home › Body › What is Betrayal? According to M. Khudyakov

What is Betrayal? According to M. Khudyakov

Mikhail Georgievich Khudyakov- archaeologist, researcher of the history and culture of the peoples of the Volga region. The main works are devoted to the history of the Tatars, Volga Bulgaria, archeology of Kazan.

Born in the small town of Malmyzh, in Vyatka province, in a well-born and wealthy Russian merchant family. He graduated from the 1st Kazan gymnasium with a gold medal (1906-1913), studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of Kazan University (1913-1918). In 1918-1924 he worked in Kazan: as a school teacher, librarian of the Society of History, Archeology and Ethnography at Kazan University, since 1919 - the curator of the archaeological department, then head of the historical and archaeological department of the provincial museum, taught at the North-Eastern Archaeological and Ethnographic Institute. From 1920 he also worked in the museum department of the People's Commissariat for Education of the Tatar ASSR; one of the organizers and secretaries of the Scientific Society of Tatar Studies. Participated in the organization of the museum in his native Malmyzh. In the 1920s he published a number of historical, ethnographic and archaeological works on the history of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples of the region. A special role is played by "Essays on the history of the Kazan Khanate", published in 1923.

Khudyakov's work was one of the first works of Russian historians devoted to the Kazan Khanate, whose history in the works of prominent historians of the previous generation was considered exclusively in the context of Russian history. His view differed from the works of previous authors in that the author sympathizes Tatar people and shows the policy of the Muscovite state as aggressive and colonial. At the same time, he tries to maintain scientific objectivity. In his work, the author expressed gratitude to a number of orientalists who apparently shared his concepts to some extent: Gayaz Maksudov and G. S. Gubaidullin, N. N. Firsov, M. I. Lopatkin, S. G. Vakhidov.

In 1923, a prominent Bolshevik, M.Kh. After these events, Khudyakov leaves Kazan. Since 1925 he lived and worked in Leningrad as a researcher at the State public library. In 1926-1929 he studied at the graduate school State Academy stories material culture(GAIMK). In 1927 he took part in the work of the Middle Volga expedition in Chuvashia. During the 1920s he wrote down the Udmurt epic. From 1929 he taught at the Leningrad University, from 1931 an assistant professor at LILI and the Leningrad Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History (LIFLI). In 1929-1933 he was the scientific secretary and researcher of the Commission for the Study of the Tribal Composition of the Population of the USSR under the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Since 1931, a researcher of the 1st category of the GAIMK (an institute of pre-class society), since 1933 he moved to the sector of the feudal formation. In 1930-32, critical accusations of “sultangalievism” and “Turkic nationalism” were brought against him, which were limited to public “studies”. In 1931, he took part in the "criticism" of the arrested archaeologist S. I. Rudenko. He actively promoted Marrism, which enjoys official support. In 1936, without defending a dissertation, he was awarded the degree of doctor historical sciences and the title of a full member of the Institute of pre-class society GAIMK.

September 9, 1936 arrested by the NKVD Leningrad Region under Article 58-8, 11 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR as "an active participant in the counter-revolutionary Trotskyist-Zinoviev terrorist organization"). On December 19, 1936, by an exit session of the Supreme Commissariat of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, he was sentenced to capital punishment, with confiscation of all personal property. Shot on the same day in Leningrad.

The works of M. G. Khudyakov were banned and removed from libraries. He was rehabilitated in 1957, but his works were not republished. The first step towards the return of his works from obscurity was the publication in the Tatar language of some of his works ("Essays ..." and individual articles) on the pages of the youth magazine "Idel" starting from 1989. The second edition of the book was published in 1991.

Compositions

Chinese porcelain from excavations in 1914 in Bolgars. IOIAEKU. 1919. Vol. 30, no. 1. S. 117-120
Bulgarian. Exhibition of culture of the peoples of the East. Kazan, 1920. P. 10-22 (together with Z. Z. Vinogradov)
Old is young. KMV. 1920. No. 1/2. pp. 24-28
To the history of Kazan architecture. KMV. No. 5/6. pp. 17-36
Muslim culture in the Middle Volga region. Kazan, 1922
Essays on the history of the Kazan Khanate. Kazan, 1923
Tatar art. Herald of knowledge. 1926. No. 2. S. 125-130
Stone Age in China. Science and technology. 1926. No. 5. S. 6-7
Brief report on the excavations in the Vyatka province. Messages GAIMK. 1929. Vol. 2. S. 198-201
On the question of the dating of the Bulgar buildings. Materials for the protection, repair and restoration of the monuments of the TatASSR. 1930. Issue. 4. S. 36-48
Tatar Kazan in the drawings of the 16th century. VNOT. 1930. No. 9/10. pp. 45-60
Critical study of Rudenkovism. SE. 1931. No. 1/2. pp.167-169
To the question of cromlechs. Communications GAIMK (State Academy of the History of Material Culture). 1931. No. 7. S. 11-14
On the issue of Permian animal style.Messages GAIMK. 1931, No. 8. S. 15-17
Finnish expansion in archaeological science. reports of GAIMK, 1931, No. 11/12. S. 25-29
Kazan in XV-XVI centuries. Materials on the history of the Tatar ASSR: (Scribal books of the city of Kazan in 1565-68 and 1646). L., 1932. S. VII-XXV
Ethnography in the service of the class enemy. (Library of GAIMK, 11). L., 1932 (together with S. N. Bykovsky and A. K. Supinsky)
Archeology in the Volga autonomous regions and republics for 15 years. PIMK. 1933. No. 1/2. pp. 15-22
Pre-revolutionary Russian archeology in the service of the exploiting classes. L., 1933
The cult of the horse in the Kama region. IGAIMK. 1933. Issue. 100. S. 251-279
Pre-revolutionary Siberian regionalism and archeology. PIDO. 1934. No. 9/10. pp. 135-143
Cult-cosmic representations in the Kama region in the era of the decomposition of the tribal society: ("The Sun" and its varieties). PIDO. 1934. No. 11/12. pp. 76-97
Archaeologists in fiction. PIDO. 1935. No. 5/6. pp. 100-118
Graphic schemes historical process in the works of N. Ya. Marr. SE. 1935. No. 1. S. 18-42
25th anniversary of scientific activity of P. S. Rykov. SE. 1935. No. 2. S. 155-158
History outline primitive society on the territory of the Mari region: Introduction to the history of the Mari people. L., 1935 (IGAIMK. Issue 31)
Survivals of group marriage and matriarchy in the Volga region: (Among the Mari and Udmurts). Proceedings of the IAE Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1936. V. 4. S. 391-414
Song about the Udmurt batyrs: (From folk epic Udmurts). Problems of the epic tradition of Udmurt folklore and literature. Ustinov, 1986. S. 97-132
Essays on the history of the Kazan Khanate. M., 1991
Hockerbestattungen im Kasanischen Gebiet. Eurasia Septentrionalis antiqua. T. 1. Helsinki, 1927. S. 95-98.

1. Historical outline the city of Malmyzh (Chapter I. Cheremis period). // TVUAK, 1915, issue. II–III, section III. With. 6–20.

2. Materials on the history of the Tatars of the Malmyzh district. // Ibid., vol. II–III, section III, p. 1–5.

3. Chronological information about the churches of the city of Malmyzh. // Ibid., vol. II–III, section III, p. 30–32.

4. About the Vyatka coat of arms. // Ibid., vol. I, section III, p. 111–112.

5. Report on the excavations in Bolgari in the summer of 1914 // IOAIE, Kazan, 1916, vol. 29, no. 5–6, p. 197–230. (Jointly with Pokrovsky S.I., Krellenberg B.E.)

6. Antiquities of the Malmyzhsky district. // TVUAK, 1917, issue. I–II, section III, p. 1–59.

7. Old-timers of the city of Malmyzh. // Ibid., p. 60–64.

8. From the biographies of the Malmyzh historians. // Ibid., p. 67–68.

9. Chinese porcelain from the 1914 excavations in Bolgar. // IOAE, 1919, v. 30, issue. I, p. 117–120.

10. Intelligence in Bilyarsk in the summer of 1915. // IOAE, 1919, v. 30, issue. I, 1919, p. 59–66.

11. Bulgarians. // Exhibition of culture of the peoples of the East, Kazan, 1920, p. 10–22. (Jointly with Vinogradov Z.Z.)

12. Votsky tribal divisions. // IOAE, 1920, v. 30, issue. 3, p. 339–356; IOAE, 1920, v. 31, no. I, p. 1–16.

13. To the history of Kazan architecture. // KVM, 1920, no. 5–6, p. 17–36.

14. To visit Kazan V. A. Gorodtsev (in 1920). // KVM, 1920, no. 7–8, p. 117–118.

15. To the drawings of V. I. Korsuntsev. // KVM, 1920, no. 5–6, p. 86.

16. Petr Alekseevich Ponomarev 1847-1919. // IOAE, 1920, v. 30, issue. 3, p. 245–260.

17. Old is young. // KVM, 1920, no. 1–2, p. 24–28.

18. School history museums in Kazan. // KVM, 1920, no. 7–8, p. 48–597.

19. From the history of the local region. // Bulletin of education, Kazan, 1921, No. 1, column. 40.

20. O. M. Dieulafoy. // KVM, 1921, no. 1–2, p. 142–143.

21. Plan of cultural and historical excursions in Kazan. // Bulletin of education, 1921, no. 3–4, column. 85–94.

22. The ruins of the Great City. // KVM, 1921, no. 1–2, p. 78–83.

23. Muslim culture in the Middle Volga region. Kazan, 1922, 22 p.

24. On the need for translations of Tatar literature. // Bulletin of education, No. 1–2, st. 43–52.

25. 1000th anniversary of Muslim culture in the Volga region. // Ibid., 1922, No. 1–2, p. 1–12.

26. Ed .: on the book: Nikolsky N.V. "Abstract on the history folk music among the peoples of the Volga region". Kazan, 1920, 72 pp. // Ibid., No. 1–2, columns 126–130.

27. Ananyino culture. // Kazan Provincial Museum for 25 years. Kazan, 1923, p. 72–126.

28. Essays on the history of the Kazan Khanate. Kazan, 1923, 302 p.

29. Review: on the book: Illarionov V. T. "Overview archaeological discoveries in the Nizhny Novgorod province ". N.-Novgorod. 1922, 60 pp. // KVM, 1923, No. 2, pp. 306–307.

30. Wooden architecture Kazan Tatars. // KVM, 1924, No. 1, p. 23–28.

31. Reviewer: on the book: Ballod F. V. "Old and New Sarai: Capitals of the Golden Horde". Kazan, 1923, 63 p. // KVM, 1924, No. 1, p. 119–120.

32. Reviewer: on the book: Denike B.P. "The Art of the East". Kazan, 1923, 250 p. // KVM, 1924, No. 1, p. 117–119.

33. The origin of the American man. // NiT. L., 1925, No. 5, p. 2–3.

34. Stone Age in China. // NiT. L., 1926, No. 5, p. 6–7.

35. The capital of the ancient Aztecs. // NiT. L., 1926, No. 3, p. 7–8.

36. Tatar art. // Bulletin of Knowledge, L., 1926, No. 26, p. 125–130.

37. On the question of the origin of the Chuvash. // Proceedings of the Society for the Survey and Study of Azerbaijan. Baku, 1927, No. 4, p. 135–146.

38. Vorobyevsky and Vichmarsky burial grounds. // IOAE, 1929, v. 34, issue. 3–4, p. 72–82.

39. Brief report on the excavations in the Vyatka province. // Communications of GAIMK, L., 1929, v. 2, p. 198–201.

40. Epaulet-shaped fasteners of the Kama region. // Collection of GAIMK. Postgraduate Bureau. T. 1, L. 1929, p. 41–50.

41. Institute for the Study of the Peoples of the USSR. // Ethnography, 1930, No. 4, p. 85–86.

42. To the question of the dating of the Bulgar buildings. // Materials on the protection, repair and restoration of monuments of the TASSR. Kazan, 1930, no. 4, p. 36–48.

43. Burial ground Maklasheevka II. // Materials Central Museum TASSR, No. 2 (1929). Kazan, 1930, p. 11–14.

44. Tatar Kazan in the drawings of the XVI century. // Bulletin of the Scientific Society of Tatar Studies. Kazan, 1930, No. 9-10, p. 45–60.

45. From the folklore of the Nizhny Novgorod region (legends about the grave of the Mari prince Boltush). // SE, 1931, No. 3–4, p. 171–180.

46. To the question of cromlechs. // Messages GAIMK. 1931, No. 7, p. 11–14.

47. To the question of the Permian animal style. // Communications of GAIMK, L., 1931, No. 8, p. 15–17.

48. A few words about new exposition Historical Museum. // Communications of GAIMK, 1931, No. 9-10, p. 71–72

49. 1st Volga Museum Conference. (June 5–8, 1931 in N. Novgorod). // SE, 1931, No. 1–2, p. 173–176.

50. The essence and significance of Japhetidology. L. 1931. 56 p. (Library of GAIMK, No. 1).

51. Finnish expansion in archaeological science. // Communications of GAIMK, 1931, No. 11–12, p. 25–29.

52. Great power chauvinism in Russian ethnography. // Ethnography in the service of the class enemy. Sat. critical articles. L. 1932, p. 22-100. (Library of GAIMK, No. 11).

53. To the question of dating archaeological sites. // Communications of GAIMK, 1932, No. 5–6, p. 21–23.

54. Kazan in the XV-XVI centuries. // Materials on the history of the Tatar ASSR. Scribes of the city of Kazan 1565-68. and 1646. L., 1932, p. VII-XXV.

55. The political significance of the Multan case and its echoes in our time. // SE, 1932, No. 1, p. 43–62.

56. Archeology in the Volga regions and republics for 15 years. // PIMK. L., 1933, No. 1–2, p. 15–22.

57. Pre-revolutionary Russian archeology in the service of the exploiting classes. L., 1933, 162 p. (Library of GAIMK, No. 13).

58. Pre-revolutionary Siberian regionalism and archeology. // PIMK. 1933, No. 9-10, p. 135–143.

59. Zuevsky burial ground. // Antiquities of Kama according to the excavations of A. A. Spitsyn in 1898. L., 1933, p. 5–12. (Antiquities of the Oka and Kama, issue 2).

60. The cult of the horse in the Kama region. // Izvestiya GAIMK, No. 100 L., 1933, p. 251–279.

61. Metal production in the Middle Volga region in the era of decomposition tribal system. // PIMK, 1933, No. 7–8, p. 29–34.

62. Nyrginda I and II cemeteries. // Antiquities of Kama according to the excavations of A. A. Spitsyn in 1898. L., 1933, pp. 15–19. (Antiquities of the Oka and Kama, issue 2).

63. Speech on the report of M. M. Tsvibak "The main questions of the history of the emergence of feudalism in Russia". // Izvestiya GAIMK, No. 103. 1934, p. 263–267.

64. Back to history initial period Finnish archeology. // PIDO, 1934, No. 6, p. 88–93.

65. Cult-cosmic representations in the Kama region in the era of the decomposition of the tribal society. // PIDO. 1934, no. 11–12, p. 76–97.

66. Rec. on the book: Podorov V. M. "Essays on the history of the Komi (Zyryans and Permians)", vol. 1. Syktyvkar, 1933, 320 p. // SE, 1934, No. 3, p. 127–131.

67. Archeology in fiction. // PIDO, 1935, No. 5–6, p. 110–118.

68. A. V. Schmidt's contribution to the archeology of the Kama and Ural regions. // PIDO, 1935, No. 9-10, p. 129–143.

69. Questions of the history of the Volga region in the works of N. Ya, Marr. // One-day newspaper "In memory of N. Ya. Marr". L., 1935, December 20.

70. 25th anniversary of the scientific activity of Professor P. S. Rykov. // SE, 1935, No. 2, p. 155–158.

71. On some works of N. Ya. Marr in connection with the works of F. Engels. // PIDO, 1935, No. 3–4, p. 105–120.

72. Essay on the history of primitive society on the territory of the Mari region. Introduction to the history of the Mari people. // Izvestiya GAIMK, No. 141, L., 1935, 135 p.

73. Retz, on the book. "Catalog international exhibition monuments of Iranian art and archeology", issue I, L., 1935, 616 pp. // SE, 1935, No. 6, pp. 168–170.

74. Rec. on the book: Orbsli I. A., Trever K. V. "Sasanian metal: art objects from gold, silver and bronze", M., - L., 1935. // Ibid., 1935, No. 6, pp. 170–172.

75. Rec. on the book: "The problem of the origin of domestic animals". Issue. 1. L. 1933. // PIDO, L., 1935, no. 5–6, p. 183–186.

76. Rec. on the book: Yalkasv Ya. "Materials for a bibliographic index on Mari studies". 1762–1931 Yoshkar-Ola, 1934, "108 pp. // SE, 1935, No. 3, pp. 151–152.

Sh. F. Mukhamedyarov

The history of the Kazan Khanate was not lucky. Both in the distant past and in our time.

In the past, the history of this state in Russian literature was covered, as a rule, only in passing - in connection with the presentation of certain plots on the history of Rus', Russia. Therefore, facts and events from the history of the khanate were recorded selectively, as if "from the side". The picture, in essence, has not changed in the numerous "history of the USSR", in which a comprehensive coverage of the past of all the peoples of our multinational country was actually replaced by a presentation of the history of the formation and development of only one Russian state.

In recent times, the coverage of the history of the Kazan Khanate, with which the past of a number of peoples of the multi-ethnic region is connected, did not go beyond the auxiliary chapters and paragraphs of the official history of the Tatar ASSR, according to the basic concept of which the "true history" of the peoples began only ... from 1917. The presentation of the history of an entire state that existed for more than a hundred years and left an indelible mark on the destinies of a number of peoples left much to be desired in terms of scientific understanding of real facts and complex phenomena.

Thus, a paradoxical situation has developed. As you know, pre-revolutionary historiography, with rare exceptions, served the socio-political aspirations of the constantly at war and expanding feudal-landowner empire. subtly, purposefully, militantly.

So the "bad luck" of the history of the Kazan Khanate, like numerous facts of poor development of a number of aspects of history peoples The USSR as a whole has a complex background ...

Only once did a small gap appear - an attempt appeared to present the history of this state from a scientific position, i.e. from the position of a human researcher who sincerely wanted to understand the complex facts of the past, the facts created by people like him ordinary people, and not those who are created only for one-sided condemnation.

Such an attempt was the book by Mikhail Georgievich Khudyakov "Essays on the history of the Kazan Khanate", developed and published in the early years Soviet power. It was in those years when faith honest people in the triumph of justice - both social and moral and ethical - was still sincere, and their mind and consciousness were not separated by the laughter of fratricidal squabbles of party bosses. It was precisely in those years when the convictions and aspirations of men of science were not infected with the viruses of stupid swagger, inhumane messianism, imperial ambitions, disguised by demagogic declarations and in the field of historical thought. It was in those years when people had the hope of destroying the "prison of peoples" and building a truly equal society in all respects - "the most just, the most humane, the happiest", and, consequently, the most honest. Finally, precisely in those years when people who sincerely believed in the victory of the socialist revolution could not imagine the possibility of bloody repressions of the 1920s and 1930s, the horrors of the Gulag, which outdid the “prison of peoples” a hundredfold, the so-called “flourishing of nations”, expressed as genocide in in relation to dozens of nationalities, including Russians who found themselves on the verge of a cultural and spiritual catastrophe, on whose behalf the organizers of this "experiment" - the most anti-human Sabbath - liked to argue ...

Among the "sincerely believing" people who lived and worked in those years, also included M. G. Khudyakov. He was born on September 3, 1894 in the city of Malmyzh, in Vyatka. He was brought up in a well-born and wealthy Russian merchant family. After graduating from the first Kazan gymnasium, he studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of Kazan University (1913-1918). His labor and scientific activity began within the walls of the Eastern Pedagogical Institute. In the 1920s, he published a number of historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies on the history of the peoples of the region, both Turkic and Finno-Ugric. Among these works, the above-named "Essays ...", published in 1923, occupy a special place.

In the same years, M. G. Khudyakov took an active part in the organization of museums in Kazan, his native Malmyzh, in the activities of the Society for Archeology, History and Ethnography at Kazan University, and the Scientific Society of Tatar Studies. In 1926-1929. he is a postgraduate student in Leningrad, after graduation he is assigned to work at the State Academy of the History of Material Culture, where he also continues to develop problems of the history and culture of the peoples of his native land- Middle Volga. In 1936, M. G. Khudyakov was approved for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. But on September 9 of the same 1936, he was arrested as an "enemy of the people", accused of "Trotskyism", and on December 19 he was sentenced to death, which was carried out on the same day ...

Since that time, the name of the scientist has been consigned to oblivion, his works have been banned, withdrawn from libraries.

Published during the author's lifetime in small print runs (the circulation of the first edition of "Essays" in 1923 amounted to only 1000 copies), the works of M. Khudyakov, due to the indicated reasons, became a bibliographic rarity. He was politically rehabilitated in 1957, but his works were not republished and, therefore, turned out to be inaccessible to the modern reader up to the present day. The first step towards the return of his works from obscurity was the publication in the Tatar language of some of his works ("Essays ..." and individual articles) on the pages of the youth magazine "Idel" (1989, No. 1, 1990, No. 2 and further ).

Naturally, developing the history of the Kazan Khanate and the peoples of the region, M. G. Khudyakov did not cover and resolve all issues at the same level. As he himself repeatedly pointed out, much remains unclear. This was connected both with the level of historical knowledge of those times in general, and with the state of development of the source base of the problem, in particular. As the inquisitive reader will see, M. G. Khudyakov was not alien to a certain naivete in the interpretation of some complex issues. Sometimes the simplified sociologism characteristic of the 1920s makes itself felt when approaching complex social problems, which arose under the influence of M. N. Pokrovsky. "Essays ..." in places are not without obvious miscalculations and ordinary slips of the pen. To comment on them, noting both the natural oversights and the unconditional merits of the scientist’s observations and conclusions, and to carry out the academic publication of the Essays and his other works is a matter for the future. * .

But the attentive reader will also see that M. G. Khudyakov was, on the whole, alien to the conscious desire for lies. He, as a true humanist, also saw in figures and personalities of the past, first of all, normal and ordinary people who had the right to defend their interests, their opinions and their freedom. He, being genuine cultured person, did not divide peoples according to "grades", endowing some with the rights to everything and everything, depriving others of all this. He, as a true patriot of his people, wished his readers, although this is not explicitly declared anywhere, spiritual generosity in relation to other brothers in mind in the field of politics, ideology and culture of past times. At the same time, M. G. Khudyakov, wishing to dissociate himself from the former imperial-arrogant historiographic traditions, even trying to destroy them, allowed conclusions that were not sufficiently supported. Academician VV Bartold, another honest representative of Russian academic culture, pointed to this as early as 1924. He, for example, comparing "Essays ..." by M. G. Khudyakov with the book by F. V. Ballod "Volga Pompeii", which is distinguished by loudness of conclusions, wrote the following: "Before, as you know, the Tatars were unconditionally hostile, denying them any culture ... but now we see the opposite ... This is the same mistake as the previous view, and, like any extreme, this opinion contributes as little to scientific knowledge as the first. (Soch., vol. II, part 1, M., 1963, p. 712).

Thus, in M. G. Khudyakov, unlike the former representatives and current followers of traditional anti-Tatar concepts, designed to transfer the facts of hostility from the past to the present and future, we find the desire for objectivity, the desire to restore justice. It is not difficult to see the nobility of the researcher in this as human. Let us, like him, be as objective as possible and try to find more positive things in his legacy. For only the positive in intentions and actions has a truly creative perspective. As for disputes about the presence or absence of "culture" among this or that people of the past, they are ultimately resolved by the moral indicators of the heirs of this people. For the concepts of culture are always relative and historically conditioned.

Further:

September 3 (15), 2004 marks the 110th anniversary of the birth of the historian, archaeologist, ethnographer, author of the book "Essays on the History of the Kazan Khanate" Mikhail Georgievich Khudyakov.

October 12 at Literary Museum Gabdulla Tukay passed historical and literary readings, anniversary. Their organizers were the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan, National Museum RT, where Mikhail Khudyakov in 1919-1925 was in charge of the historical and archaeological department, and the Tukay Museum.

Well-known scientists made presentations: Ramil Khairutdinov, Ravil Amirkhanov, Damir Iskhakov, Fayaz Khuzin, Guzel Valeeva-Suleimanova and others. It was not only about the life and work of Khudyakov, but also about a new reading of the history of Russian-Tatar relations.

He got a difficult share ...

Mikhail Khudyakov was born in the city of Malmyzh (now it is the Kirov region) in the family of a merchant of the second guild. He received a good education at home, which he continued in 1904-1912. in the first Kazan gymnasium. He graduated with a gold medal, after which he entered Kazan University.

Even at school, Khudyakov became interested in archeology, participated in gymnasium excursions to Austria, Hungary and Constantinople. Having received a higher historical education, in 1918-1925. taught at one of the Kazan schools. At the same time and in the same period (1919-1925) he was the head of the historical and archaeological department of the provincial museum. In addition, Mikhail Georgievich taught at the Eastern Pedagogical Institute and worked in the museum department of the People's Commissariat for Education of the TASSR.

In 1925 he moved to Leningrad, where he worked as a researcher at the Saltykov-Shchedrin Library, from 1926 to 1929 he studied at the postgraduate course of the State Academy of the History of Material Culture, from 1931 he worked at this academy. Conducted research in the museums of Samara, Kazan and Nizhny Novgorod.

In 1936, Khudyakov without defending a dissertation, in total scientific papers in the history of pre-class societies of the Volga-Kama region, was awarded the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences.

The range of scientific interests of Mikhail Khudyakov was wide, but he focused on studying the history and culture of the Tatar people, as an archaeologist, excavated on the territory of the ancient cities of Bulgar and Bilyar, he was the author of the archaeological map of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

Khudyakov's articles that appeared in print, both in subject matter and in posing problems, were very original for that time: “The Ruins of the Great City” (1921), “1000th Anniversary of Muslim Culture in the Volga Region” (1922), “On the Need for Translations of Tatar Literature "," Wooden architecture of the Kazan Tatars "(1924) ... In Leningrad, the theme of his scientific research remained the same - the Muslim culture of the Volga region. Many of his works are directly related to the history of the Tatars, others, covering the problems of culture, literature, architecture, ethnography and archeology of the entire Volga-Kama region, one way or another concerned the history of the Tatar people.

In total, the scientist wrote about 60 works on the history and culture of the Tatar people.

September 9, 1936 Khudyakov was arrested. His name was given under torture by a colleague, Leningrad scientist A.Prikhozhin. In turn, Mikhail Georgievich also named a number of names - "accomplices"? thereby signing a death warrant for himself and others. He admitted that he was part of a counter-revolutionary group that was associated with agents of the Nazi Gestapo.

Khudyakov was shot as a "Trotskyist and enemy of the people", who, along with others, was preparing the villainous murder of S.M. Kirov and other leaders of the CPSU (b). It happened on December 19, 1936, the night after the verdict of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR. Mikhail Georgievich was then 42 years old.

Only twenty years later, on June 27, 1957, Mikhail Khudyakov was rehabilitated. His general ledger- "Essays on the history of the Kazan Khanate" - was republished only in 1991 and 1992 in Moscow and Kazan, in 1996 it saw the light on the pages of the collection "At the junction of continents and civilizations."

During the years of perestroika, the works of Mikhail Khudyakov were adopted by the leaders of the Tatar national movement. In 2004, Fauzia Bayramova's book "Mikhail Khudyakov in the history of the Tatar people" was published, in 2007 another edition of the author appeared - "Mikhail Khudyakov and the historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of the Middle Volga region."

We bring to your attention a fragment of the book by Mikhail Khudyakov.

“To my brother, the great prince Ivan beats with his forehead”

With the enthronement of Khan Mohammed-Emin by the force of foreign troops, the first, brilliant period in the history of the Kazan Khanate, which began with the victories of Khan Ulu Mohammed, ended. The second period began: the domination of the Russian party, the era of dependence on a foreign state. The Russian government achieved what it aspired to: Kazan was taken, and a regime desirable for the Russians was introduced in it ...

As a sign of his victory, Ivan III took the title of Prince of Bulgaria. The tributary relations of the Russians to Kazan were terminated: striving for liberation from the Tatar yoke and destroying dependence on the Sarai khans in 1480, Ivan III could not but strive for the same in relation to the Kazan khans, and he achieved this goal in 1487. From a tributary and henchman of the Kazan Khan of Moscow Grand Duke turned into an independent and independent sovereign.

The Kazan government recognized the official equality of both sides, and in correspondence between themselves, both sovereigns called each other brothers: the khan addressed - “Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Rus', my brother, Magmet-Amen beats with his forehead”, the Grand Duke answered - “Magmet-Amen to the king , my brother, the great prince Ivan beats with his forehead.

Russian historians exaggerate the influence of Ivan III on Mohammed-Emin and convey not the legal relationship of both sovereigns, but rather the actual state of affairs when they decide to call Mohammed-Emin the assistant of the Grand Duke.

Solovyov says: “Magmet-Amin’s hand-me-down relations with the Grand Duke of Moscow are not expressed at all in the forms of their letters ... But despite the equality in forms, Ivanova’s letters to Magmet-Amin contain orders.”

At the same time, he refers to the presentation of the Russian government addressed to the Khan in the following form:

“You would have commanded all your people in Kazan and in all your land so that.”

We cannot in any way recognize this form as an order - rather, it is an expression of a wish: not being able to issue its own orders within the Kazan Khanate, a foreign government expresses its wish that the khan issue an appropriate order.

Even more inaccurate are S. M. Solovyov's ideas about the financial relationships between the two governments. He says:

“A well-known tax was imposed on the Kazan volosts, which went to the Moscow treasury and was collected by Moscow officials; so Magmet-Amen complained to the Grand Duke that some Fedor Kiselev oppresses the inhabitants of Tsivil, takes extra duties.

In fact, in diplomatic correspondence, it was not about any tax to the Moscow treasury from the Kazan volosts, but about customs duties, which Russian border officials charged Kazanians in Nizhny and Murom with a surplus against the established tariff, and this circumstance forced both Tsivil residents and other Kazan people to travel with goods through the Mordovian and Cheremis lands, bypassing Russian cities and avoiding paying duties, because for which the correspondence itself arose.

Formally equal sovereigns, completely independent of one another, regulated their relations by treaties, which were sealed by an oath. This oath was also a pretext for distortion historical facts Russian authors. When the treaty was sealed, the Kazan government took an oath, but not to the Grand Duke, but to its treaty. This is confirmed by the fact that the Russian sovereign, in turn, gave the kiss of the cross at the conclusion of treaties between the two states.

Such were the formal relations between the Kazan Khanate and the Russian government, but in fact the degree of Russian influence on the affairs of the neighboring state fluctuated to a large extent, at times reaching really great heights and to a large extent justifying the attestation of some khans as assistants to the Grand Duke.

Almost the entire second period of the history of the Kazan Khanate is an era of dominance by the Russians, and the Russian party was in power. The agreements that regulated relations between Moscow and Kazan in this period usually included three conditions: the Kazan government pledged 1) not to fight against Russia, 2) not to choose a new khan for itself without the consent of the Grand Duke, 3) to protect the interests of the Russian people who were in the khanate .

Thus, the relations of the two states constituted an alliance, and the treaty meant to guarantee peace between them and the invariability existing relationships, - this was ensured by the consent of the allies to every change of government that could entail a change foreign policy.

As for the relationship between the Kazan government and Russian citizens, the latter were in the khanate in the position of citizens of the most favored power, as it were, and enjoyed the patronage of the local government, which was supposed to protect their interests.

This clause of the agreement indicates that a significant number of Russian people lived within the Kazan Khanate - merchants, industrialists and entrepreneurs, and that the Russian government tried to ensure their safety, the inviolability of goods, compensation for losses and other trade interests.

In the event of a war, all these persons became victims of a hostile state, people turned into slaves, goods were plundered, their capitals perished. The Russian government sought to eliminate the very possibility of war and guarantee a lasting peace.

This predominance of commercial interests is strongly voiced in the treaties, and the diplomatic negotiations of this era were crowned at last with the conclusion " eternal peace» between both states (1512). If, on the political side, the situation actually changed little when the government changed in Kazan, then in essence the whole thing came down to a struggle for markets, and the desire of the Russian government to ensure the interests of industry and trade quite clearly emphasizes the economic nature of the rivalry between the two states.

All interventions of the Russian government in the affairs of the Kazan Khanate were conditioned by the desire to seize the Volga region as a market. Everywhere economic demands come forward, the desire to guarantee profits for Russian entrepreneurs, and for a long time the Russian government, content with economic advantages, did not combine with them demands for territorial concessions.

The government of Mohammed-Emin sincerely complied with the terms of the concluded agreement. Soon after accession to the throne, the young khan got married; the daughter of the Nogai prince Musa was chosen as the bride; but before the marriage was concluded, the Kazan government found it necessary to ask the allied Russian sovereign if he had anything against this marriage, which was largely an act of foreign policy and, under unfavorable circumstances, could cause diplomatic complications.

The choice of the bride did not cause any protest, and the marriage was concluded. In 1490, in alliance with the Russian and Crimean governments, the citizens of Kazan took part in the war against the Sarai Khanate. The united Moscow-Kazan army, with a detachment of Kasimov Tatars, made a successful campaign and repelled the attack of the Sarai army on Crimean Khanate. The Russian party, which seized power with the help of foreign troops, was not popular in the country.

Despite the execution of the most prominent leaders, the eastern party was not destroyed, and by the mid-1490s, opposition to the government was fully formed. The opposition was headed by 4 representatives of the Kazan aristocracy - the princes Kel-Ahmed (Kalimet), Urak, Sadyr and Agish. The Eastern Party decided to rely on military support from its natural allies - the eastern neighbors. The Siberian prince Mamuk was designated as a candidate for the Khan's throne.

The Siberian government of Khan Ibak supported Kazan emigrants and oppositionists. In the spring of 1495, the applicant moved to Kazan with a large army, but the Kazan government, having learned about the enemy’s movement, informed the Moscow government and asked for the support of the allied army. The Russian government sent a border detachment from Nizhny to help.

When the Russians approached Kazan, the leaders of the Eastern Party decided to flee the capital so as not to be subjected to repression and to lead the further course of events. They succeeded in doing this. The Russian detachment entered Kazan and prepared for its defense, but the Siberian army, informed by the emigrants of the arrival of reinforcements, suspended its offensive.

Believing that the danger had already passed, the Russian detachment left Kazan and returned to Russia. Then the eastern party informed its like-minded people, and the Siberian army approached Kazan with a quick movement. The capital surrendered without resistance.

Mikhail KHUDYAKOV

The beginning of the second chapter "The era of the Russian protectorate (1487-1551)"

Selection prepared by L.AGEEVA

"Kazan stories", No. 22-23, 2004

/jdoc:include type="modules" name="position-6" />

Birthday 03 September 1894

archaeologist, researcher of the history and culture of the peoples of the Volga region

Biography

Born in the small town of Malmyzh, in the Vyatka province, in a well-born and wealthy Russian merchant family. He graduated from the first Kazan gymnasium with a gold medal (1906-1913), studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of Kazan University (1913-1918). In 1918-1924 he worked in Kazan: as a school teacher, librarian of the Society of History, Archeology and Ethnography at Kazan University, since 1919 - the curator of the archaeological department, then head of the historical and archaeological department of the provincial museum, taught at the North-Eastern Archaeological and Ethnographic Institute. From 1920 he also worked in the museum department of the People's Commissariat for Education of the Tatar ASSR; one of the organizers and secretaries of the Scientific Society of Tatar Studies. Participated in the organization of the museum in his native Malmyzh. In the 1920s he published a number of historical, ethnographic and archaeological works on the history of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples of the region. A special role is played by "Essays on the history of the Kazan Khanate", published in 1923.

Khudyakov's work was one of the first works of Russian historians devoted to the Kazan Khanate, whose history in the works of prominent historians of the previous generation was considered exclusively in the context of Russian history. His view differed from the works of previous authors in that the author sympathizes with the Tatar people and shows the policy of the Moscow state as predatory and colonial. At the same time, he tries to maintain scientific objectivity. In his work, the author expressed his gratitude to a number of orientalists who apparently shared his concepts to some extent: Gayaz Maksudov and G. S. Gubaidullin, N. N. Firsov, M. I. Lopatkin, S. G. Vakhidov.

In 1923, a prominent Bolshevik, M.Kh. After these events, Khudyakov leaves Kazan. From 1925 he lived and worked in Leningrad as a researcher at the State Public Library. In 1926-1929 he studied at the graduate school of the State Academy of the History of Material Culture (GAIMK). In 1927 he took part in the work of the Middle Volga expedition in Chuvashia. During the 1920s he wrote down the Udmurt epic. From 1929 he taught at the Leningrad University, from 1931 an assistant professor at LILI and the Leningrad Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History (LIFLI). In 1929-1933 he was the scientific secretary and researcher of the Commission for the Study of the Tribal Composition of the Population of the USSR under the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Since 1931, a researcher of the 1st category of the GAIMK (an institute of pre-class society), since 1933 he moved to the sector of the feudal formation. In 1930-32, critical accusations of “sultangalievism” and “Turkic nationalism” were brought against him, which were limited to public “studies”. In 1931, he took part in the "criticism" of the arrested archaeologist S. I. Rudenko. He actively promoted Marrism, which enjoys official support. In 1936, without defending a dissertation, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences and the title of a full member of the Institute of Pre-Class Society of the GAIMK.

On September 9, 1936, he was arrested by the NKVD Directorate of the Leningrad Region under Article 58-8, 11 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR as "an active participant in the counter-revolutionary Trotskyist-Zinoviev terrorist organization"). On December 19, 1936, by an exit session of the Supreme Commissariat of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, he was sentenced to capital punishment, with confiscation of all personal property. Shot on the same day in Leningrad.

The works of M. G. Khudyakov were banned and removed from libraries. He was rehabilitated in 1957, but his works were not republished. The first step towards the return of his works from obscurity was the publication in the Tatar language of some of his works ("Essays ..." and individual articles) on the pages of the youth magazine "Idel" starting in 1989. The second edition of the book was published in 1991.

Popular in category: