcnt's request, the nobles of liAis province did not bother electing the district committees, prefmlng to work through their traditional assemblies (Gugushvili, ~l'slcot lchoiiaistvo, pp. 13-17). Rariatinskii conceded on this point, though it contradicted his inmuctions &om St. Petersburg and the model adopted in Russia. 8. For descriptions of these changes see the works of Archil lakobis dze Pant1khaw: K VOfn'OSN o razvitii agramylch otnoshenii v dorefcmnnmoi vostoclmoi GruOi (Moscow, 1957), Ocberlci (1965), Ocherlt.i (1969), and Voprosy "f'IZmoi Utorii GnWi pervoi poloviny XIX v~Jro (Tbilisi, 1973). 9. Staristics on noble serbvning in liftis-provincc (Avaliani, Krut'iansltii vopros, 1, pp. 416-17):

"°'·

No male serfs focwer than 21 male serfs 21-100 male serfs 101-500 male serfs SOl-1000 male serfs More than 100 male serfs

Total

2 nobles 869 nobles 729 nobles

137 nobles 12 nobles

2 nobles 1,751 nobles

In the early 1860s the landlord peasants numbered 122,120 in liflis province (17,261 households). They Ii~ on 3,242 noble estates and made up 20.S percent of the peasant population of the province in 1866; church peasants made up 12.9 percent; I f * pcasan~ 65.5 percent. Of the total population of Tiflis province, peasants made up 86 percent, nobles 3.5 percent (ibid., pp. 417, 419). In liftis province 14 percent of the scrb.Yners (214 nobles) owned serfs without land; thCIC serfs li'Yed on sl* lands or lands of other landlords. In Kutaisi province (Kutaisi, Shorapani, Ozurgeti, and Racha ueu/y), there were 4,785 landlord families at the time of emancipation with 48,785 peasant households and 96,732 male serfs. More than three-quanrrs of Kutaisi nobles held ~ than 21 male serfs:

Notts for pagts 99 to 102

365

thousand rubles. His holdings had to be in land. These requirements. which applied also to Bcssarabia and the Crimea, greatly limi~ the number ol nobles digibte for panicipation in the noble assemblies (Baron S. A. Korf, Dvorianstvo i ~o soslovn~ ""1'~ i.o s~ 1762-1855 godov (St. Petrrsburg, 1906), pp. 542-43. t 6. The "Svod dvadturi odnogo mncniia dvukhsot soroka gruzinskikh pomahchikov po krcst'ianakomu voprosu" can be found in Sh. Chkhctiia, K istorii ltrest'Uaulroi ,qo,,,.y 11 Gnaii (lbilisi, 1950), pp. 137-82; his plan for ~rm is in the same W>l~ pp. t 82-290~ 17. Gugushvili, Sd'sltidable costs" (P. 8. Gugushvili, Ra~ ul'sltogo lthoiUJistva v Gruzii i LJ/tavluiz'e v XIX-XX vv. ffbilisi, 1968], vol. I, p. 27). 53. Mochalov, Knst'iansltcw lthoiiaiJtvo, p. 63. 54. Zaionchkovskii, Otmena, p. 333. SS. Avalian4 Krest'imultii vopros, vol. 1, pp. 41~12. 56. Zhordaniia, K uoprosu, pp. 66, 67, 73, 422. The number ol complaints about peasants not working was especially high in the )Uri 1864-1866 in Gori und, liAis province; by law the •temporarily obligated" peasants were supposed to pay all customary dues to their lords until January I, 1866. The consequences of reform, wha he ttnned the "cutting off" of land, were discussed by A. Kipshidze in an anicle wrinen during the peasant rebellion of the early twrntieth century:

It would be wrong to forget that up to the reform all landlord land, indudinJ forests and pastures, was in the hands C'kcrs in the li8is railroad workshops (Slavs~~ SO percent, Armenians 6 percent), and 46 percent ci the work force in 6\lle Batumi plants on which figures ~ available. Anncniana made up the largest ethnic contingent among artisans in TJlis (44 percent), followed by Georgians (33 pera:nt) and Russians ( 11 percent~ 27. S. Gulishambmw, Obior (abrilt. i uvodov T;fliultoi pbemii (liflis, 1888), p. 232; cited in Khoshtaria, Ocbnlti, p. 191. 28. Cited in Khoshtaria, Ocher/ti, pp. J.i, 89. 29. Droeba, 1872, no. 15; F. Makharadze, Ocberki revoln.tsionnogo d~ v Zaluwltaz i (liflis, 1927), pp. 45, 47-48; Mikh. Chodrisbvili, .. chcmi avtobiograpta," revoliutsiis matit11U 4-5 (9-10) (1924), passim. 30. L Asatiani, Zhiqr' Altaltiill Tsereteli (Tbilisi, 1971), p. 317; F. Makhacadze, K 0

tridtsatiletii# sushchestvov1111iia tiflissltoi org1111iutsii: Podgotoviul'nyi

pmod,

1870-1890 (Matmaly) (liftis, 1925), p. 18. 31. Khoshtaria, Ocherlli, p. 207. All members cl the Guzcnko-Sa&anov circle were

Notes for pages 155 to 161

373

Russian. For more on this circle, sec Naimark, T~rists and Social Democrats, pp.

188-89. 32. Delo o Maltsime Gor'kom: Materialy tiflissltogo gubemsltogo t.hon· darmskogo "'"avknna (liOis, 1928), pp. iv-v. 33. G. Tsemeli, lpatii lngorokva (Tdlis, 1905), pp. 11-12. 34. Megrdishvili, Gnninsltaia obshchtstwnno-elt.onomichesltaia mys/', wl. 2, p. 256. 35. Tsemeli, lpatii lngorokva, pp. 12-14. 36. Noe Zhordania, Maia t.hizn' (Stanford, Calif.: HOOYCr Institution Press, 1968), pp. 11-13; N. B. Makharadze, Filipp Maltbaradu (lbilisi, 1960), pp. 8-9. 37. Pilipe Makharadzc, • 'revoliutsionuri mogoncbata' saghamo. (stmograpiuli angarishebi)," revoli11tsiis matiane 1 (March 1923): 85. For a recent study in English d Polish socialism in the 1880s, see Norman M. Naimark, The History of the "ProlmnWI": ~ Emergmu of Marxism in tM Kingdom of Poland. 187~1887 (New Yorlc: Columbia Uni\'Cl'Sity Prus, 1979). One d the leaden d "Proletariat" was a half.Georgian, Stanislaw Kunicki. 38. Zhordania, Maia ihivr', p. 14.

39. The thineen who gathered in Kvirili were Egnatr Ninoshvili, Noc Zhordania, Joscb Kakabadze, Mikhail Tskhakaia, Silibistro jibladzc, Nikolai Chkhcidzc, Isidor Ramishvili, Evgenii Vatsadzc, Anen Tsitlidze, Razhdcn Kaladze, Dmitrii Kalandarishvili, Isidor Kvitsaridze, and S. Kiladze. 4-0. Zhordania, Moia zhivr', pp. 16-17; F. Makharadze, K tridtsatiktiiu, pp. 4, 36-37; S. Talahadze, K istorinl ltommunistichesltoi partii G,.,Vi (liOis, 1925), pp. 14a, 16; A. V. Maskuliia, Mikhail Grigor'evich Tskhakaia (Moscow, 1968), pp. 2629. 41. Maskuliia, Tslthakaia, p. 32. 42. Ninoshvili's let1rr to G. Tsercteli. February 1894, published in Egnate Ninoshvili, Ivmnmaia proza: Pis'ma (Tbilisi, 1959), p. 384. 43. Kvali, no. 21, May 15, 1894, pp. 1-4; for jibladzc's speech, see kvali, no. 22, May 22, 1894, pp. 14-16. 44. MoamN, 189'4, nos. 5 and 6; a Russian translation d Zhordania's anide is amiable in the Georgian Collection, no. 16, of the lnter·Uni\Ulity Project on the History d the Menshcvik MO¥Cmen~ Columbia Univcnity. 45. Ibid. 46. F. Makharadzc, K tridtsatiletiiu, pp. 48--49; Grigorii Uratadzc, Vospomintmiia grtldnskogo sotsial-dnnolm1ta (Stanford, Calil: Hoovn Institution Prrss, 1968), p. 18; S. Todriia, ..Na zare rabochcgo dvimcniia (1893-1903 g.g.)," in Orakhctashvili ct al., eds., Chetvert' vtka bor'by u sotsialivna (liftis, 1923), pp. 195-96. 47. Anahide Ter Minassian, .. Le Mou¥m1Cnt rbolurionnaire annCnicn. 18901903," c.ahiers d# moruk russe et soviltique 14, no. 4 (October-December 1973): 578-79. The newspaper ivaia was dosed down by the govunment Cor eight months in 1896 because of .. harmful propaganda, aimed principally at students, against Russian authority in the Caucasus, against the Russian language, and in general against Russian inOucncc in any form" (&om a goymirncnt order, cited in Bakhtadzc, Ocher/ti, p. 166~ 48. Talakvadze, K istoriiM, p. 43; G. Cllkhcidze, "dzvirpasi da mudam dauvitsqari z.altro chodrishvili," revoliutsiis matiant 1 (March 1923): 95. 49. G. Chkhcidzc, "chemi mogonebani," rtvoliutsiis matiant 4 (1923): tn-73;

374

Notes for pages l 61 to 167

5: 87-88. 50. ~~re a few other legal Marxist pcriodica1s in the Russian empire, namely Samarslt.ii 11estnilt (1895) and NOllW slovo (1897~ S 1. The 1i8i1 committtt members wae Silibistro Jibladze, Sevman Jugel~ Al.

Shatilov, Vasilii Tsabadze, Dmitrii Kalandarishvili, Rubden Kaladze, Zakro Cltodrilhvili, Arakd Okuashvili, and Mikho Bocharidu (Georgian Collection, no. 11, p. 9, ln~r-Univenity Project on the History oi the Memhcrik Moviement, Columbia UMwcnity~ This wu the second May Day cdebrazed in Transcaucasia; the fint was in 1898.

52. Kboshtaria, Ocherii, pp. 213, 21~17. 53. Talalooadze, K istoriiM, pp. 3~35; F. Makharadze, Ocbt:rlt.i rwolnasiomwgo dvizhmiill. pp. 78-81; Khoshtaria, Ochnlt.i, pp. 213-15. 54. Talakvadze, K istoriiM, p. 35; Chkheidze, •dzvirpasi," p. 97. 55. G. Khachapuridzc, ed., Noi Zhordanii4 i tsaTslcaill olt.braNlta: Arlt.hitmyt: cloltumenty (flBia, 193n pp. 22-23; Zhordania, Maia dnzn', pp. 32-35. 56. Tmgiz Zhghenti, "batumi 1901-1905 tsleb1h~ 11 rwoliutsiis matiaM 3 (20) (1928): 93-94. Social democrat Giorgi Eradze told Proftssor Leopold H. Haimson in a taped inllen'iew that among workers in Tt.flia only Russians read lsltra (interview no. 4, p. 8; transcript is mailable at the Inter-Uni~ Project on the History oi the Mcnshevik Mochego ldassa GnWi (19211941 gg.) (Thilisi, 1981), wl. 2, pp. 5-113. 66. Carr, Socialism ;,, One Country, YOI. 1, p. 352; E. H. Carr and R. W. Davies,

Fmmdations of a Planned Ecolromy, 1926-1929 (New York: Macmillan, 1969~ wl. 1, pt. 1, pp. 275-76. 67. Ordzhonikidze, Stat'i i rechi, vol. 1, p. 448. 68. Ocberlti istorii lrommunistichesltilth organizauii Ldcavltai'ia, 11, 1921-1937 gg. (Baku, 1971), pp. 9~96; ltommunisti, no. 281, Decembu 8, 1926; Narmeladze and Sturua, /z; istorii, p. 32. 69. Soviet policy toward the intdligentsia proscribed only cwatly anti-Soviet activity and expression. ~ Orjonikidze warned the Georgian in~Uccrual1 in 1925: To those who honestly stand on the soil ol the Soviet system, we offtt full opportunity to display their talent and to create. We open a broad road to Georgian literature, the theater, music, science, painting, but if art, culture wish to ~ our enemy, countrnevolutionary ends. then our struggle with them will become merciless (drosha, 1925, no. 28, pp. 19-20; trans. in lstoriia gruiinsltoi sovetsltoi literatury (Moscow, 1977], p. 1

n

At the md c1 February 1926 the nrst Congress ol Writcn ol Georgia was held, and a loose fcdmttion ol literary groupings was formed into the Union c1 Writers c1 Georgia. The intm5e debates, with sepa~ literary journals and declarations, continued until 1932.

70. GnWlrskaia SSR: Kultura (Thilisi, 1971), p. 15. 71. Ochmi istorii ltomnnmistichultoi partii Gruz;ii (1 q71), p. 478. 72. Ibid., pp. 490-91; Pravda, no. 220, September 27, 1927, and no. 232, October 11, 1927. 73. Kommu,,isticheslt.aia partiia Gruvi v tsifralt.h (1921-1970 gg.) (Sbornik swtistichnlrilt.h 1'1111erWov) (Thilis~ 1971). pp. 7, 26, 33 . .74. Ibid., p. 45.

CHAPTER 11 t. Moshe Lewin, Russiolr Peasants and Soviet Power: A Study of Colkctiviutiott (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestrm University Press, 1968); Robert C. Tucker, Stalin as Rft!Obdionary, 1879-1929: A Study in History aruJ PerSOMlity (New York: Norton, 1973), and Stalinism: Essays a. Historical I~ (New York: Nonon, 19n); Sheila Htzpatrick, ed., Cultural Revo&.tion in Russia, 1928-1931 (Bloomington: Indiana UllMnity Press, 1978), and EdttC;lltion aruJ Soci4J Mobility in tbt Soviet U11Km, 1921-1934 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni'fenity Pins, 1979); and Kendall E. Bailes, Technology and Sociny Undn Lenin tmd St4lin: Origins of the Soviet Techniul IntelligntJia, 1917-1941 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni~rsity Pins, 1978~ 2. David Marshall Lang, A Modern History of Soviet Georgia (New York: G~

Press, 1962). pp. 245-62. 3. Lewin, Russian Peaumts, p. 7. '4. Lewin, "Society, State, and Ideology During the first Fitzpatticlc, C#bral Rwohdion, p. 41.

.n~-Year

Pfan," in

Notes for pages 246 to 251

385

31. Lornashvili. Vtlikii ptrtvarot, pp. 195-96. 32. Ibid .• pp. 196, 198. 33. Lewin, Russian Pt4141tts, p. 488. 34. Lomashvili, Veliltii pnerorot, pp. 275-76. 35. Ibid., pp. 275, 274. 36. Ibid., pp. 238-39, 252, 262-64, 270. 37. Lewin, Russian PtaSants, p. 515. 38. Stalin, Sochinmiia, wl. 12, pp. 193, 198. The Toz (Tovarishchtstvo po obshchntWJtnoi obrabotlri umli; cooperative with joint labor) was the simplest form Sll o generiu ; razvitii /upitaJiona v ul'skom lthoziaistve i prornysblennosti Gru%ii. Tbilisi, 1967. Arkom~ S. T. Rabochu dtMhenie i sotsial-dmwltratiia na Kavltau (s 80-lth godov po 1903 g.). Genm, 1910; 2nd ed; Moscow-lttrograd, 1923. Armani, Henry John. '"The Russian Anncxalion of the Kingdom d lmcrctia, 18~ 1815: In the Light d Russo-Ottoman Relations." Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown Uni~nity, 1970. Avaliani, S. L Krest'iansltii vopros v Llkavluiz'e 2 YC>ls. Odessa, 1912-1914. Badriashvili, N. I. Tiflis, Ot omovaniia goroda do XIX v. 1iAis, 1934. Ben.he, A. P., ed. Altty sobr~ ltavltavkoiu arlrheogr~cbeslroiu ltomissieiu. 12 YC>b. Tdlis, 18~1912. This is certainly the most importam document collection for the first half.century d Rmsian rule. Chkhetiia, Sh., ed. Doluanenty po istorii Grudi. Sniia II. Tom 1, Gruvi4 v f>niod bu,.V,~ reform (1862-1872), Chast' pet'INUa (1862-1866). Tbilisi, 1960. - - . K istorii ltrest'ianslt.oi refomry 11 Grudi (Dolrtnnenty i materialy). Tbilisi, 1950. - - . Tbilisi 11 XIX stoletii (1865-1869). Tbilisi, 1942.

406

Bibliographic41 Nou

Esadzc, Semen. Istoricbaluiia upislul ob 11/mwlnii Kavleazom. 2 wb. Taflis, 1907. Gugushvili, P. V. Sel'sltoe ~ i agr~ omoshmii II: Otmena luepostnogo "'"""· Tbilisi, 1950. javakhishYil.i [ln.bavakhOW'], IYaDe. Politichalt.oe ; sotsial'rroe dvizhe,iie " GntZii " XIX &Ide. St. Petenburg. 1906. Khacbapuridzc, G. V. G11riidoe &IOSStanie v 18.fl godM. Titlis, 1931. - - . K istorii GntVi pmJOi poloa.liM XIX vdd. Tbilisi, 1950. Makharadze, F. GnWia v ~ stoletii.· Kradtii istorichultii ocherlt.. Tiflis, 1933. - - . Ocher/ti rerolitttsionnogo dvizhmiia "Zaluwltn'i. Tdlis, 1927. MarkON, 0. P. VosslmW v Kalt.hetii 1812 g. Moscow, 1951. Mcgrdishvili, G. Gntdlult.aio obshchestuenno-elt.onomkhultaia ,,,.,,,. vtoroi polovilry 19-ogo vda i ruuhaJa 20-ogo wlui. 2 wls. Tbilisi, 1959-1961. MochalOJ, V. D. Krut'Umdoe It.ho~ v Zalt.avlt.az'e It. lt.ontsu XIX v. Moscow, 1958. Pantskhav.i, A. I. K VO/WOSll o razvitii agramyllh otnoshaii v dorefonnnmoi Vostodn1oi Grudi. MOSOJW, 1957. - - , . Ocherlli agramoi istorii Gnaii pervoi polormry XIX wlui. Tbilisi, 1969. Rhinelander, Lawms Hamihon, Jr. 8The Incorporation ol the Caucasus into the Russian Empire: The Case ol Georgia ... Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Uni~rsity, 1972. Semin, Orcst. Veliluna godo&lshchinA. Agranryi vopros i lt.rest'iallslulia re{orm4 "" K4111utu. Kiev, 1911. Surgul~ A. N. llU.ogadoebrlvi am XIX sal41t.tmis ~· nahevanhi. Thilisi, 1973. Tsagarcishvili, Sh. V., ed. R~ 1905-1907 gg. v GruVi: Sbomilc doltwmentov. Tbilisi, 1956. Writing on the m-olutionary and Sorict periods has been mamd by partisanship and Stale cmsonhip. Newspapers and published documents remain the most muling primary sources, and in &'Katt years a number ol monographs hlM added to our knowledge.

Avalov, Zurab. Neuvisimost' Grwdi v ~""10dnoi politilti, 1918-1921 gg.; Vospomilumiia, ochnlli. Paris, 1924. ror an English translation, sec The IndependMu of Georgia m In~ Politics, 1918-1921. London: Headley Brothen, 1940. Bor'ba u po~ souetsltoi vlasti" Gntdi: Dobmmt, i materialy (1971-1921 gg.). Thilisi, 1958. Bor'ba u UfJrOCbenie sovetslloi vlasti v Gnaii: SbomM dollwnentov i "'4teri4Jocl (1921-1925 gg.). Tbilisi, 1959.

GugushYili, P. V., ed. Istoriia lt.olklt.tiviutsii ul'dogo lthcniaistw Gnainsltoi SSR (1927-1937 gg.). Thilisi, 1970. Hovannisian, Richard. Armenia on the Road to InJependau, 1918. Berkeley and Lot Angeles: Unil'ttSity of California Press, 1967. - - . The RqnW/ic of Armenia. 3 wls. Bcrkclcr and Los Angeles: UniYCnity ol California Press, 1971- . Istoriia ~ G1'1Ltindoi SSR (1926-19-41 gg.). Thilisi, 1968.

Bibliographical Note

407

Kautslcy, Karl. Georgia. a Sodal-Democratic Peasant Rep&lblic, lmpr~sicms and Observations. London, 1921. Kazemzadch, nruz. The Struggk for Transuucasia (1917-1921). New York: Philosophlcal Library, 1951. Khannandarian, S. V. Lenin ; stanovlen~ Zalttwlttusltoi fednatsii, 1921-1923. Eman, 1969. Kommtmistkhnlt11ia partiia GrN%ii v tsifralth (1921-1970 gg.): Sbomilt statistichalt.illh ""1teridkw. Tbilisi, 1971. Lewin, Moshe. Lenin's Last Struggk. New York: Pantheon, 1968. Lomashvili, P. N. Vdikii perevorot. Thilisi, 1972. Natmcla~ M. V. lstoriia ralxxbego ltlassa Gruw (1921-1941 gg.). Vol. 2. Thilili, 1981.

- - . sabchota sdartvelos miubata ltUuis istoria. Vol. 1. Thilisi, 1970. Nave, Alce, and j. A. Newth. The So~ Middle FAit: A CommNl'list Modd for Dftldopment? London: George Allen and Unwin, 1967. Pipes, Richard. The Formation of the Soviet UPfiON: Communism and Naticmalism, 1917-1923. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni'1Cnity Press, 1957. Suny, Ronald Grigor. Amrmia in the Twentieth C'.mhlry. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. - -.. The MN Commtme, 1917-1918: CUw and Nationality in the RNSSian Revol#lion. Princeton, N.j.: Princeton UDMnity Press, 1972.

- - - , ed., Trans"""4Sia, Nationalism and Social Change: Essays in the History of Ann.mid, Aurbaijan, md Georgia. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1983. Uratadze, Grigorii. ObrtUC>flallie i ltonsoUdatsiia Grudnsltoi Demo,m1ticbnltoi Rttsp..blilti. Munich, 1956.

- -.. Vospominllniia grNZinslmgo sotsial-demolm1ta. Stanford, Calif.: Hoowier · Imtitution ~ 1968. Zhordania, Noe. chmri tsarsuli (mogONebani). Paris, 1958. The Russian tranalation is Moia vnoa'. Stanford, Calil: H~ Institution Press, 1968. - - . Za dva goda. Taftis, 1919.

Index

s.• 287 Abugia. Sa Abkhazia; Western Georgia Ab~ Alebandre, 233 Abalcumov, A.

Abbu I, Shah, 4~2 Abkhaz: alphabet, 282; language, 302 Abkhazeti. Sa Abkhazia; Western Georgia Abkhazia (Abkhazeri), 3, 4, S, 28, 29, 30, 31, 47, 52, 319; Abkhazeri-Kartli, 33; Russian protection of, 64; under Russian rule, 108-109; in the Soviet period, 223, 245, 268, 275, 216-n, 301, 302, 306, 307; relations with Georgia, 321-23, 327, 329-30, 331, 333; relations with Russia, 329-39, 331 Abkhazians, 289, 290 Abuladze, Tengiz (Repmtana), 320 Achaemenid Empire, 8-11, 12 Adelkhanov, G., 153

Adona, Nicholas, 18, 20 Afanas'ev, Fedor, 155-56

Agniashvili, Lado, 133 Agniashvili, Levan, 277

Agniashvili, Petr, in Ai~ 223, 244, 245, 246, 275, 301, 307 Ajarians, 276, 290

lllt.hali lllt."4lgaudoba, 13 1 Akhalkalaki, 46, 64, 193, 198, 202, 213, 250, 305

Akhaltsikhe, 46, 47, 58, 193, 198, 250 Akhmatova, Anna, 285-86 Albania (Caucasian), 13-15, 23, 25-27, 320, 327, 331 Alekundre I, the Great (1412-1442), king of Georgia, 45 Alebandre II, king of Georgia, 45 Alebandre I (1476-1511), king of Kakhcti, 46 Alekundre II (1574-1605), king of Kakhcti, 48, 49-50 Alekundre II (1491-1510), king of lmereti, 46 Aleksandre Ill (1639-1660), king of lmereti, 51 Alexander I (1801-1825), tsar of Russia, 59,66 Alexander II (1855-1881), tsar of Rus~~ 96, 103, 110, 126, 135, 139 Alexander Ill (1881-1894), tsar of Rus-

sia, 140 Alexander the Great, of Macedonia, 12 Aliev, Geidar, 311 Alikhanov, Major General, 169, 170 Allen, W. E. D., ix, xv, 12 Allilueva, Nadezhda, 261 Amatuni, Haik, 273, 276 Amiriani, 6 amlulri, amlt.arebi. ~e guilds Anderson, Benedict (Imagined eom,,,.,. nities), x-xi

410

'"""

Andropov, lurii, 293, 31 l

Ani, 32, 3'4, 37, 39-40 Arabs: invasion of Georgia by, 27; in Georgia, 27-28; weakening of authority, 30; historian, Yabya of Antioch, 33 Argutinskii-Dolgorukii, N. V., 141 Arkomed, S. D. (Gevork Gharajian), 194 Armenia, xiv, 332; ancient, 13-17; Roman rul~ 13-14, 22; Artaxiad, 18; ancient kings of, 20, 30; convenion of, 21; Iranian influence in, 22-23; loss of monarchy, 25; orthodoxy in, 27; Arab invasion of, 27; destruction of nobility, 28-29; restoration of monarchy, 30-31; subjugation to Sdjuks, 34; aided by David II, 35-37; Mongol rule, 40-41; Shah Abbas and, 49; Nadir Shah and, SS; annexation by Russia, 64; Soviet republic of, 206, 298; in the Soviet period,

214, 215, 230, 245, 246, 247, 285, 297, 298, 305, 306 Armenian Apostolic Clturch, 26-27, 128, 167, 171, 285 Armenian People's Party, 187 Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Sn Duhnaktsutiun Armenians, 323, 329; proto-Armcnians, 6; cthnogmesis, 6-8; nobility, 17, 25, 28-29, 56, 65, 119; alphabet, 22-23; migratiOlll to Georgia, 35-36, 41, 46; merchants, bourgcoisi~ 63, 65,

86-95, 115-21, 139-40, 142-43, 144, 145, 190,298,318;stereo~ 118-19; revolutionaries, 142, 170, 172, 176, 179; in Soviet times, 213, 290, 298, 299, 300, 318; language, 233,302 ""'"""'lt.ie to11ary, l l 7 Artsnmi, Grigor, 134 asaimilation, 313-14 Azerbaijan, 320, 332; Arab emir of, 31; land reform in, 197; independent, 203, 204; Sovictization of, 204-205; in Soviet period, 206, 208, 214, 215, 245, 246, 247, 253, 256, 263, 273, 283,297,305,306,311 Azerbaijan Popular Front, 332 Azcrbaijanis, 323, 325, 332; dashes with Armenians, 169, 176; opposi-

tion to World War I. 179; break with Rullia, 192; in Soviet period, 207, 213, 214, 215, 230, 231, 299; Azeri

language, 233 Bagirov, M. D., 273, 276 Bagratids: Armenian, 28-31; AnncnoGcorgian, 29; Georgian, 29-33, 53, 55-56, 65, 110 Bakradze, Akaki, 327 Bakradze, Valerian, 276, 286 Baku, 68, 117, 152, 162, 186, 190, 192, 201, 202-205, 206, 208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 251, 263, 268, 272, 283, 297; Baku soviet, 204; Baku Commun~ 205 Bakunts, Aksel, 258 Baratashvili, Nikoloz, 124, 127, 129 Bariatinskii, Aleksandr, 90, 96, 102,

110 Batumi, 134, 145, 149, 153, 155, 156, 162, 163, 167, 169, 178, 191, 192, 203, 204, 219, 223, 276; Batumi committee, 163 Belorussia, 245, 278, 283 Berdzenishvili, N., 284 Bcria, Lavrcnti, 249, 254, 255, 262-66, 267, 272, 273, 275-77, 278, 285, 286-88, 289, 301, 317, 334

2n

Bolkvad~ Ivan, Brest-1..itovs~ Treaty

of, 191, 193 Brezhnev, Leonid, 293, 294, 295, 310, 311, 329 Britain: British in Georgia, 193-94, 203-204; declaration of war on Germany, 283 Buachidzc, Soso, 2 n Bukharin, Nikolai, 227, 232, 238-39, 241,2n Buniatta~ Dadash Koja ogly, 229, 245 Byzantine Empi~ 20-26, 32-33

cadres, 314 Carr, E. H., 232, 241 Catherine II, the Great, 57-S9, 89, 123 Caucasia. See Albania Caucasian Committee, 97, 140 Caucasian Social Democratic Organizations: First Congress of, 163-64; Caucasian Union Committee, 164 Cltalc.cdon: Council of, 24, 26, 28; Chalccdonian orthodoxy, 26-27 Cltanturia, Giorgi, 320, 323, 324

Inda

Cltarm11, Eghishe, 258 Charkviani,Kandida,277,288 Chavchnadze, Alcbandre. 71, 73, 124 Chavchavadze, Ilia, 126-27, 129-33, 139, 159, 160, 320; iwria, 132, 139, 159, 160 Cbcchcnia, 327 Cbeka, 221, 223, 263; (l)cki~ 264 Chernenko, Konstantin, 311 Cllcmyshvcnkii, Nikolai, 127, 130, 135 Clllatura, 167, 175, 178, 223, 231 Chile~ Mikhail, 137 Chkhcidzc, Nikolai (Karlo), l 58, 174, 178,204 Chkhcnkcli, Akaki, 178, 192, 193, 194 O.Onkadu, Daniel, 129 Chosroi~ 29 Christianity, 333-34 Chubar', Vias, 274, 277 Chudctskii, Pavl, 140 daas, 144, 154; formation of, 113-14; •new class,• 280 collectivization, 238, 240-57, 260, 317, 333 Commonwealth of Independent Nations, 327-28, 331 Communist International (Comintem), 250, 269 Communist Party of Armenia, 205, 268,275 Communist Party of Azerbaijan, 205 Communist Pany of Georgia (KPG), 205, 206, 209, 213, 214, 218, 241, 248, 249, 262, 263, 279, 306, 32223; Central Committee, 214, 215, 217, 226, 233, 241, 246, 247, 267, 301, 302, 303, 323; Third Congress, 227; Fourth Congress, 229, 230; Eighth Congrns, 255; Ninth Congress, 265, 266, 267; Tenth Congrcu, 275; fifteenth Congress, 289; Sixteenth Congress, 301, 302; TwcntySccond Congress, 305 Communist Pany, Russian, Soviet [RKP(b), VKP(b), KPSS (CPSU)], 205, 237, 279; Central Committee, 205, 215, 216, 218, 232, 235, 241, 244, 251, 252, 254-55, 261, 264, 271, 272, 274, 275, 302, 303, 305; Politburo, 214, 218, 220, 260-61, 264, 274, 289, 313; Tenth Congress, 211;

411

Twelhh Congress, 218; Thincenth Conference, 220; Founecnth Congress, 229, 232; Fiftccnth Congress, 235-36, 240; Sixteenth Conference, 239; Sixteenth Congress, 251; Seventeenth Congress, 252, 264; Eighteenth Congress, 282-83; Nineteenth Congress, 287, 288, 321; Twenty· Second Congress, 294, 305; TwentyFifth Congress, 311; Twenty-Sixth Congress, 310 Communist Party of South Osaetia, 315 Communist Party of Transcaucasia, 250; Seventh Congress of Party Organizations of Transcaucasia, 268 Congrns of People's Deputies, 322 Conquest, Robert, 270, 278, 288 Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadets), 168, 173, 178, 187, 189, 193 Crimean War, 63, 75, 96, 119 "Cultural Revolution," 257-.58 Dadiani, Shalva, 233, 290 Dashnaktsutiun (Armenian Revolutionary Federation), 142, 170, 176, 179, 187, 191, 197,203,268 David of Tao, 32-33 David II, the Rebuildec, 34-37, 283 Davies,R. W.,241,251 Davitashvili, Shio, 135-36 Dcnikin, General Anton, 198, 200, 202203, 205; Volunteer Anny, 198, 200,202-203 Didgori, Battle of, 36; didgoroba, 36 dissidmce, 319-21, 322 Dobroliubov, Nikolai, 127, 129, 135 Dodiashvili, Soghomon (Solomon), 71-72, 124 Dudaev, Jokhar, 327 Duma, State: Third, 174; Fourth, 178 Dzcrzhinskii, Feliks, 216, 217, 232 Eastern Georgia (Iberia, Kartli, TiftiJ Province), 3-5, 8, 11-17, 20-27, 3041, 46-48, 49-St, 63, 98-107, 109 Egrili. See Western Georgia Eikhe, Robert, 274, 277 Eliava, Nikolai, 190 Eliava, Shain, 214, 235, 251, 252 Emancipation of landlord serfs, 96-112; in eastern Georgia, 97-103; in western Georgia, 103, 108-109; effects of, 109-112, 147-50, 200

412 F.nukidzc,

Inda Am,

211-n, 2n

214,

215,

268,

F.nver Pasha, 179 Eradze, Giorgi, 201 Etek1e (lraklii) II, xvii, 55-S9, 64, 124, 283, 317, 333 Erevan: city, 64, 232, 273, 276, 282, 300; province, 192 Eristavi, Giorgi, 71, 128 Ennolov, Aleksci, 68-69, 72 F.rzinkian, Aramais, 246 ethnicity, 313-14; ethnic divisions in Georgia, 318-19, 321, 322-23, 324-2.S, 334. ~~ also Georgia: relations with Abkhazia Ez.hov, Nikolai I., 270, 271, 274, 2n; &bo111hcbinll, 274, 278 February Revolution, 186, 222 Fcudalism-Dynasticism, xiv, 12, 18-19, 22, 42-44, 46-47, 100 Fitzpatrick, Sheila, 237, 251, 278 Five-Year Plan: Farst, 252, 255, 251, 261, 281; Second, 260; Tenth, 311

Gachechiladze, Giorgi, 325 Gamsakhurdia, Konstantilley 233, 258, 272, 282, 283, 290, 308 Gamsakhurdia, Zviad, 308-309, 319, 320, 323, 324, 325-27; opposition to, 327-28, 329 Gania (Elisavetpol), 41, 162, 169; khan, 50, 56; khanate, 51, 64, 72 Ganoian, Nina, xv, 20 Gcgechkori, Evgenii, 174, 178, 188, 193, 203 Gdlncr' Ernest, x Georgia: population, xi, 65, 148-49, 284,296-97,304,315; nation making in, .xi-xii, 333-35; nobility, xiv, 12, 18-19, 22, 25, 29, 40, 43-44, 63, 65-68, 14-15, 78, 97-103, 114-15, 132, 139, 148, 296; intelligentsia, xiv-xv, 123-43, 281, 334; language, 4, n, 128, 133, ln, 290, 302, 309, 313, 314, 315, 316, 319, 323, 333; social structure, 7, 12-13, 16-19, 35-36, 42-44, 64-65; formation of the 6nt kingdom in, 11; peasantry, 12, 17, 41, 43, 63, 67-68, 75-83, 147-Sl, 166, 170-71, 172, 195-200, 226-30; ea>nomy, 12-13, 17, 37, 41, 57,76-81,90-93,201,225,231-33,

301-302, 304, 311-12, 334; conversion to Ouistianity, 21-22; alphabet, 22-23; 6nt united, 32-33; end of unity, 45; annexation by Russia, 59, 296; noble conspiracy of 1832, 7172; women, 78, 281, 316; workers, working class, 83, 114, 120, 144, 145, 151-56, 168-69, 185, 201-202, 231-32, 235, 254, 279, 297, 312; emancipation of peasantry, 99-112; effecu of Emancipation on the nobility, 109-111; tngcl"1ftlbri, 125, 127, 129-30, 136; mtltvardalnlni, 126; ,nrvdi dasi, 126; meor~ dasi, 131-32; ~dasi.145, 159-61;comingof capitalism to, 146-47; artisans, 153; labor movement, 161-63; declaration of independence, 192; Soviet invasion of, 206-207; Soviet intelligentsia, 233, 257-58, 265-66, in, 279, 281-82, 283, 285-86, 289-90, 307309; nationalism in, 313-15, 318-19, 320-21, 322-25, 327-28, 332-33; elites in, 314, 318-19; opposition to c:oaununist rule, 315, 316, 318, 319-20,321,322,323,324-25,33233; relations with the Soviet Union, 315, 316, 318, 319-20, 321, 322, 323, 324-25, 334; traditions in, 31516; ethnic divisions in, 318-19, 321, 322-23, 324-25, 334; dissidence in, 319-21; relatio111 with Abkhazia, 321-23, 329-30, 331, 333; relations with Ossetia, 323, 325, 327, 333; civil war in, 331, 332-33, 334; relations with Russia, 331-32 Georgian National Congress, 324 Georgian National-Democratic Pany, 324 Georgian Orthodox Church, x, 22, 38, 4 7, 172, 228, 248; conversion to Christianity, 20-21; reversion to orthodoxy, 26-27; and Ruuian rule, 63-64, 80; end of autocephaly, 8485; Soviet attack on, 248; restoration of autocephaly, 284 Georgian Popular Front, 324, 327 Georgians, 314, 325; proto-Georgians, 6-7; stereotypes of, 76-n, 118-19; gender roles, 78, 316 Georgian Supreme Soviet, 323, 325 Germany: and Georgia, 192-93, 197;

Index and USSR, 269, 282-84; invasion of USSR, 283; defeat of, 284 Getty, J. Arch, 270, 271, 278 Gcgebashvili, Jakob, 133 Gogoberidze,l...evan,24S,248,2S2,277 Golitsyn, G. S., 142 Golovin, Evgenii, 72 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 293, 311, 313, 317, 322 Gorgasali, Vakhtang, 333 Gori,3S,41,S7,87-88, 101, 196,243, 24S,247 Gorky, Maxim, 1S6 GPU, 263, 267 Greeks, 329; ancient, 9-11, 21; in Soviet Georgia, 313 Gromyko, Andrei, 3 t 3 Guaramids, 29 Gudiaahvili, Lado, 282 Gudovich, Ivan, 68, 72, 83 guild. (amweln), 89-90, 92, 117, t 202 t, 1S6 Gumbaridze, Givi, 322 Gurgmidzc, Vakhtang, 320 Guria (Ozurgeti ueul), Sl, 73, 8S, 108, 149, 151, 1S2, 1S6, 162, 163, 167, 169, 170, 176, 200, 223-25, 241, 24S,253 Hahn (Gan), Pavl Vasil'evich, 72-73, 92 Harriman, Averell, 231 Harutiunian (Arutiunov), Grigor, 276, 277 Herzen, Aleksandr, 131, 136; Kololtol, 131, 151 historiography, ix-xi Human Rights Defense Group, Georgia, 309 Jagoda, Gcnrikh, 249, 274 lashvili, Paolo, 233, 272 Iberia. Sa Eastern Georgia Imagined Communities (Anderson), X-XJ

lmereti. See Western Georgia industrialization, 257, 260, 280-81, 293, 316 lngoroqva, Egnate (Ninoshvili), 1S6-S9, 207 intellectuals, ix-x, 318-19, 320, 32324, 334 lnterfactional Coalition, 330 losdiani, Jaba, 326, 328, 330

413

Iran (Persia): and Georgia, xiv, 13, 25, 291; Acbaemenid Empire, 8-11, 12; influence on Georgians, 12, 22, 64; Parthia, 14; Sassanids, 20, 2S, 27; Safavids, 46, 48-S3, SS; invasion of Georgia by Agha Mohammed, S9 lzmailov, P. A., 134-3S, 137, 142 Jabadari (Dzhabadari), I. S., 135-37 Janashia, S. R., 284 Japaridzc, Revaz, 309 Javakhishvili, G. D., 301 Javakhishvili, lvane, 72, 123, 233, 258 Jews, in the USSR, 282, 288, 289, 290 Jibladze, Silibistro, 141, 1S7, 160, 161, 163 Jugdi, Valiko, 223 Kaganovich, Lazar, 261, 28S Kakheti, 4, 25-26, 29, 30, 32-33, 4S, 72, 1St, 227, 243, 24S, 247, 249, 2SO; defeat of king of, 3S, 46-50, S3S4; revolt (1812), 72, 82, 8S; peasantry, 1S2; Gare-Kakhcti, 223 Kakhiani, Mikhail, 224, 23S, 239, 248,277 Kalinin, Mikhail, 228 Kamenev, Lev, 21S, 219, 234, 271, 273-74 Kankrin, Egor, 91-92, 94 Karabagh, St, S4, S6, 213, 30S, 320, 332 Karaev, Ali Heidar, 24S, 246 Karakhan, Lev,277 Kan, 32, 39, 40, 178, 191, 192, 284-SS Kartli. See Eastern Georgia Kartli-Kakheti, SS; placed under Russian protection (1783), S8; annexation (1800), S9, 63-64, 66 Kartvdishvili, Lavrenti, 23S, 254 Kautsky, Karl, 19S Kavburo,205,213,214 Kavkraikom, 20S Kavtaradze, Sergei, 27S Kcmal, Mustapha Pasha, 206, 208; Kemalist Turkey, 210 Kerensky, Aleksandr, 188, 189; •Kerensky Offensive," 188-89 Kercselidze, lvane, 128 Ketskhoveli, Vladimir (Lado), 160, 161, 162 Kezcli, David. 137 KGB, 311

414

'""°

Khanjian, Aghui, 245, 268, 273; Khanjianiun, 273 Khatisian (Khatilov), Alebandr, 178, 180, 190 Khazan, 28 lt.hiuni, 81, 100, 107, 148, 152 Khomcriki, Noe, 198-99, 224 Khoshtaria, Giorgi, 326 Khruahchev, Nikita, 271, 279, 285, 286, 287, 294, 301, 302, 304, 305, 308, 311, 315 Khunclac:lze, Simon, 265 Kipiani (Qipiani), Dmitri, 70-71, 79, 97-102, 110, 133, 141 Kirov, Sergei, 215, 234, 269, 270-71, 273 Kitovani, Tcngiz, 327, 328, 330 Knorring. Karl, 66, 68 Knuniants, Bogdan, 164 Kochlamazaahvili, 275 iollt.hoey, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 256, 260, 262, 268, 312 ltormiutsiia, 221, 233, 236, 257-S8, 281, 282, 298 Komilov, Lavr, 190 Kosior, Stanislav, 274, 277 Kostanian, Haiku, 250 Kostava, Merab, 309, 319, 320, 323, 324 Krinitskii, Aleksandr, 245, 246, 250 Kruzenahtern, Aleksei, 97 kulaks, 224, 227, 229, 230, 232, 238, 242-43, 246, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 268; deknlalriz.ation, 24448, 251 Kutaisi, 33, 52, 58, 139, 145, 153, 167, 169, 176, 179, 281, 287 Kutaisi oirug, 245 Kutaiai Province, 73, n, lOJ-109, 141, 149, 151, 174, 178, 181, 198 Laghiashvili, loseb, 138, 140, 157 1..akoba, Nestor, 2n land reform in Georgia: Mcnahevik, 197-200; Bolshevik, 214, 225-26 Lang, David Maruhall, ix, xv-xvi, 5, 56, 236 Laz, 4, 52 Lenin, Vladimir, 173, 1n, 186, 204, 205,210-20,239,258,264-65,290, 310, 312 Lewin, Moshe, 237, 238, 242, 248, 257, 278

lngina, 325

liberalism, in Georgia, 134-35, 139, 142-43, 172, 178

Loloasbvili, 0. L, 306 Lominadze, Bao, 218, 250--.52,

25~,

263, 271 Lordkipanidze, Kiri1, 129 Lordkipaniche, Niko, 233 Lori, 49, 202, 206-210, 213

Makharadze, Pilipe (Fdipp), 128, 145, 157-58, 160, 164, 199, 204, 210, 212, 215-18, 226, 235, 246, 252, 264, 265, 266, 320; •filippists,. 214 Malenkov,Georgii,276,285,286 Mamulia, Samson (laaon), 246, 252,

255,2n Marr, Nikolai, 166 Martynov, A. S., 221 Marx, Karl, 113, 131, 136, 146, 154, 157; Marxists, Marxiun, ix, x, 114, 171, 179, 314-15, 318, 334; Marxism in Georgia, 145-46, 156-64, 185, 186 Matinov, A. S., 134-35, 141-42 Mazdaiam, 22-23, 25, 27 Mdivani, Budu, 213-17, 226, 273, 275, 276; •Budists, • 214 Mecbnikov,Senator,68-69 Medvedev, Roy,263,289 Melikishvili, G. A., xv, 7, 21 Mcnsbevilcs, 164, 166, 1n, 118, 181, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 199, 200, 207-208, 212, 214, 220, 221, 226, 268, 300, 318, 334; Mensbcvik uprising, 222-25, 227, 228, 241, 263, 265 Menteshuhrili, Avtandil, 320 Merkulov, V1eVolod, 278, 286 Mcskhi, Sergei, 132, 13 7 Mesk.hian Tur~ 289, 309 Mgaloblishvili, Getman, 254, 276 Mgaloblishvili, Soprom, 79-80, 233 Mgdadu, 288, 290 Mgdadu, Guram, 312 Miasnikian, Alebandr, 223 Mikhail Ni.kolaevich, 102-103, 110, 172 Mikoyan, Anastas, 205, 234, 285 Miliultov, Paul, 187, 188 Minoyan, Levon, 2n modernization, 31'4, 315 m~e,88-89,95,116-17,120,151

Inda Molotov, Vaachcslav, 261, 262, 270,

271, 276, 28-4-85, 287, 289; wife, Polina Zcmchuzhi~ 289 Monarchists, 324 monarchy, Georgjan, 16-18, 22, 42-44, 86, 89; founding, 11-12; abolition in 580, 25; restoration in 888, 30-31; apogee, 37-J9; under the Mongols,

415

Nicholas I (1825-1855), 72-74, 85-

86, 92

Nicholas Il (189+-1917), 168, 173, 180 Nikoladze, Niko, 120, 128, 131-Jl,

134-37, 142, 151, 159, 233 Nikolai, A. P'7 78-79, 101-102, 121

Mongols, 40-41, 44-45 Motcow, 206, 209, 210, 216, 218,

Nikolai Nikolacvich, 180 NinoshYili. Su lngoroqva NKVD,262,263,264,274,276 nobility, Russian, xiv, 64 North Caucasus, 241, 250, 283 Nove, Alce, 290-91

220-21, 229, 234, 238, 241, 244, 252,278,279,303,304,310,315 Muradcli, Vano, 286 Musavat party, 191, 205, 208 Muscovy, 49-50, 51 Mzhavanadze, Vasilii, 301, 303, 305, 306, 307' 313

October 11 Bloc, 330 October Revolution, 190, 191, 204, 261 OGPU, 263, 274 Okujava, M., 218, 234, 255, 274, 275 Orakhdashvili, Mamia, 214, 228, 234, 235, 244, 245, 252, 255, 264, 266,

40-41, 44-45; abolition by the Russians, 59, 82

Nalchichcvan, 213 Natadze, Nodar, 327 national consciousness: Georgian, 12223, 334; Armenian, 123, 332; Russian, 140. Stt also nationalism National Demoaatic Party, 195, 198,

223,226,320,327,330 national discourse, x, xi National Forum, 324 National Independence Party, 324, 327 nationalism, ix-x, xi, xii, 305, 314; his-

toriography of, x-xi; Georgian, 130-33, 142, 160, 289-90, 303, 313-lS, 318-19, 320-21, 322-25, 327-28, 332-33; Georgian gentry, 130-33, 142, 160; national Communism, 220, 236; •or-thodox," 307; "unorthodox,• 308-309; in Azerbaijan, 332. See also national conlciousness

nationality, ix-x; formation of, x-xi, 1 l~H. 122-23; Soviet nationality policy,210-ll,214-19,233-34,236, 257~9. 288-91, 293-95, 289, 293, 317 nationality policy, 313, 316, 322 nation making,- ix-xi; in Georgia, 333-35 Nazarctian, Hamiak, 245, 250 Ncvskii, V. I., 271 New Economic Policy (NEP), 211, 227, 228,238 Newth, J., 290-91

268,2n Orbeliani, Alcksandtt, 129 Orbcliani, Grigol, 71, 73, 75, 120, 124,

127, 129 Orbdiani, SuJlchan-Saba, 54 Orgburo, 215, 218, 227, 239 Orjonikidze, Scrgo, 210-18,

226, 228-29, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 264, 266, 274 Ossctia: Osactians, 198, 290; South, 243, 245, 267, 302, 307, 315, 316, 322; North, 323; relations with Gcorgia, 323, 325, 327, 333 Ossetian Popular Front, 323 Ottoman Empitt, 46, 48-49, 54, 64, 97, 134, 193 Ozakom, 186, 190, 196, 197 Pailodzc, V., 309 Pamavazi, 11-12, 23

Pukcvich, Ivan, 68-69, 72, 94, 110 Pasternak, Boris, 272 Patiashvili, Jumbar, 318, 322, 330 Paul I (1796-1801), 59, 65-66 Paulucci, Filipp, 84 Peace Bloc, 330 People's Guards (Red Guards), 198, 200,205,206 pnntroiJui, 318-19 Peter I (1682-1725), the Great, 54-55 Petrograd, 187, 188, 189, 190, 194; soviet, 187, 188, 189 Pctrosian, Levon Tcr, 332 Pitocv, I. E., lJ.4-35

416

'""°

Plekhano-.,Georgii, 157, 175 Popular Front. ~. Georgian Popular Front papal.ism, 1.J.t-39, 142-43 poa-modcmism, ix Poti, 64, 149, 167, 236 Provisional GoTcmmcnt, 186, 187 purges, 243, 263, 267~8, 270-80, 281

Rakonkii, Khristian, 221 RamiahTili, Isidor, 138, 163, 173 llamisbrili, Noe, 192 Raprua, A. N., 286, 287 Ratili, Jmeph, 133 rebelliom, revolts, 71-72, 82-85, 11920, 166-67, 241; Mensbevik insurm:tion (1924), 222-25 Red Army, 200, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 225, 235, 283, 284, 296 Redem, S. F., 249, 263, 278 reform, in the Soviet Union, 317-18 rmationalization, 296, 298, 315 R~ (Abuladze), 320 repression, 319, 322 Republia.Feduative Party, 324 RcYkom, 210, 212, ill, 226 Rome, 13-15, 19-24 Round Table of the National Liberation MOftmmt, 325 Rozen. Grigorii, 72

Rudzutak, la., 274-75, 2n Ruma: early interest in Georgia, 49-SO, 51,53,54,5S,56,S8;protectorate, S8-S9; annexation, 59, 63-66, 165; early rule OTer Georgia, 66-95; colonial dominance over Georgia, 91-93, 122, 158, 180-81, 290-91; RSFSR, 206, 211, 25 I; relations with Abkbuia, 329-30, 331 ; relations with Georgia, 331-32 Ruttanli, Shot.a, 39, 42 Rustndi Society, 324, 327 Rmtari, 281, 313

Saabdze, G~ 51, 283 Slllt.mvdo,3,32 Sakharov, Andrei, 322 Samegrelo (Mingrelia), 41, 51, 52, 75,

108, 151; Mingrdian, 4, 287, 288; •Mingrelian Affair,• 287-88, 289 schools in Georgia. 68, 73, 123 Seim, Transca~ 191, 205 Seljub, .J.t, 36-37 lel'fdom in Georgia, 67, 75-83, 147; abolition of, 96-112 Sbabumian, Stepan, 174, 204, 266 Shengdaja, Danna, 272 Shcngdaia, Erck.le, 320, 324 Shevardnadze, Ambrosi, 328, 329 Shevardnadze, Eduard, 306-308, 309, 310-13, 317, 318, 319, 322, 326, 328-29, 330-32, 3.J.t; opposition to, 329-30 Shota Rustaveli Society, 324 Sidamonidze, U.hangi, 320 Sigua, Tengiz, 326, 328 Skobdev, Mikhail, 178 Skrypnyk, Mykola, 221, 257, 258 social constructionism, x-xi Social Democracy: Bolsheviks, xv, 164, 173, 174, 176, 171, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 197, 200, 202, 235, 261, 264, 265, 268; RSDRP, 162; Second c.ongraa, 164; fourth G>ngras, 173; Fifth Congress, 174; Prague Conference, 171-78; origins of, 156-61; Georgian, 161, 166, 167, 168, 172-79, 185, 186, 192, 194-96, 221, 222-23, 296; Menshevib, 164, 166, 1n, 118, 181, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 199, 200, 207-208, 212, 214, 220, 221, 226, 268, 300, 318; and the Dumu, 173-74, 178; Menshnilc lntcmationalisa. 190; ideology, 195; Menshevik uprising, 222-2.S, 227, 228, 241, 263, 265; Shkivists, 223 Social Democratic Party, 323 tocialistdemocracy,317 Socialiat Federalists, Georgian, 17s, 177, 198,223,226,267 Socialilt Revolutionaries, 175, 187, 188, 189, 191, 194, 196, 198, 223 Society for National Justice, 324 Society of St. Dia~ Righteous, 324 IO&dien, 187, 189; Fint Congress of Caucasian Anny, 187, 196 South Oaetian Autonomous District, 322, 325 Soviet Union, 317; relations with Geor-

Inda gia, 315, 316, 318, 319-20, 321, 322, 323, 324-25, 334 Stalin, losif Uughashvili), x, xvii, 161, 162, 206, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 251, 252, 257, 268, 269, 281, 282, 283; on the national question, 174-n, 209-220, 258; on Menshevik uprising, 224-25, 227; and collectivization, 241-42, 24S, 25859; relations with Beria, 254-S5, 263, 264-66, 285-89; and Stalinism, 260-61, 262, 270; Stalin cult, 2646S; and Great Purges, 270-80; Stalin Prize, 283; Kars and Ardahan issue, 284-85; legacy, 290, 292, 293, 297, 311; •Dizzy with Success,• 248, 253; •1...etten from the Caucasus,• 175; •The National Question and Social Democracy,• ln; '"Stalin Revolution," 23 7...,S 9 Stalinism, x, 235, 237, 260-91, 280, 281, 290-91, 294, 301, 314; totalitarian model of, 270; deStalinization, 302 Staroed'skii, Vladimir, 167, 169, 170 State Council, 330 Stcphanian, Nenik, 273 Stolypin, Petr, 171, 174 Strabo, 16-11 Sukhi.shvili, L, 252, 2S4, 255 Sukhumi, 167, 17~, 263, 276, 302, 319, 323,327,331 Surguladze, Ablci, 320 Syrtsov, S. I., 251-52 Tabidzc, Galakrion, 233, 272 Tabidzc, Titsian, 233, 272 Taimuraz (Teimuraz) II, 55-56, 124 Tamamshev, A. A., 134 Tamar,37-41,49,283,290 Tbilisi (Tillis), xiv, xvii, 101, 102, 136, 137, 150, 151, 180, 204, 205, 206, 213, 214, 215, 238, 241, 247, 250, 266, 276, 278, 282, 287, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 30S, 307, 308, 309, 321, 323, 327, 329; founding of, 2425; capital of Iberia, Kanli, 27, 30, 31, 40, 44, 46; under Safavids, 48, 53, S4, SS; in time of Erekle II, SS, S6, S7; under Russian rule, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75; Armenian dominance of, 86-9S, 116-21, 13940; population of, 116, 153; Geor-

417

gian migration to, 116-17; Tiflis municipal government, 119-21; workers in, 120, 144-45, 152-56, 201, 202; TiOis Seminary, 137-38, 140-41, 157, 159; Tiflis duma, 141, 142, 167, 168; Social Democracy in, 160-64, 167-70, 173-78; Tifiis committee of RSDRP, 161, 162, 194; Tiflis Strike Committee, 170; Tillis '"ex," 174; revolution in, 185-97; Tiflis soviet, 188, 194, 201, 202; Tiflis garrison, 189; Tiflis Executive Committee, 195; Bolshevik entry into, 206-207, 209, 210, 212; Thilisi City Committee of KPG, 305, 306; Tbilisi Medical Institute, 307 Tcr Gabrielian, Sargis, 244 Ter Petrossian, Simon (Kamo), 174 Tiflis Province, 73, 79, 98-107, 109, 116, 148, 149, 154, 181, 198 Toporidze, Dmitri, 164 Toroshelidze, Malakia, 218, 275, 276 Toumanoff, Cyril, xv, 12, 14-15, 17, 20, l4,29,40 Transcaucasia: Democratic Federative Republic of, 191-92; Transcaucasian Center of Soviets, 195; Federation, 214, 235, 272-73; FSSSRZ, 215, 261; ZSFSR, 216, 218, 220, 242, 243, 244, 256, 262 Transcaucasian Committee for the Rcor· ganization of the Landlord Peasantry, 97, 102, 104, 108 Transcaucasian Congress of Peasant Deputies, 196 Transcaucasian Congress of Soviets, 196 Trotsky, Lev, 210, 217, 218, 219, 220, 227, 235; Trobkyists, Trotskyism, 234,266,267,271,277 Tsagareishvili, Nanuli, 329 Tscreteli, Akaki, n-79, 111, 127, 133, lSS Tsereteli, Ettlde, 324 Tscretcli, Giorgi, 129, 131-32, 137, 159, 161 Tscreteli, lraklii, xvii, 173, 189, 19495, 204 Tscretcli, Mikhail, 179 Tscrcteli, Semen, 173 Tsikolia, 0., 309 Tsintsadze, Aleksandrc, 137 Tsintsadu, Kotc, 217, 234

418

Irula

Tsitlianov, Pavl, 66, 68, 72, 84 Tskhabia, Mikha, 159, 164, 235, 252 TskhinYal. 323 Tsulukidze, Akbandre, 167 Tucker, Rohen C., 237, 278 Tumanov, Giorgi, 129, 142 Turkey, 283; Amnenian and Gcoqpan irredenta in, 284-85

War C.Ommun.ilm, 211, 214 Western Georgia (Abasgia, Abkhazeti, Egrisi. lmereti, Kutaisi Province), 311, 15-16,24,25,28,31-33,41,4445, 47, St, S2-S3, 57~8, 79, 97, 103, 10~109, 146, 150,245 Writen' Union, 323 Xenophon, 9-11

Ukraine,221,250,257,258,260,267, 283, 301 Umikahvili, Petr, 131

Unity Bloc, 330 Urartu, 6-8 Uratadu, Grigorii, 176, 179 Vakhtang Gorguali, 23-.24, 283, 317 Vakhtang VI, 54, 123; Law Code (da-

s""""'9all1 of, 54, 65, 69, 72-73, 76, 81, 100

Vazha-Pshavda, 133 Velicbko, Vuilii, 1