ALEXANDER NIKOLAEVICH SAMOILOVICH. SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE. biography. Comp., author of articles and biographies by G. F. Blagov; Ed. by D. M. Nasilov, Moscow: Eastern Literature, 2008. 590 p. (Essays on the history of Turkic linguistics in Russia)

The peer-reviewed publication opens a new series "Essays on the History of Turkic Linguistics in Russia". The immediate reason for the creation of the book was a sad anniversary - the 70th anniversary of the death of the academician. This work is a logical continuation of the book published in 2005 by the same publishing house in the series "Classics of Russian Oriental Studies": Samoilovich A. N. Turkic Linguistics. Philology. Runika.

This one-volume book is significant because it is the first time that archival sources are published in a fairly complete (systematic) way - "documents of personal origin": correspondence of an outstanding Russian Turkologist with contemporaries and colleagues in Oriental studies, provided with notes and comments by G. F. Blagova.

Historiography of Turkic linguistics is one of the important areas of scientific research of G. F. Blagova. Works devoted to the archival heritage of A. N. Samoilovich, his place and role in Russian Turkology occupy a special place among the historiographical works of G. F. Blagova-essays on various aspects of the work of N. I. Ilminsky, L. Z. Budagov, V. V. Radlov, P. M. Melioransky. Her appeal to the creative heritage of A. N. Samoilovich, which she has been studying for many years, is by no means accidental. The university teachers of G. F. Blagova were the successors of Samoilovich's scientific school-N. K. Dmitriev, E. N. Najip, who studied directly with Samoilovich, and V. N. Nasilov.

G. F. Blagova came into contact with A. N. Samoilovich, the "main character" of her current historiographical research, while preparing for the publication of the monograph " Babur-nameh: Language, Text Pragmatics, Style "(Moscow, 1994). It turned out that the scientist was very interested in Babur's work, conducted a comparative study of various lists of "Babur-nameh" kept in the Asian Museum, as well as published by various publishers, domestic and foreign. There are several scientific directions in Blagova's activity that continue the traditions of A. N. Samoilovich: the history of the literary languages of Central and Central Asia (this includes "Notes of Emperor Babur"), long-term research in the field of comparative historical grammar of Turkic languages, extensive developments in the field of proto - Turkic anthroponymy (and, more recently, gender relations in Russia). the Turkic anthroponymic system, which A. N. Samoilovich also did: "Women's words among the Altai Turks" (Samoilovich, 2005))- all this with the active use of methods of areal linguistics and ethnolinguistics.

The closeness of the scientific interests of G. F. Blagova and A. N. Samoilovich may have contributed to the researcher's deepening into the details of his academic activities, and as a result - into the little-known details of the academician's life and work due to a number of circumstances.

The central section of the reviewed one-volume book is " Scientific Correspondence of A. N. Samoilovich "(hereinafter-Correspondence). It is preceded by a preface and introductory article by G. F. Blagova " A galaxy of like-minded Orientalists in the confrontation between the new and old schools (the first decades of the XX century)", which develops Samoilovich's half-forgotten thesis about two Turkic schools - the old and the new, formed in the second half of the XIX century. The presentation of the material in the article runs parallel on two levels. The first stage examines the formation and development of a new Turkological school (despite the resistance of the old one), its origins and fundamental features. At the second level, brief but succinct characteristics of more than twenty scientists are given,

page 184
representatives of Russian Oriental studies, "taking into account the concept of two domestic schools" (p. 93); special attention is paid to the persons involved in the Correspondence, their attitudes to new scientific trends and their relationship with A. N. Samoilovich.

The article develops an innovative technique that equips the researcher and readers accordingly and facilitates the perception of documents of personal origin (and, in fact, Correspondence in general). This technique is presented as a set of four techniques: 1) expanding the research base by systematically studying the archive collections of A. N. Samoilovich; in addition to correspondence, it includes official documents, notebooks, plans for future work (both completed and failed), etc.; 2) expanding the range of materials by contacting the funds of the persons involved in the Correspondence: two-way continuous correspondence (Samoilovich-Barthold, Samoilovich-Malov, etc.), reprint of the article by N. A. Baskakov with copious citations of Samoilovich's subsequently lost letters to Gordlevsky, one-sided correspondence (preserved letters to Samoilovich by Melioransky, Vladimirtsov, Polivanov and others, as well as Samoilovich's letters to Ashmarin); 3) thematic collection from the archival funds of scientists of facts mentioned in their letters and related to this or that problem under discussion, as well as subsequent publication of the results of scientific research. systematization and commentary of the obtained data, as a result of which, as from a mosaic, pictures of scientific life of the XIX - early X century are formed in the dynamics of its historical development; 4) confirmation of the words of eyewitnesses and participants of events with the help of other documents and sources (for example, Samoilovich's reports to the Academy of Sciences, notebooks, synchronous publications on one topic and of course scientific correspondence).

The correspondence served as a reliable source base for solving the scientific task set forth in the article-to highlight the "confrontation between the new and old schools", which made it possible to recreate and interpret the dynamically changing scientific life of Oriental studies in Russia in the first third of the XX century, as well as to introduce the reader to the life of the Oriental studies center of the country - the Faculty of Oriental Languages of St. Petersburg University. Using the above-described methodology, the article systematizes and reinterprets both well-known and half-forgotten facts of the history of Russian Oriental studies, so that "this field of knowledge in the future acquires the status of an independent scientific discipline" (p.93).

Scientific correspondence of A. N. Samoilovich is one of the main components of the peer-reviewed one-volume book, along with his scientific biography. Samoilovich's correspondence and biography are connected in a special way. In his deep conviction, scientific correspondence of scientists was a kind of their scientific activity, and for him personally it was also a means of uniting colleagues and like-minded people and coordinating their work, since "Samoilovich was known as a leader among his colleagues from a young age" (p. 13).

G. F. Blagova considers the interest in studying epistolary archives as a general trend in the historiography of science and outlines several phases in mastering the epistolary heritage of scientists: selective publication of individual letters (see, for example, "Six Letters of S. E. Malov to A. N. Samoilovich" [Malov, 1977]), continuous (even if one-sided) publication. publication of letters from one of the correspondents of particular interest, two-way correspondence of scientists. Thus, the correspondence of Samoilovich and his teacher, and later colleague and senior comrade, Barthold, covers almost a quarter of a century - a period during which the biographer can largely assess the diversity of interests and trace the development of scientific views of correspondents and, in general, the evolution of Turkology as a branch of knowledge.

The value of the peer-reviewed publication lies in the fact that for the first time the corpus of A. N. Samoilovich's epistolary heritage is compiled on the basis of not only his archives, but also the archives of a significant number of Orientalists with whom the scientist corresponded. Most of the 250 emails presented here are published for the first time.

A. N. Samoilovich's correspondents included V. V. Barthold (the correspondence is most fully reflected, consisting of 87 letters from both scientists), I. Y. Krachkovsky, S. E. Malov, N. I. Ashmarin, and other prominent figures of Russian Oriental studies. The correspondence covers the first third of the 20th century. It highlights the ideas, scientific trends and achievements of Russian Turkology during this period, recreates specific events of Oriental life against the background of a changing Russia, and allows you to see the "history of science "in faces", in everyday details " (p. 88). Blagova's well-known focus on the historiography of historical cycle disciplines is shown, for example, in the terminology she uses: for example, she recognizes the importance of the "micro-approach" to epistolary texts, which is used to update "micro-history".

page 185
(p. 20) Turkological science. And this is understandable, since the everyday and historical evidence that the correspondence of scientists is full of is invaluable. The reader gets an idea of the "moral climate" of the era, of the business and friendly relations between the persons involved in the Correspondence: here is the famous appeal of A. N. Samoilovich "We are not enough, and we must constantly hold hands! Please respond, dear colleague!" (letter to V. A. Gordlevsky, p. 242), and an invitation to the young Samoilovich family from the Barthold spouses to come to their dacha with their young son (V. V. Barthold-A. N. Samoilovich, letter No. 22, p. 110), and a reflection of the dramatic events of Russian history in their personal and scientific fate [for example, very revealing are the lines from S. E. Malov's letter to A. N. Samoilovich from Kazan dated 21.10.1918: "The money transfer was probably returned to you by the post office on the occasion of the capture of Kazan in early August by the Czechoslovaks... I apologize for the trouble and ask you to send me a money transfer again" (p.219)].

In this regard, it is necessary to note the merit of G. F. Blagova, who compiled detailed notes to the correspondence (pp. 277-352), which clarify and interpret numerous historical, scientific and everyday details, which is very important for the reader. For example, based on such a household detail that V. V. Barthold considers the "working" air temperature to be "up to 12°" (not lower) (p. 123), Blagova concludes that the letter is dated (in the letter - "November 10 <without a year>"): since the academic offices were not heated in November, it was 1918 or 1919 (p. 292). The date of another letter - "not earlier than 1914" - is restored on the basis of the name of the capital "Petrograd" (p.289). Blagova notes that, for example, letter No. 48 of 11.11.1923 (p.297) is written not on the letterhead of the Academy of Sciences, but on a random outdated letterhead of an external organization, in another case (letter No. 46, 1921) - on "yellow low-quality paper" (p. 293). Such details create an "immersion effect" in the atmosphere of that time.

The notes to the body of letters are followed by the "Scientific Biography of A. N. Samoilovich in the Aspect of Correspondence" compiled by G. F. Blagova (the second one after that prepared by F. D. Ashnin [Ashnin, 1963], reprinted in 1978 with additions [Ashnin, 1978]). Taking into account the fact that 45 years have passed since the publication of the first biography, as well as the fact that G. F. Blagova has mastered a significant part of the archives and epistolary heritage of the academician, the compilation of a new, more detailed biography of him, taking into account business letters, pages from expedition diaries, seems relevant and timely.

Materials for the scientific biography, in addition to correspondence, were also other "documents of personal origin" from the archives of A. N. Samoilovich. Two of them are particularly important - a hand-written plan for the scientist's autobiography and a plan for a textbook on the history of Central Asian-Turkic literature-which help to change some of the existing stereotypes about the work and scientific potential of A. N. Samoilovich.

In the plan of his autobiography (hereinafter - the Plan), the scientist established the following periodization: "I. 1880-1900 years. From birth to the first trip to Turkey. II. 1900-1917. From the first trip to Turkey to the October Revolution ... III. From the October Revolution to Today" (i.e., until 1935, which is the date of the Plan). The basis of the " Scientific biography..."the principle of following the periods of scientific life and activity of A. N. Samoilovich, which he personally identified in his autobiography Plan, is laid down.

The first period of his biography (1880-1900): birth, study at the Nizhny Novgorod Noble Institute in (1888-1899), admission on the advice of his father to the Faculty of Oriental Languages of St. Petersburg University (1889), first trip to Turkey for educational purposes (1900).

The second period (1900-1917) covers the years of A. N. Samoilovich's studies at the Faculty of Oriental Languages of St. Petersburg University under the leadership of Professor P. M. Melioransky, and then V. V. Barthold and other outstanding Orientalists of that time, his formation and development as an independent scientist and creative personality: a recognized expert on medieval Turkic literary texts, linguist field warehouse-specialist in dialectology, folklore studies and ethnography (and ethnolinguistics) of the Turkmen language, Associate Professor at St. Petersburg University and prof. Practical Oriental Academy, author of innovative grammars of Turkic languages, full member of the Russian Archaeological and Geographical Societies.

The third period of A. N. Samoilovich's life (1917-1938) - " the most difficult days of the destruction of former norms... life" (p. 409). At this time, a radical change in the tasks and attitudes of traditional Oriental studies inevitably took place. Literary studies, folklore studies, and field dialectology receded into the background, obscured by the primary tasks of linguistic education.

page 186
construction, as well as the preservation and training of new Oriental studies personnel-teachers. Using archival materials and personal documents, Blagova proves that scientific and organizational activities (A. N. Samoilovich held high positions in the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) and teaching, language construction (Romanization of the Turkic alphabets, organization of education of the Turkic peoples, trips to the Turkic-speaking republics, issues of local lore and ethnography), as well as some works in the direction of "Although N. Y. Marr's" New theory of language " pushed aside A. N. Samoilovich's linguistic and literary studies, they did not force him to abandon his work in his closest specialty. A particularly striking example of this is the plan of the "Anthology on the history of Central Asian-Turkic Literature" discovered in the academician's archives. It was during this period that the idea of creating a new classification of Turkic languages, which had long occupied the scientist, began to be realized ("Some Additions to the classification of Turkish languages", Pg., 1922). In the process of reading courses of Turkic grammars in various higher educational institutions of the country, A. N. Ismayilova was a student of the Russian Academy of Sciences. For the first time in Russia, Samoilovich developed an innovative course on comparative grammar of Turkic languages.

The arrest of Academician Samoilovich on a false denunciation on October 2, 1937 and his death on February 13, 1938 caused irreparable damage to both domestic and world Turkology. The author sees the duty of a modern historiographer-Turkologist in the creative understanding of the heritage of A. N. Samoilovich and returning it to science.

The appendix block includes three articles by A. N. Samoilovich and three articles by G. F. Blagova. Appendices 1A-1B are a reprint of A. N. Samoilovich's" Conceptual for Turkological historiography "(p. 15) article "I. N. Berezin as a Turkologist", the obituary "In Memory of Professor V. D. Smirnov" and the article " Turks. Turkish languages". According to F. D. Ashnin, the most competent expert on the biography and scientific heritage of A. N. Samoilovich, the last article is "the quintessence of the academician's scientific generalizations on the issue to which he devoted dozens of years" - the linguistic classification of Turkic languages and the ethnographic classification of Turkic-speaking peoples. Appendices 2A-2B contain articles by G. F. Blagova: "Traditional research methodology in the works of Academician A. N. Samoilovich" (about the research methodology of the scientist according to his archival manuscripts), "New Turkology and a new teaching about language: A. N. Samoilovich and N. Ya. Marr" (about the difficult relations of the leader "new Turkological school "with the creator of the" new language teaching " and about Samoilovich's allegedly unconditional acceptance of this new teaching), "Riddles of the A. N. Archives Samoilovich", which outlines promising areas for further work on the archival legacy of the repressed academician.

There is no doubt that G. F. Blagova achieved her goals - to eliminate gaps in the historiography of Russian Oriental studies, to introduce archival evidence about the state, scientific ideas and directions of development of Turkic linguistics in Russia at the end of the XIX - first third of the XX century, and to add concrete facts to the scientific biography of its bright representative - A. N. Samoilovich.

list of literature

Ashnin F. D. Alexander Nikolaevich Samoilovich (1880-1938) / / Peoples of Asia and Africa, Moscow, 1963, N 2.

Ashnin F. D. Alexander Nikolaevich Samoilovich. 1880 - 1938 // Turkological collection. 1974. Moscow, 1978.

Malov S.E. Six letters from S.E. Malov to A. N. Samoilovich / Subg. text and publ., introduction and notes by G. F. Blagova. lit. and yaz. 1997. Vol. 57, N 6.

Samoilovich A. N. Tyurkskoe yazykoznanie [Turkic linguistics]. Philology. Runika, Moscow, Eastern Literature Publ., 2005.

Permanent link to this publication: