Historiography of Russian-Caucasian relations is perhaps the most interesting and controversial intellectual space of Russian historical science. Therefore, it is not accidental that a number of detailed works devoted to this problem have appeared in recent years. Among them, it is necessary to mention the works of V. V. Degoev [Degoev, 2001], V. A. Shnirelman [Shnirelman, 2003, 2006], P. A. Kuzminov [Kuzminov, 2009], M. E. Kolesnikova [Kolesnikova, 2011].

Often, the development of Caucasian historiography was greatly influenced by politics and ideology. The history of the peoples of the North Caucasus left bleeding wounds in the historical memory, which are still felt to this day. For the Circassians, this is the period of the end of the Caucasian War and muhajirism, for the repressed peoples - the tragedy of deportation. These stories have long been overgrown with the growth of a malignant polemic, which is nothing more than a parasitic form of discussion, the goal of which is not to approach the truth, but to ensure the triumph of a "just" cause. However, the "Caucasian War of Historiography" is not limited to these topics (although it finds its most concentrated expression in them). One of the secondary discussions was the question of the origins and creators of the Caucasian military-people's administration system.

Key words: Caucasus, military and people's administration, Russian Empire, A. I. Baryatinsky, M. S. Vorontsov.

The system of military and popular administration was based on a combination of the traditions of mountain self-government and judicial proceedings with the principles of unity of command and control by the officers of the Russian army who were at the head of the administration. The People's Military Administration was destined to become one of the most successful administrative innovations in the Caucasus. In Dagestan, the military-people's administration, introduced in 1858, lasted until 1917 and brought beneficial results: "The revival of self-government within the framework of the military-people's administration has led to the consolidation of Dagestani society, the further rise of the economy and culture of the peoples of Dagestan. It was the period after the Caucasian War that was marked by the rapid rise of crafts, artistic cultures and literature. Perhaps, in this chain, revived self-government in its new modification played a special role in the Dagestani phenomenon of revival " (Aglarov, 2003, p. 20).

In modern historiography, two approaches can be distinguished regarding the history of the creation and introduction of military-popular administration in the Caucasus.

According to the first of them, the military-people's administration was introduced by the commander-in-chief of the Russian army on the Caucasian line, in Georgia and Dagestan, I. V. Gudovich

in 1806, on the territory of the Kuban Khanate [Semenov, 1997, p. 92]. This position has been widely adopted and supported by reputable researchers [Bobrovnikov, 2002, pp. 152-153]. Subsequently, this concept has undergone changes. In its modified version, the experience of such Caucasian commanders-in-chief as I. V. Gudovich and A. P. Ermolov contained the first test of the introduction of management methods in the Caucasus, which in the activities of the Caucasian governor A. I. Baryatinsky (1856-1862) were developed and formed into a system of military and national management [Severny Kavkaz..., 2007, p. 191].

But soon this situation was corrected: now Prince A. I. Baryatinsky became the sole creator of the management system under consideration. In one of his recent works devoted to identifying common and special features in the management practices of the Russian Caucasus and French Algeria, the Russian Caucasian and Oriental scholar V. O. Bobrovnikov notes:: "The founder of the military-people's administration was the governor of the Caucasus, Prince A. I. Baryatinsky (1856-1862). During his short reign, the basic principles of military and public administration were developed" [Bobrovnikov, 2010, p. 184].

The other approach is presented in the historical literature is not so noticeable, but it is based on completely different provisions. The creator of the system of military and people's management here is the Caucasian governor Prince M. S. Vorontsov (1844-1854) [Kobakhidze, 2009; Sotnikov, 2009], who "was the first to understand that the social system that has developed over the centuries, difficult class relations, entanglement of land relations, the use of adat and Sharia in legal proceedings, and their complete inconsistency with Russian laws".- all these are the reasons that caused the need to involve the local population in management, i.e. to introduce a special system of people's representation into the fabric of everyday life" [Sotnikov, 2008, p.6].

According to the first of the research approaches highlighted here, the basis for the opinion about I. V. Gudovich as the creator (or one of the creators) of the system of military-popular administration is the fact that he replaced the unreliable Sheikh Ali Khan at the head of the Cuban Khanate with a loyal bek Haji-bek, who received the title of naib during this "promotion". However, it seems to me that the imperial administration was forced to appoint one of the beks to replace the rebel Khan by the intractability of Sheikh Ali Khan himself, and not by any considerations regarding the fundamental improvement of local government. Very soon it became clear that Naib Haji-bek, who was put in place of the khan, "mostly lives in the countryside, and has no power among the people, which is confirmed by all Cubans who come to Baku on their own needs" [AKAK, 1869, p. 397]. I. V. Gudovich did not introduce any fundamentally new management, the count simply replaced the rebellious lord with a loyal but powerless beck. Haji-bek's appointment as naib, in fact, has nothing to do with the division of the territories of the North Caucasus into districts and naibs in 1858.

Moreover, I. V. Gudovich did not intend to put an end to the Khan's power in Cuba once and for all. The introduction of the Naib position was not a strategic decision, but was dictated solely by the needs of the current moment. The commander-in-chief tried to implement a policy under which Sheikh Ali Khan could return to the administration of the Cuban Khanate, but on condition of unconditional recognition of the supreme power of the Russian autocrat. The latter can easily be seen in the example of I. V. Gudovich's order to one of his subordinates, which says: "... Shih - Ali (so in the text-A. U.) continue to caress, and meanwhile keep her in suspense, so that it is all the more reliable to turn him to loyalty and diligence for the Russian government; do not miss opportunities to assure that his possession will never pass out of our hands again, and therefore the os-

he would have stopped relying on the Persians and communicating with them, and would have helped us in everything. By this sole means, he will find in me his intercessor before the most merciful monarch, but first he cannot reach the Khanate of Cuba until he comes to me, for he must take an oath for such an important dignity in my presence... "[AKAK, 1869, p. 397].

As you know, one of the main goals of the introduction of military-people's management was to overcome administrative confusion by unifying and uniformity of management activities. I. V. Gudovich's actions were motivated by other motives, the meaning of which was to ensure the loyalty of the khan's aristocratic elite. It is quite significant that in his notes on his service (Kavkazskaya voina..., 2002, pp. 55-88), Count I. V. Gudovich finds no place to mention his administrative innovations in the Kuban Khanate. Meanwhile, it is indisputable that if Ivan Gudovich really had to introduce some new administrative system in the Caucasus, he would not have failed to remind his descendants of this as an ambitious man.

The experience of indirect administration of the Caucasian territories, which consisted in attracting submissive local nobility to serve for the benefit of the empire under the control of a Russian officer or official, and introducing legal proceedings based on local legal traditions, was one of the sources of the concept of military and popular administration. In the historical literature, the practice of indirect control in the Caucasus is defined as the time of 1806-1827 and is mainly associated with the names of I. V. Gudovich and A. P. Ermolov [Severny Kavkaz..., 2007, p. 191]. However, the period of P. D. Tsitsianov's activity in the Caucasus (1802-1806) is hardly less important for the formation of the principles of management, which later formed the basis of the system of military and popular administration.

Pavel Dmitrievich is sometimes referred to among the figures called "colonialists", who believed that "the outskirts are colonies and should not be made part of Russia" [Shcherbina, 1997, p.55]. Nevertheless, in the Most recent report of March 23, 1804, Prince P. D. Tsitsianov, referring to the situation in Kabarda, proposed to transform the position of bailiff into the position of chief and change the name "Kabardian people" to "Kabardian region", since, in his opinion, the name Kabardian people " naturally reminds them (Kabardians. - A. U.), that it is, as it were, a separate body from the Russian Empire... "[AKAK, 1868, p. 953]. At the same time, P. D. Tsitsianov insisted on replacing a civilian official with a military one as a representative of the imperial administration. As you know, with the introduction of the system of military and popular administration, it was in the hands of officers of the Russian army that local administrative power was concentrated.

In 1839, the commander of the troops on the Caucasian and Black Sea lines, P. H. Grabbe (1839-1843), drew up a "Draft regulation on the management of peaceful mountain tribes" [KBIGI Archive, l. 2]. We are interested in the fact that this document proposed a new administrative-territorial division of the entire (subject to the Empire) territory of the North Caucasus. At the same time, counties were distinguished as administrative divisions, and within them - districts [KBIGI Archive, l. 3-10]. Separately, attention was drawn to the need to take into account in relation to local peoples "the degree of their submission to the Russian government, the degree of development of their civil structure, their customs, their mutual relations and local circumstances in general" [KBIGA Archive, l.2].

The project of P. H. Grabbe was not implemented, but it was in its spirit that the subsequent transformative plans were sustained, coming from the environment of experienced Caucasian military and officials. Major-General M. F. Kudashev's "Outline of the plan for the conquest of the Caucasian Mountain peoples" dates back to 1842 [Kavkaz..., 2005, pp. 144-153]. In the chapter,

dedicated to the transformation of governance in the Caucasus, M. F. Kudashev highlighted the basic principles according to which local administration should be organized: "They (mountaineers) need a firm but fair administration, with an admixture of their natural customs, when these customs do not contradict the morality and beneficent types of government" [Kavkaz..., 2005, p.151].

By the early 1840s, many representatives of the imperial administration in the Caucasus were convinced that administrative reform in the region was impossible without integration with local social and managerial practices based on tradition and customary law. The accumulation of information about the peculiarities of the socio-political organization and economic structure of the highlanders of the North Caucasus was an important factor in the search for an optimal management model for the southern edge of the empire.

This large-scale work was continued by the first Caucasian viceroy, M. S. Vorontsov, who assumed this position in 1844. M. S. Vorontsov served in the Caucasus under P. D. Tsitsianov, with whom he was in friendly correspondence [Archive of Prince Vorontsov, 1890, pp. 3-28]. The Caucasus was not something completely new and unknown to M. S. Vorontsov. It is unconvincing to say that the governor did not know and did not take into account the Caucasian specifics [Ganich, 2008, p. 110]. S. S. Esadze, a famous student of the chronicler of the Caucasian war V. A. Potto, described the "program" of the Caucasian viceroy as follows:" Prince Vorontsov was well aware that the main interest of Russia was to link the diverse region with the empire; this connection could also be strong if the entire management system was aimed at understanding all the conditions of national life" [Esadze, 1907, p. 89].

M. S. Vorontsov was a strong supporter of the fact that the system of governance of the Caucasus was developed directly in the region, by local officials and the military. This was the only way to avoid repeating the history of Senator P. V. Gan's disastrous transformations in Transcaucasia (1841-1842), the meaning of which was a simple operation of applying general imperial management templates to the Caucasus. In the draft letters of M. S. Vorontsov to his confidant B. S. Safonov, we can read: "The suggestion that we should start transforming the current order of civil affairs in St. Petersburg scares me very much; they will make a mess" [Prince Vorontsov's Archive, 1892, p.410].

Mikhail Semyonovich's activities as the Caucasian viceroy created traditions of independence and independence of the Caucasian administration from the St. Petersburg bureaucracy. M. S. Vorontsov, who was educated in Great Britain, drew his political and administrative ideas from the English experience of organizing the government of India and the views of English"orientalist" intellectuals, who at that time were widely represented in parliamentary debates [Tkachenko, 2009, p.156]. However, when developing plans for the administrative structure of the southern outskirts, not only the English experience of managing India was carefully studied, but also the French experience of managing Algeria.

On May 1, 1845, General Baron A. F. Grevenitz sent a letter and an issue of the French magazine "Moniteur universel" to the manager of the affairs of the Caucasian Committee V. P. Butkov, which contained an article about the French administrative system in Algeria [RGIA, l.1]. On behalf of V. P. Butkov, these materials were translated into Russian and delivered to Emperor Nicholas I. It should be noted that in addition to the translation, a special comparative review of governance in the Caucasus and Algeria was prepared for the sovereign [RGIA, l. 92]. The document contains a note that reads: "The Sovereign Emperor deigned to read" [RGIA, l. 92]. After reviewing the materials prepared for him, the emperor instructed the chairman of the Caucasian Committee A. I. Chernyshev to pass them to the Caucasian governor M. S. Vorontsov, which was done [RGIA, l. 102].

It follows from the document that in a certain part of the territory of Algeria, which was called "military-civilian possessions", there was a civil administration entrusted to military persons, who, commanding over the districts, performed not only military, but also judicial functions [RGIA, l.96]. During the introduction of military-people's administration in the Caucasus, the territory was also divided into districts headed by officers of the Russian army. In Algeria, the administrative officer was assisted in the management of the Territory by an advisory commission consisting of elected officials: two Europeans and two local natives [RGIA, p. 96]. As is well known, the imperial administration, with the introduction of military and popular administration, relied in rural societies on elected elders. A separate category of the territory of Algeria consisted of the so-called Arab possessions, which were "entrusted to special native chiefs and subordinated only to the military administration" [RGIA, l. 96]. In Dagestan in the 1860s and 1870s, some naibs were headed by former Shamil naibs, who now served the Russian emperor [Severny Kavkaz..., 2007, p. 197]. The parallels between the two management models are obvious. The colonial experience of the British and French was not only taken into account, but also purposefully studied.

The search for optimal ways of administrative reform in the Caucasus was an important activity of M. S. Vorontsov as the Caucasian Viceroy. The governor was unable to continue his service in the Caucasus due to poor health. In May 1851, "having fallen ill with Caucasian fever, he was cured, but his days quickly began to decline" [Shcherbinin, 1858, p. 286]. However, the first experience of introducing a system of military and popular administration still dates back to the time of his viceroyalty. In 1852, a new system of governance in Chechnya was introduced by A. I. Baryatinsky with the consent and approval of M. S. Vorontsov [Mukhanov, 2003, p. 56].

To say that A. I. Baryatinsky was "the creator of the system of military and popular administration" means simplifying the history of the Russian administration in the Caucasus. The development of the basics of this system, the definition of its principles was carried out over a long period. The sources of its formation were both the experience of Russian administration in the Caucasus, and the history of administrative reforms of the French and British colonial authorities. It is difficult to imagine that a person who had no experience in administrative management and was engaged almost exclusively in military works (namely, such was A. I. Baryatinsky) could in the shortest possible time comprehend all the above-described material of judicial and administrative reform and create a new management system.

The creation of the most effective model of administrative management in the North Caucasus was closely connected with the process of studying the region by the Russian Empire. With the expansion of information about the peculiarities of the social life of the highlanders, there came an understanding of the impossibility of a straightforward approach to the modernization of administrative institutions in the southern outskirts.

In the history of the formation of the military-people's administration, it was the accumulation of information about mountain societies and methods of colonial administration of India and Algeria that was of decisive importance. The creation of the Caucasian Viceroyalty and the granting of unprecedented powers to the viceroy [PSZ, 1847, p.17-19] implied recognition of the special position of the Caucasus in the system of imperial administration. The formation of the concept and practical implementation of the military-people's administration was the development of this regionalist trend.

A significant role in the history of the introduction of the system of military-people's administration in the Caucasus was also played by the personality of M. S. Vorontsov, who had a rich administrative experience and a broad outlook. In this light, the evidence that Prince A. I. Baryatinsky himself once allegedly said: "I got the harvest of Vorontsov's sowing!"is not so improbable. [Russkaya starina, 1881, p. 909].

list of literature

Aglarov M. Kh. Protsssniya politicheskoi kul'tury Dagestana v ramkakh "voenno-narodnogo upravleniya" II Lavrovskie (sredneaziatsko-kavkazskie) chteniya 2002-2003 [The Revival of Dagestan's Political Culture in the framework of the "Military-People's Administration" II Lavrov (Central Asian-Caucasian) Readings 2002-2003]. SPb., 2003.

Acts collected by the Caucasian Archeographic Commission (ACAC). Vol. II, III. Tiflis: Printing House of the Main Administration of the Governor of the Caucasus, 1868-1869.

Archive of the Kabardino-Balkar Institute for Humanitarian Studies (KBIGI Archive). F. 1. On. 2. D. 5.

Prince Vorontsov's archive. Books XXXVI, XXXVIII. Moscow: Universitetskaya tipografiya Publ., 1890, 1892.

Bobrovnikov V. O. Moslems of the North Caucasus: custom, law, violence. Essays on the history and ethnography of the Law of Nagorny Dagestan, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2002.

Bobrovnikov V. O. Russian Caucasus and French Algeria: Accidental similarity or exchange of experience in colonial construction? / Imperium inter pares: The role of Transfers in the history of the Russian Empire (1700-1917). Collected works / Ed. by M. Aust, R. Vulyius, A. Miller. Moscow, 2010.

Ganich A. A. In the Service of two Empires: the life of General Musa Kundukhov // East (Oriens). 2008. № 4.

Dsgosv V. V. Bolshaya igra na Kavkaze: istoriya i sovremennost ' [The Big Game in the Caucasus: History and Modernity]. Moscow: Russkaya Panorama, 2001.

The Caucasus and the Russian Empire: Projects, ideas, illusions and Reality. Early XIX-early XX centuries St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the magazine "Zvezda", 2005.

The Caucasian War: its origins and beginning. 1770-1820 years. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the magazine "Zvezda", 2002.

Kobakhidzs E. I. From " Military-People's "Management to "Civil": Administrative practice of Russia in the Central Caucasus in the late 50s-early 70s. XIX V. // Izvestiya of the North Ossetian Institute of humanitarian studies. Issue 3 (42). Vladikavkaz, 2009.

Kolesnikova M. E. North Caucasian historiographical tradition: the second half of the XVIII-beginning of the XX century. Stavropol: SSU Publishing House, 2011.

Kuzminov P. A. The epoch of reforms of the 50-70s of the XIX century among the peoples of the North Caucasus in pre-revolutionary Caucasian studies. Nalchik: Kabardino-Balkar University, 2009.

Mukhanov V. M. Prince Alexander Ivanovich Baryatinsky // Questions of history. 2003. № 5.

The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire. Collection II. Vol. XXI. St. Petersburg, 1847.

Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA). f. 1268. Op. 1. d. 765.

Russkaya starina, Vol. XXX, Moscow, 1881.

The North Caucasus as Part of the Russian Empire, Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2007.

Semenov Yu. I. National policy in Imperial Russia: civilised suburbs / / National policy in Imperial Russia. Civilized suburbs (Finland, Poland, Bessarabia, Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Central Asia). Moscow: Stary Sad, 1997.

Sotnikov A. A. Ob "upravlenie Kavkazom" v 1840-1860 gg. [On the "management of the Caucasus" in 1840-1860]. Moscow: VNIILM, 2008.

Sotnikov A. the Introduction of the national military control in the North Caucasus in the XIX century // Questions of history. 2009. № 5.

Tkachsnko D. S. School education in ethno-cultural policy in the North Caucasus of the XIX-early XX centuries. Stavropol: Alfa Print Publ., 2009.

Shnirslman V. A. Wars of Memory: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia, Moscow: Akademkniga Publ., 2003.

Shnirslman V. A. To be Alans: Intellectuals and Politics in the North Caucasus in the XX century. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2006.

Shcherbina A.V. Evolyutsiya etnicheskogo sostava naseleniya Rossiiskoi imperii i cc vliyanie na imperskuyu politike govitentsii v XIX - nachale XX vekov (postanovka problemy) [Evolution of the ethnic composition of the population of the Russian Empire and its impact on the imperial policy of the government in the XIX-early XX centuries (problem statement)]. Rostov-on-Don, 1997.

Shcherbinin M. P. Biography of General Field Marshal Knyaz M. S. Vorontsov, St. Petersburg: Printing House of Eduard Weimar, 1858.

Esadz S. S. Istoricheskaya zapiskaia ob upravlenii Kavkazom [Historical Note on the management of the Caucasus]. Tiflis: Tipografiya "Guttenbsrg", 1907.

Permanent link to this publication: