1 See Ostroumov, N. P., Konstantin Petrovich fon-Kaufman (Tashkent, 1899)Google Scholar; Terent'ev, M. A., Istoriia zavoevanii Srednei Azii (3 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1906), I, 384; III, 316Google Scholar; Eval'd, A. V., “Vospominaniia o K. P. fon-Kaufmane,” Istoricheskii vestnik, LXX, Oct. 1897, 184–99Google Scholar; G. P., Fedorov, “Moia sluzhba v Turkestanskom krae (1870-1906 gg.),” ibid., CXXXIII, Sept. 1913, 805Google Scholar; Teikh, N. B., “Istoricheskii ocherk ustroistva Tashkentskoi khimicheskoi laboratorii Sbornik materialov dlia statistiki Syr-Dar'inskoi oblasti, VI (Tashkent, 1897), 49 Google Scholar. Old Style dates are used throughout.

2 See F. K. Girs, Otchet revizuiushchago, po Vysochaishemu poveleniiu Turkestanskii krai, Tainago Sovetnika Girsa (St. Petersburg, 1883); Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Muzei (Moscow), Otdel pis'mennykh istochnikov, M. G. Cherniaev fond (henceforth GIM OPI, Cherniaev), karton 8, “Turkestanskie pis'ma—II.“

3 The Central State Historical Archive in Tashkent (TsGIA UzSSR) has extensive materials about Turkestan after 1864. Especially significant is the large collection from the governor general's office (KTGG). N. A. Khalfin, who has utilized it, notes in Prisoedinenie Srednei Azii k Rossii (60-po-e gody XIX veka) (Moscow, 1965), p. 11, that no question in that period can be studied fully without use of this archive.

4 Geoffrey Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia (London, 1964), pp. 40- 41, aptly compares the khanates of Bukhara, Kokand, and Khiva at this time with European medieval principalities lacking cohesion or national consciousness.

5 Khalfin summarizes the Tashkent debate pp. 201-14. The pertinent documents are in A. G. Serebrennikov, Turkestanskii krai (Tashkent, 1912-16), Vols. XX, XXI.

6 A statute from St. Petersburg for Turkestan's administration was outdated by Tashkent's fall and was never applied. During the governorships of Cherniaev (1865-66) and D. I. Romanovskii (1866-67) statutes were lacking. Cherniaev ruled at his own discretion without keeping accurate financial records (“K voprosu ob upravlenii sredneaziatskoi okrainoiu,” Golos [St. Petersburg], March 19, 1875, pp. 1-2). Cherniaev both preceded and followed Kaufman as governor general.

7 F. K. Girs of the Finance Ministry, chairman; A. K. Geins; Colonel Protsenko of the General Staff; and Colonel Gutkovskii (Terent'ev, 1, 400-401).

8 Otdel rukopisei biblioteki im. Lenina (Moscow), D. A. Miliutin fond (henceforth ORBL, Miliutin), karton 16, No. 1, listy 29, 31.

9 Golos, July 16, 1867, pp. 1-2, citing Russkii invalid of July 16. The Emperor named the military governors of the two oblasts and die chief of staff of the new military district.

10 “Nashi iiredneaziatskie dela,” Golos, Aug. 11, 1867, p. 1.

11 In the imperial period the term Sart was applied to all settled natives in Turkestan regardless of ethnic background; the term Kirgiz was used for nomads.

12 N. P. Ostroumov, Sarty (Tashkent, 1896), p. 282.

13 For Kaufman's background and career see A. Semenov, “Pokoritel’ i ustroitel’ Turkestanskogo kraia,” in Kaufmanskii sbornik (Moscow, 1910), pp. ii-lxxxiv.

14 Tsentral'nyi Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Leningrada (henceforth TsGIAL), Kaufman fond, delo 61, “Pis'ma raznykh lits fon-Kaufmanu s vyrazheniem sozhaleniia po povodu ego uezda s posta Vilenskogo general-gubernatora 1866 g.“

15 Girs, p. 8.

16 Svod Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, Obshchee uchrezhdenie gubernskoe, sec. 208, cited in Richard Pierce, Russian Central Asia 1867-1917 (Berkeley, i960), p. 65.

17 Golos, July 16, 1867, citing Russkii invalid of July 16.

18 TsGIA UzSSR, fond KTGG, opis’ 22, delo 409, “Gramota vysochaishykh polnomochii,” listy 10-11, cited in Khalfin, p. 225.

19 Terent'ev, I, 384.

20 A scion of the Estonian nobility trained at the Nicholas Academy of the General Staff in St. Petersburg (1857-59), Geins helped draft the Temporary Statute and was an expert on administrative matters. He resigned April 20, 1869 (A. I. Dobrosmyslov, Tashkent v proshlom i nastoiashchem [Tashkent, 1911-12], pp. 444-45).

21 Pierce, p. 65.

22 K. P. fon-Kaufman, Proekt vsepoddanneishago otcheta Gen.-Ad'iutanta K. P. fon- Kaufman I po grazhdanskomu upravleniiu i ustroistvu v oblastiakh Turkestanskago General- Gubernatorstva 7 noiabria 1867—25 marta 1881 g. (St. Petersburg, 1885). Because of illness Kaufman did not sign this incomplete report. It was written, at his instruction, by P. Khomutov, his former assistant chief of chancellery.

23 Dobrosmyslov, p. 67.

24 lbid., pp. 93-98.

25 Quoted in N. Frideriks, “Turkestan i ego reformy,” Vestnik Evropy, IV, No. 6 (June 1869), 691-92. Frideriks describes his own work in the commission sent to reorganize the nomads’ administration, emphasizing its success and native cooperation (pp. 694, 710).

26 “Terent'ev, I, 401-2.

27 “I can state positively,” declared Kaufman, “that… after occupation of the Zeravshan area and the Hi River valley, they were never in such an indefinite—one might say chaotic—situation as that in which I found Tashkent territory and the entire native administration upon the governor-generalship's establishment” (Kaufman, p. 7). E. Tolbukhov, Ustroitel’ Turkestanskogo kraia,” Istoricheskii vestnik, CXXXII, June 1913, 893, agrees with Kaufman.

28 Kaufman, p. 7.

29 ORBL, Miliutin, k. 16, No. 1, /. 24 and reverse, I. 28.

30 Pierce, p. 66.

31 Iu. D. Iuzhakov, Itogi dvadtsatisemiletnago upravleniia Turkestanskim kraem (St. Petersburg, 1895), p. 17.

32 Uezd commanders and military governors gave priority to military responsibilities, shirking unfamiliar administrative tasks (ibid., pp. 15-18).

33 Ibid., pp. 23-49. Iuzhakov said that the new system of self-government undermined the nomads’ tribal organization and moral standards. He criticized the Statute, not Kaufman, for it!﹜ impracticality. F. Azadaev in Tashkent vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka (Tashkent, 1959), pp. 100, 104, asserts with some persuasiveness that self-government under the Statute was a device used by the imperial regime and its native collaborators to ensure inexpensive control.

34 Terent'ev (I, 444-52) noted that Geins favored a harsher policy than Kaufman toward the natives and assessed his successors negatively. Fedorov evaluated them more positively (in Istoricheskii vestnik, CXXXIII, July 1913, 809; CXXXIV, Oct. 1913, 45-46).

35 Fedorov, CXXXIII, July 1913, 807-8. Terent'ev (I, 455-56; III, 276-87) emphasized official corruption in Syr-Dar'ia Oblast.

36 Wheeler, p. 67.

37 Golos published without comment (Jan. 8, 1875, p. 3, “Vnutrennie novosti“) figures probably compiled by Kazennaia Palata, a Finance Ministry agency in Turkestan, asserting that for 1868-72 the revenues of the Turkestan governor-generalship were 10, 588, 500 rubles, and expenditures 29, 497, 000 rubles. For Treasury figures (1868-79) see Kaufman, p. 372.

38 “Finansovoe polozhenie Turkestanskogo kraia,” Golos, Jan. 24, 1875, p. 1; “Depesha Skailera i turkestanskii biudzhet,” ibid., Feb. 11, 1875, p. 1.

39 Zeravshan (later Samarkand) Okrug provided 3, 265, 293 rubles (1868-72), Kul'dzha 966440 rubles (1871-79), and Fergana 6, 360, 095 rubles (1876-79), covering all civil expenditures and leaving a 307, 112-ruble surplus (Terent'ev, III, 294).

40 Military expenditures (1868-79) w e r e 75iio8, oig rubles; civil expenditures were 24438, 426 rubles (Kaufman, p. 373).

41 Terent'ev, III, 295-96.

42 “Sud'ba proekta o Turkestanskom krae,” Golos, Jan. 14, 1875, p. 1.

43 Girs, p. 2.

44 ORBL, Miliutin, k. 16, No. 3, I. 147 and reverse.

45 G IM OPI, Cherniaev, k. 11, “Zhurnal komissii, uchrezhdennoi pri Ministerstve Finansov dlia rassmotreniia proekta polozheniia ob upravlenii Turkestanskim kraem” (1874), /. 33. One argument against submitting it to the State Council was the Committee of Ministers’ decision (Oct. 21, 1868) that revised statutes for steppe oblasts under Orenburg, Western Siberia, and Turkestan should be sent to the Council simultaneously for formal approval. But at Kaufman's request the War and Interior Ministries agreed to permit Turkestan to submit separate proposals (“Sud'ba proekta,” Golos, Jan. 14, 1875).

46 Kaufman had proposed that Samarkand (Zeravshan) Okrug be made a separate oblast, but the Commission, arguing that other provinces equal to Turkestan in area or population had only one administration, concluded that this would be extravagant and unnecessary (GIM OPI, Cherniaev, k. 11, “Zhurnal komissii,” ll. 56-58).

47 “Sud'ba proekta,” Golos, Jan. 14, 1875. Kaufman's proposed land reforms were defended in “Zemel'noe ustroistvo Turkestanskogo kraia,” ibid., Feb. 4, 1875, and in “Po povodu proekta zemel'nogo ustroistva Turkestanskogo kraia,” ibid., Feb. 25, 1875. Kaufman's proposals, noted these excellent articles, were based on voluminous local data and discussions by Russian and native officials. The related land tax issue was analyzed in Podatnaia sistema v Turkestanskom krae,” ibid., May 16, 1875, defending Kaufman's program as fairer to the natives and more productive of tax revenue.

48 Kaufman, pp. 75-84.

49 Ibid., pp. 84-94 a n d table, p. 95.

50 Ibid., pp. 100-115.

51 Quoted in Kaufmanskii sbornik, pp. Ixxv-vi.

52 Otdel rukopisei Biblioteki im. Saltykov-Shchedrina (Leningrad), fond 391, Kaufman to A. A. Kraevskii, April 18, 1875.

53 Fedorov, in Istoricheskii vestnik, CXXXIV, 54-55.

54 Cherniaev, writing his brother Nikolai, described his “feeling of complete contempt for the actions of this individual [Kaufman], who perhaps is good but has again fully revealed his lack of ability” (GIM OPI, Cherniaev, k. 39, ll. 29-30, M. G. to N. G. Cherniaev [Ostend], July 30 [1868?]).

55 On reading Terent'ev's assertion that his pacific policy toward Bukhara early in 1866 was partly due to a desire to rejoin his family in St. Petersburg, Kaufman wrote him angrily : “During my forty years of service, no one has insulted me to such a degreel No one can reproach me with ever putting my personal interests above those of affairs entrusted to mel” (Terent'ev, I, 405). “Po povodu zametki g. Geinsa,” Russkii mir, Feb. 27, 1875, asserted that Kaufman had spent two and a half of his first seven years as governor general living in St. Petersburg with a large suite.

56 ORBL, Miliutin, k. 6, No. 5 : “Dnevnik 1882-1888,” l. 24 reverse.

57 Girs (pp. 11-16) alleged violations of articles 417-40 of Svod Zakonov (St. Petersburg, 1876), describing a governor general's powers. Kaufman's hasty appropriation of land for the Tashkent fair of 1871 violated another article, and the release of prisoners in 1880 involved “usurping the sacred right of pardon belonging to the autocrat.” Girs was a bureaucrat who did his homework!

58 Girs, pp. 4-5.

59 Ibid., pp. 9-10.

60 GIM OPI, Cherniaev, k. 11, “Zhurnal komissii,” ll. 36-39.

61 Ibid., k. 8, “Turkestanskie pis'ma—II,” ll. 86-96.

62 Russkii mir, Jan. 30, 1875, p. 1, lead article.

63 Schuyler to Jewell, March 7, 1874, in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1874 (Washington, 1874), p. 817 (henceforth cited as “Schuyler's report“).

64 Schuyler, Turkistan (2 vols.; New York, 1877). The abridgment edited by Geoffrey Wheeler (London, 1966) omits the section on Kaufman's administration. Even Pierce's excellent book reflects Schuyler's negative assessment of Kaufman. Among Western accounts only Wheeler's Modern History gives him full credit for efforts to modernize Turkestan.

65 Schuyler, Turkistan (New York, 1877), II, 225. Citing Kaufman's 1873 draft, Schuyler asserted : “The officials of Turkestan have been so long in the habit of spending large sums of money without control that they have provided for the necessities of the government on what is, for Russia, a very extravagant scale. The ordinary expenses of the government are to be increased by the new project to almost double what they were under the old regulations” (p. 208).

66 GIM OPI, Cherniaev, ft. 8, “Turkestanskie pis'ma—II.“

67 Russkii mir, Jan. 30, 1875, lead article.

68 Schuyler, Turkistan (New York, 1877), II, 244-47.

69 GIM OPI, Cherniaev, ft. 8, “Turkestanskie pis'ma—II.” Cherniaev, who in 1865 had objected vehemently to Turkestan's subordination to Orenburg, forgot this during his second governorship (1882-84).

70 “Po povodu zametki g. Geinsa,” Russkii mir, Feb. 27, 1875.

71 Girs, pp. 367, 461-62.

72 The Central Asian Review (henceforth CAR), I, No. 3 (1953), *> summarizing a letter of Nechkina in Voprosy istorii, April 1951, pp. 44-48; and CAR, II, No. 4 (1954), 311.

73 Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR (Tashkent, 1956), I, 106.

74 Inoiatov, “Protiv fal'sifikatsii istorii sovetskoi Srednei Azii,” CAR, IX, No. 2 (1961), 151.

75 Istoriia kul'turnoi zhizni Turkestana (Leningrad, 1927); reprinted in Bartol'd, Sochineniid (Moscow, 1965), II, 297 ff.

76 Azadaev, pp. 96-104.

77 A. P., Pogrebinskii, “Nalogovaia politika tsarizma v Srednei Azii,” Istoricheskie zapiski, LXVI (1960), 300.Google Scholar

78 Emphasizing that imperial Russia's aims in Central Asia were primarily economic, Khalnn declares : “Kaufman became a true boss (khoziain) in Turkestan” whose main object was to acquire markets for Russia (pp. 225, 231).

79 Kaufman, Proekt, p. 8.

80 Ibid., p. 9.

81 Alexander II's complete trust in Kaufman's ability and integrity is confirmed by Iuzhakov, p. 14, and Ostroumov, Kaufman, p. 186.

82 Teikh, p. 49. Teikh was director of the Tashkent chemical laboratory established by Kaufman.

83 Quoted in Ostroumov, Kaufman, pp. 31 ff.

84 Fedorov, p. 805.

85 Ostroumov, Kaufman, pp. 203-13.

86 Fedorov, p. 803. But there is little documentary evidence of native confidence in Kaufman's regime, and some of his officials undermined native respect for Russian authority; see Bartol'd, Sochineniia, II, 377.

87 Schuyler wrote : “In spite of the bad administration, the people are, on the whole, well contented with the Russian rule, finding it so much better than anything which has gone before, and their discontent is chiefly against individuals… who harass and injure them.” But in the next paragraph he declared : “The inhabitants of Central Asia… still naturally prefer Mohammedan rule, other things being equal… and are thinking more of the evils which they suffer from the Russian officials” (Schuyler's report, p. 819).

88 Unconnected with Kaufman's regime after 1869, Geins noted : “I merely wished to reestablish the truth in judging the Turkestan administration” (“Zametka na depeshu g. Skailera,” Golos, Feb. 9, 1875, p. 4).

89 “Otvet g. Skaileru,” Golos, Feb. 25, 1875. Kolzakov denied publicly the charges which Schuyler had made against him.

90 Ibid., Feb. 9, 1875, p. 1.

91 “Proshlaia nedelia v Rossii i zagranitsei,” ibid., March 2, 1875, p. 1, lead article.

92 “Na stat'iu Golsa,” Russkii mir, March 3, 1875. Suspension was for “Po povodu zametki g. Geinsa,” Feb. 27, 1875, anast; “Kirgizskii bunt 1869 goda,” Feb. 28 and March 1, 1875. According to V. V. Grigor'ev, director of the State Press Administration, these articles “far exceed limits allowed by the government in discussing its actions” (TsGIAL, fond 776, Glavnoe Upravlenie po delam pechati, d. 52, chast’ 2, 11. 239-43).

93 Ianchevskii (Tashkent, March 27), “Russkii mir po otnosheniiu k turkestanskomu kraiu,” Golos, May 6, 1875, pp. 4-5.

94 “K voprosu ob upravlenii sredneaziatskoi okrainoiu,” ibid., March 19, 1875, pp. 1-2. Schuyler's uncritical praise of Cherniaev's governorship during 1865-66 in his Turkistan (II, 203) supports Golos's assertions that he was gullible.