Inherent to the Polish narrative around Polish-Caucasian brotherhood within the Polish ethnopolitical myth, is the belief in the momentousness of Polesâ contributions to modernising the Caucasus, and to developing scientific knowledge of the region. There are quite a few scholars propagating this thesis. Grzegorz Piwnicki took the position that Poles even played a significant role in âcivilising the Caucasus countriesâ (Piwnicki 2001: 232; idem 2001a: 124). The historianâs position concerned Polish soldiers serving in the ranks of the tsarist army in the Caucasus, who, according to him, âwere educated people and distinguished by their personal cultureâ, and many of them also being sensitive to beauty (Piwnicki 2001: 203, 232â233; idem 2011: 265). Elsewhere, Piwnicki claimed that, compared to other nationalities, Polish soldiers distinguished themselves by their cultural, scientific, and social life, which came out of their relatively higher-than-average education (Piwnicki 2001: 125); the researcher also noted:
They were synonymous with great professionals. Anywhere they found themselves, Poles made their civilisational contribution. To this day, in many cities throughout the Caucasus, the contribution of Polish soldiers to this regionâs civilisational development is remembered. (Piwnicki 2001: 233; idem 2001a: 124)
In his works, the researcher stressed that Poles in the Caucasus displayed a high mental level (Piwnicki 2001: 235), and âall [â¦] Poles who, for various reasons, found themselves in the Caucasus, contributed to its economic, cultural, and civilisational developmentâ (Piwnicki 2001: 192; Piwnicki 2002a: 141).
An advocate of similar views was Andrzej Chodubski, who believed that âthe distinctive feature of all Poles residing in the Caucasus in the 19th and 20th centuries is the so-called cult of modernity; they commonly regard themselves as the bearers of progress, of civilisationâ, and during their stay in the Caucasus they spread technical progress and education (Chodubski 1995: 77; idem 2000b: 236â237, 227, 239; idem 2005: 120â121; idem 2005c: 65, 72; idem 2006: 21; idem 2006a: 118; idem 2012a: 178). Per the researcher, it was Polish soldiersâ education that influenced the idea among the tsarist authorities to send them to this region, where they were to carry out a âcivilising missionâ (Chodubski 2000: 412; idem 2000b: 239). For this reason, the Poles â in the academicâs view â made an important contribution to its development, and this was, to his mind, of import because âthe Caucasus in the early 19th century was a backward region of the world in terms of civilisationâ (for example: Chodubski 2005: 114; idem 2006b: 107). He also pointed out that âPoles in the Caucasus have been among the intellectual elite for generationsâ (Chodubski 2005a: 21; idem 2005b: 177) and âagainst the backdrop of the various peoples in the Caucasus, Poles alongside Georgians stood out for their high degree of cultural development, while the Muslim peoples were the most âculturally deprivedââ (Chodubski 2001a: 152). For this reason, Poles in the 19th-century Caucasus âattracted the attention of the local intelligentsia, whom they impressed with their attitude, education, and level of mindâ (Chodubski 2000b: 232). In addition, they âintroduced new patterns, values, judgements, behaviours through their work, activity, and attitudesâ (Chodubski 2000b: 239). Consequently, âit was very difficult to find a domain in the 19th century in which Poles did not excelâ (Chodubski 1984: 4) in this region. Analogous opinions are also presented with regard to specific parts of the Caucasus â Poles were said to have significantly influenced the civilisational transformation in Azerbaijan or to have made an overwhelming contribution to the civilisational development of Georgia (ChudziÅska-Parkosadze 2012: 422; Olszewski 2012: 127; RohoziÅski 2018: 251). At the same time, Poles were to make such a contribution to the regionâs development that they were universally respected and enjoyed the affection of the Caucasians (Piwnicki 2001: 11; Chodubski 2005a: 41; idem 2016a: 68).
Complementing the narrative of Polesâ contribution to the Caucasusâ civilisational development is painting them as the founders of Caucasus studies (Chodubski 2000c: 59; idem 2003b: 141; idem 2012a: 185; Furier 2009: 11; Koseski 2002: 35; Piwnicki 2001: 235). In Poland, special scholarly merit in this area is attributed to Jan Potocki, which is linked to a journey to the Caucasus that he went on in late 1797 and early 1798. He kept a diary over its course, which was published in 1828 in Paris under the title Voyage dans les steps dâAstrakhan et du Caucase.
The perception of Potocki as a meritorious Caucasus expert is not only a contemporary phenomenon, given that Wiktor Gomulicki, one of the most important contributors within Polish positivism, already portrayed him as such at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. In his opinion, Potocki devoted an entire year to a comprehensive study of the Caucasus, its people, and its history, which is why the description drawn up by this traveller is of âprimary historical importanceâ (Gomulicki 1900: 1032). In another article, in which Gomulicki reviewed the work Obrazy Kaukazu by Edward Strumpf,1 he accused its author of failing to mention the âillustrious predecessor in this field, the first Pole, and reputedly also the first European, to have revealed a century ago this then mysterious land: the brilliant Jan Potockiâ (Gomulicki 1900: 406). In writing Jan Potocki was presented as an outstanding researcher of the Caucasus also during Polandâs communist period. In the 1970s, Jan FabiaÅski regarded him as one of the first researchers into the ethnography of the Caucasian peoples, whose insights belong among the loftiest scientific achievements (FabiaÅski 1971: 279â280).
Currently, a similar view is held by historians dealing with the Caucasus. One such academic is Andrzej Furier, who takes the view that Potockiâs depiction of the Caucasus contains the first modern Polish description of the North Caucasian peoplesâ customs. For many years â claims the historian â it remained also the only description of its kind within the European literature (Furier 1997: 122). Discussing the Polish edition of Charles Kingâs book âGhost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasusâ, he griped that although the American historianâs work included a description of the activities undertaken by Western scholars in the Caucasus, the author did not say a word about Potockiâs expedition. In Furierâs opinion, however, it was of great significance for the development of Caucasus studies (Furier 2014: 128). Similar notions about Potocki can also be found in publications by other historians (Lewandowski 1998: 169; Piwnicki 2001: 226; idem 2001a: 115).
It is important to trace the state of education of the Polish soldiers who ended up in the region for any analysis of the âCaucasus being civilisingâ by Poles, alongside their uniqueness in terms of education. This is because more than 50% of the Poles residing in the Caucasus at the end of the 19th century were military men. Bohdan Baranowski, on the basis of a census conducted in 1897, calculated that at that time 9,000 out of 15,000 Poles served in the army in broadly-defined Transcaucasia (i.e. Baku, Elizavetpol, Erivan, Tiflis, and Kutais governorates, as well as Kars Oblast) (Baranowski 1982: 291). It must be assumed that in earlier periods the proportions in favour of military men were even higher, in the 1830s probably standing at around 95%, albeit we do not possess exact data on this.
A decrease in the proportion of military personnel among Poles residing in the Caucasus occurred after 1855 when conscripts stopped being dispatched to the region, which was linked to conscriptionâs discontinuation in the Kingdom of Poland. It was also at this time that the number of Polish economic migrants arriving in the Caucasus in search of work began to increase. The Polish community at the end of the 19th century was already diverse. In addition to the still dominant group of military men, there resided a large group of domestic servants, as well as administrative, judicial, and law-enforcement workers, railwaymen, doctors, and teachers. Their presence was part of the tsarist policy of increasing the Christian, most of all Slavic, population in this land, which was afforded executive positions in the administration.
The most important thing, therefore, to confirm or deny the thesis of the âPolesâ above-average educationâ and the âPolish soldiersâ contribution to the civilisational development of the Caucasusâ is to examine soldiersâ education. WiesÅaw Caban noted that the main cohort sent to the tsarist army from the Kingdom of Poland in the 1830s and 1840s came from the countryside. The historian calculated that, for example, in the years 1839â1854 â 83% of conscripts to the tsarist army from the Kielce district came from the countryside. According to the researcher, among the recruits of that period, only a few percent at the least could write and read at a basic level. After conducting archival queries, he concluded that up until the first half of the 19th century it is extremely difficult to determine illiteracy among soldiers from the Kingdom of Poland, as the box where literacy was meant to be marked in the conscription questionnaire was filled out inaccurately and very often oneâs profession was written there instead. During the Crimean War, in turn, when conscription was carried out hastily, this box was not checked at all (Caban 2001: 17, 70â72). Official statistics only appear for later years.
The data presented above shows that the illiteracy characterising recruits from the Kingdom of Poland in the second half of the 1870s and early 1880s was representative of the entire Russian Empire. A very similar phenomenon was observed in subsequent years. ÃnciklopediÄeskij slovarʾ Brokgauza i Ãfrona provides data on this subject. The 1893 edition gives the average percentage of illiterates among recruits drafted into the army in 1884â1890 from 72 governorates and oblasts of the Russian Empire. The smallest number of illiterates came from the Estonia Governorate with 4.85%, the Livonia Governorate with 5.25%, and Yaroslavl Governorate with 36.58%. Among the governorates comprising the Kingdom of Poland, the smallest number of illiterates came from Warsaw Governorate, which ranked 24th on the list with 76.17%, PÅock Governorate was 36th with 81.06% of illiterates among recruits, Åomża Governorate 46th with 83.75% of illiterates, Piotrków Governorate 47th with 83.88% of illiterates, Siedlce Governorate 48th with 83.98% of illiterates, and Kielce Governorate 56th with 83.98% of illiterates, Kalisz Governorate 57th with 86.18% of illiterates, SuwaÅki Governorate 58th with 86.37% of illiterates, Lublin Governorate 69th with 89.92% of illiterates, and in 71st place came Radom Governorate with 92.96% of illiterates (it may be added that the last spot at 72nd with the highest percentage of illiterates in the Russian Empire among recruits was Ufa Governorate with a rate of 93.59%) (Rubakin 1893: 537â546). From the above list, it thus follows that the vast majority of Poles who found themselves in the Caucasus in the 19th century were rural illiterates, and that the governorates of the Kingdom of Poland, apart from Warsaw, were in the bottom half of the list of administrative units supplying the fewest illiterates to the Russian army.
Percentage of illiterates among conscripts in the Russian Empire
Source: own work based on: âVseobÅ¡Äaya voinskaya povinnostʾ v Rossijskoj imperii za pervoe desyatilenieâ, StatistiÄeskij Vremennik seriya III, vyp. 12, SPb. 1886
Analysing data from the census conducted in 1897, Marek MÄ dzik noted that, as late as the end of the 19th century, the majority of Poles in Georgia were illiterate â 44% of over 8,200 people living there could write and read (MÄ dzik 1987: 36).
On the issue of culture in the Caucasus, the important role of Polish women is also raised â as Chodubski quite often did â writing, among other things, that they brought European civilisation to the region, promoted social change, and actively participated in socio-cultural life (Chodubski 2000b: 238; idem 2005c: 73). He referred here to the work of Gralewski, claiming that Polish women âshone like stars of devotion [â¦]. Women of other nationalities: Georgian, Armenian, Persian, Muscovite, even sought their acquaintance, and those who obtained it highly valued this relationshipâ (Chodubski 2003d: 211).
The problem with the above argumentation, however, is that the researcher took a selective approach to Gralewskiâs memoirs and picked from them only those passages that supported his assumption of Poles being universally respected in the Caucasus. In doing so, he omitted those passages that contradicted this thesis. The Polish exile, describing the Polish families living in Port-Petrovsk,2 wrote:
As we approached Frankaâs house, it being Sunday and after lunch, the voice of a violin struck our ears. A kujawiak was being played.3 [â¦] So the merry folk danced two kujawiaks, and in this revelry we were reminded of our tavern, if it were not for the fact that to ten lads there was only Franka, half-drunk at that and bearing the stains of a fast life on her visage. We left after wishing them a pleasant time, and my companion ruminated on that fate which yearly hurls thousands of people into this abyss of odd Caucasian life and mixes it with the sediments of Russian filth. (Gralewski 2015: 108â109)
In turn, about the Polish families whose men served in the Shirvan regiment:
After my being exiled to the Caucasus, I was assigned to the Shirvan regiment, one of those squalid nests where the nature of uncorrupted man flinches at the sight of atrociousness. Among the military families, there were about twenty Polish ones, of which only six belonged to the officer class. Polish soldier families suffered from an epidemic of general corruptness. (Gralewski 2015: 186)
In contrast, writing about Russian and Polish women, Gralewski stated on the whole:
As soldiersâ wives, the women here were brought with their children at their own request from Russia and Poland at government expense. Abysmal poverty was usually the primary reason for these womenâs immorality. The second reason for the indifferent view towards the shamelessness of their wives was the soldiersâ lack of dignity and desire for lifeâs comforts. Passions also played their part, however. Quarrels and fights were common, especially during winter, when active battalions usually returned from expeditions. Yearly, atrocious crimes occurred: people killed each other, slaughtered and poisoned. These latter incidents were influenced not only by soldiersâ but also by officersâ wives. Hardly any household lacked amorous intrigues, and as such every military settlement was a nest of wickedness, filth, and shamelessness. Every moral person looked upon this with sadness and deplored the society that sent all women, except officersâ wives, to the hospital each week for medical care. It came as no surprise that the locals despised these cattle, that they spat on them, that they called them vile swine! ⦠And to be surprised that they wished not to permit this cattle into their dwellings, amongst their families! ⦠Among the Sunnis, similar transgressions resulted in stoning. A punishment terribly moving to any human, but a punishment that expressed their inordinate notions around a womanâs duties of chastity. (Gralewski 2015: 185â186)
The problem with promoting an image of Polish womenâs elevated role in the Caucasus is the lack of research material that would allow generalising judgements to be formulated. A contemporary researcher has at their disposal only a very scant number of opinions drawn up by people who resided in the Caucasus in the 19th century. In them, one can find sections both quoting examples of educated, ethically-behaving Polish women and those displaying their demoralisation. However, taking into account that several thousand of them resided in the Caucasus at the time, the researcher is not able to analyse their attitudes comprehensively. One can cite only fragments referring to individual cases, but we are unable to determine to what extent they were typical of this community. Opinions maintaining the view that the conduct of Polish women was, in terms of âmoralityâ or âattachment to national cultureâ particularly different from the attitudes of women of other nationalities, are to be doubted. No research has ever been carried out in this regard.
As for the view that Poles made specific and exceptional contributions to knowledge of the Caucasus, it too is poorly argued. Probably the most distorted in this respect are the merits of Jan Potocki. It should be emphasised that he did not carry out research in the Caucasus, and his expedition was not scientific, but for the purposes of tourism and sightseeing. For this reason, Potocki, in light of available sources, may deserve at most the title of the first known Polish tourist in the Caucasus. Potocki was certainly a very well-educated man as well as an insightful observer of the surrounding world, interested in the Caucasian reality. Thus, his diary contains many valuable insights, but it cannot be considered a scientific work. Nevertheless, it is a source from which the contemporary historian or ethnologist can obtain information on the peoples living in the foothills of the North Caucasus â Potocki chose not to venture into the mountains of the Main Caucasus Ridge.
Potocki was certainly not the first European to travel through the Caucasus and write a description of it (at least of a portion of the region). Many had done so before him, and one of the first to do just that was William of Rubruck, a Flemish Franciscan, who in the mid-13th century was sent by King Louis IX of France on a diplomatic mission to the court of the great Mongolian Möngke Khan, residing in Samarkand. William returned to Europe, travelling through the western Caspian coastlands and Transcaucasia. His account was first published in Paris in the mid-17th century. After William of Rubruck, in the Caucasus resided, among others, the Dominican Johannes de Galonifontibus, Bishop of Nakhichevan from 1377. He visited the western part of the Caucasus, including Abkhazia and Mingrelia. Several works on western Mingrelia were written as a consequence of the proselytising carried out in the area by Catholic clerics in the 17th century (Hewitt 2003: 199). Another story is linked to the German Johann Schiltberger. He was a crusaderâs squire and in 1386 fell into enemy hands at the Battle of Nicopolis. During his captivity he travelled through, among other places, Circassia, Abkhazia, and Mingrelia. After his release and return to Germany, he penned his memoirs, which were largely devoted to his stay in the Caucasus. They were first published in the second half of the 15th century (Beazley: 1911: 326). Among other travellers who published works containing a description of the Caucasus, the better known were Adam Olearius, Jean Chardin, John Bell, Andreyan Lopukhin, and Jacob Reineggs. Prior to Jan Potockiâs trip to the Caucasus, a number of publications on the region of a scientific nature had also appeared. One of the first was published in 1502 in Venice by the Genoese historian and ethnographer Giorgio Interiano. It was entitled La vita: sito deâ Zichi, chiamiti Ciarcassi: historia notabile and was the result of the authorâs journey to the Adyghe that he made in the second half of the 15th century. Among later works to gain recognition were, among others, those by Johann Gustav Gaerber, Fyodor Soimonov, Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin, Johann Anton Güldenstädt, Peter Simon Pallas, or Friedrich Marschall von Bieberstein. Before Potockiâs diary was published appeared the works of Heinrich Julius Klaproth â one of the most eminent Caucasus scholars and orientalists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Compared to the publications by the scholars mentioned, Potockiâs output on Caucasian matters is more than modest. Although he included a great deal of interesting cultural information (e.g. on Ingush religion), this should be treated more as incidental details obtained by an educated and curious man rather than scientific research. Jan Potocki attained information from people he met by chance, often on vodka-drinking occasions, which he did not conceal in his diary. Despite Furierâs reproaches to Charles King for not mentioning Potockiâs expedition to the Caucasus, the American historianâs choice is understandable. For a non-Polish researcher, it will not be of much interest, especially given that it was not important for scientific advancement.
Nor can Jan Potocki be regarded as the first Pole to leave extensive notes on the Caucasus. In this respect, the Jesuit Tadeusz KrusiÅski holds primacy. This missionary, diplomat, and historian, who lived at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, was sent by his holy order to Persia in 1705. And although it was this country and the Persian-Afghan War that were the main focus of the monkâs interest, he also devoted numerous sections of his extensive works to Georgia, Dagestan, and Shirvan â writing about the customs and relations between the inhabitants of these areas. KrusiÅskiâs works have been translated from Latin into many languages but not into Polish, which may also indicate that Caucasus studies do not enjoy much appreciation in Poland.4
As far as Potockiâs scholarly activity is concerned, he was already criticised in the early 20th century for his lack of accuracy and systematicity. It was observed that he often failed to separate invention from fact and jotted down details without examining them closely, presenting them in a false light (UÅaszyn 1902: 22). Similar charges could be applied to Potockiâs notes on the Caucasus if one chose to treat them as scientific. Their author wrote down what he heard, without verification or a desire to uncover the essence of an issue. Turkologist Jan Reychman, however, recognized Potockiâs important contribution to the development of Caucasus studies, which usually escapes writers celebrating his research achievements. Namely, the Poleâs unquestionable contribution to science was his material assistance and acting as patron to the initiator of linguistic and ethnographic research on Caucasian peoples, Julius Heinrich Klaproth. It was thanks to Potockiâs intercession that the Saint Petersburgian Academy of Sciences decided to send and fund the German scholarâs expedition. So it was precisely these activities of Potocki that were an important contribution to the development of Caucasus studies, to a much greater extent than his independent work. The closeness of the Poleâs and Germanâs relationship in Russian service is evidenced by the fact that it was Klaproth who, after his patronâs death, published his work âVoyage dans les steps dâAstrakhan et du Caucaseâ in Paris in 1829, which he annotated with personal comments.
There is one additional important point about Jan Potocki that Polish scholars tend to overlook, but that Western scholars have noticed: namely that the Poleâs views lined up with Russian imperialism. The French historian Daniel Beauvois did discern this. He counted Potocki among a generation that lived through the partitions of Poland quite painlessly and immediately began attempting to form a wider Slavic community within the Russian Empire (the researcher counted Adam Czartoryski among the same generation). Beauvois noted that Potocki communicated to Catherine II praise for Valery Zubov, who had been commander-in-chief of Russian troops in the Caucasus from 1796. The Pole suggested to the tsarina that just as Pomponius had accompanied Pompey on his expedition to Armenia, so too he could act as historiographer for the victorious Zubov. Because the new tsar would dismiss the general, Potocki was unable to accompany the military man to the Caucasus, going instead as a private citizen. In Daniel Beauvoisâ view, he became a theorist of Russiaâs conquest of the East. The researcher saw a clear political purpose in the Poleâs ethnographic descriptions â he sought out a crack in local arrangements and customs through which âcivilisationâ, i.e. Russian order, could be introduced. Although Potocki was interested in the minute details of the local peoplesâ lives, he looked down on all these âbackward barbariansâ. Beauvois argued that, considering the local peoplesâ primitiveness emphasised by the Pole, the âright to civiliseâ was more than justified. He also noted that Potocki showed no mercy towards the invaded and repressed peoples, but portrayed them as a âband of thievesâ and a threat to âcivilisationâ. He quoted relevant passages from Potockiâs work in this context and contrasted them with Russian propaganda, which in the 1990s similarly justified the need to intervene in Chechnya. The French historian noted that when Adam Czartoryski became Russiaâs foreign minister in 1804, Jan Potocki set about planning to create a handbook on Asian relations for the ministry. Beauvois came to possess a fragment of this work. According to the researcher, it contained guidelines that boiled down to one thing: finding as soon as possible a pretext to subdue the peoples of the Caucasus, invade Persia, and occupy Armenia. Furthermore, per the French researcher, Potockiâs work was written in the spirit of Russian imperialism and colonialism not only in relation to the Caucasus but the whole Eurasian area (Beauvois 1995: 49â65).
One of the few Polish researchers who detected the above problem was Ludwik Widerszal. He pointed out that the first Polish travellers were not very enthusiastic about the Caucasus. As an example, he cited a passage from Potockiâs diary, in which the author noted that banditry was highly respected throughout the Caucasus, and that in Kabarda no âprince can sit quietly at home and avoid disgrace for more than a week ⦠so he must rob either the Ossetians and Chechens ⦠or [plunder] the other bank of the Kuban, or the Russian border or even other princes, his relativesâ (Widerszal 2011: 220).
I concur with the above opinions surrounding Jan Potockiâs activities. Moreover, it is worth noting that authors promoting the view of Polish merits in civilising the Caucasus are influenced by the myth of evolution/myth of progress, which, among others, Jerzy Topolski wrote on. He noted that the development of evolutionism, i.e. the notion of a transition from less to more developed forms, was influenced by statesâ colonial expansion and the nationalism that emerged at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. The latter focused over time on emphasising ethnic, even racial differences, and thus contributed to thinking in terms of there existing a model nation, âwhich other peoples standing for whatever reason on lower rungs of (mainly civilisational) development, in the sense of Western civilisation, can only just begin evolving towardsâ (Topolski 2008: 245â246). This is also how the fundamental myth â the myth of evolution â was born. Per the methodologist, the bearers of this myth compare certain territories exhibiting particular structures with others, making it clear that some are more or less modern, or more or less developed. Behind this, however, hides the conviction that evolution is inevitable or desired. In Topolskiâs opinion, with which I identify, centrisms are a concrete form of the myth of evolution. In our case, that being: Polonocentrism. Subscribing to this academicâs views, opinions around Polesâ contribution to development (economic, civilisational, etc.) can also be situated within the myth of sublimity, which occurs alongside the myth of evolution. In this case, violence organised by the state â in the analyses I have presented, by the military units and official apparatus of Tsarist Russia that Poles were an important part of â ceases to be, in the terms proposed by Topolski, seen in terms of war, crime, misfortune, and conquest, becoming instead an element of other concepts, such as defence, raison dâétat (Topolski 2008: 245â246), or in our specific example, âcivilisational developmentâ.
I believe that the myth of evolution formulated by Topolski leads to cultural racism as formulated by Shnirelman. According to this anthropologist, in Western Europe, racism in its archetypal form was a consequence of colonialism. Thus, the external factor related to territorial expansion into ethnically foreign territory played the most important role in its formation. The researcher concluded that until the mid-20th century, biological components were key to racism, being then supplanted by cultural components. For this reason, contemporary racism is often not about the racial superiority underlying classical racism, but about cultural differences between particular groups (Å nirelʾman 2011: 45â46, 460).
According to Viktor Shnirelman, contemporary racism has the following characteristics: 1) it shifts the emphasis from biology to culture and cultural values; 2) cultural differences, which are exaggerated, reified, and declared as âcultural incompatibilityâ, are put in a hierarchy; 3) racist sentiments are expressed in a covert form and are difficult to recognise. Consequently, racists believe that there is a hierarchy of cultures, where the culture of the dominant population is given a higher place, which allows discrimination against ethnic minorities and immigrants (Å nirelʾman 2011: 145â146).
I consider Shnirelmanâs claim about the existence of âscientific racismâ, spread by academics (or more precisely: by sorcerers in Jerzy Kmitaâs terms), of relevance. According to the anthropologist, many of them are not convinced racists, but do believe that they engage in research and establishing âobjective realityâ. In his view, âscientific racismâ should be seen as an important, but not sole component of the doctrinal racism developed and popularised by politicians, writers, journalists, and researchers who present rational arguments for everyday irrational stereotypes (Å nirelʾman 2011: 465). In light of Shnirelmanâs above claims, I classify opinions that Poles âcivilisedâ the Caucasus as bearing the hallmarks of cultural racism.
It is worth noting that the peculiar pride in accentuations of Polesâ participation in âcivilisingâ the Caucasus is not accompanied by the reflection that, in reality, their actions were associated with the process of Russification. The opinion that Poles bore some âcivilisingâ merit tacitly assumes that before their appearance in this region, which occurred thanks to the Russian aggression on these lands, it was inhabited by âsavagesâ who did not generate presumed âcivilisationâ. This position is fully in keeping with propaganda of the tsarist era, when authorities used similar slogans to explain the need to conquer the Caucasus. It is true that the percentage of Poles with an academic education was higher than the percentage of representatives of Caucasian peoples who had one. However, this is no âcivilisationalâ indicator. After all, the percentage of educated was higher in Prussia than in Poland, and it was in the Polish territories incorporated into the Prussian partition that illiteracy was virtually eliminated (depending on the region it did not exceed 5%), while in the independent Rzeczpospolita it stood at 33% in 1921 (StaÅczyk 2016: 11). It is nonetheless difficult to find a single Polish author who would advance the thesis that it was the Prussians who âcivilisedâ Poles in the 19th century.
The notion that Poles made some special contribution to scientific knowledge on the Caucasus is reinforced by the procedure of identifying memoir authors in terms of professions clearly associated with science. Consequently, exiles the likes of Hipolit Jaworski, Mateusz Gralewski, or MichaÅ Butowd-Andrzejkowicz are presented as historians and ethnographers (Later-ChodyÅowa 2002: 47). Although their works contain valuable material for the researcher of 19th-century Caucasian history, they are diary-descriptive in nature and their authors were not associated with academia.
Attempts to exaggerate Polesâ merits for the Caucasus are not an exclusively contemporary phenomenon. They were observed as early as in the 19th century and should be associated above all with Tadeusz Åada-ZabÅocki, who in letters wrote about the scientific contribution of Poles to the regionâs elucidation. Leon Janiszewski, who also resided in the Caucasus, protested against this. In a letter to the publisher of PamiÄtnik Naukowo-Literacki, he stressed that Åada-ZabÅocki, âwith a single stroke of the pen, had conjured up a gang of historians, statisticians, ethnologists, geologists, orientalists, etc.â, even though reality differed significantly from this representation. Polish poets were also not held in such high esteem, in Janiszewskiâs opinion, as has been assumed. He did conclude that WÅadysÅaw Strzelnicki was a great poet, and spoke well of Wincent Dawid, but was reserved concerning others. Of Åada-ZabÅockiâs works he wrote that there was no âpuissant thoughtâ in them and âeverywhere his thought is a slave to superficial crudenessâ. He also remarked with little refinement of the manâs decision following military service, when Åada-ZabÅocki chose to remain on government service in the Caucasus: âhe accepted the station of salt works caretaker shortly before his death and ended his life over registers and columns â vanitas vanitatisâ. About Konstanty Zach, in turn, Janiszewski wrote that although he knew Persian, Tatar, and Turkic and had spent his whole life preparing to write a grammar of the latter, this was only a project, and he failed to advance beyond composing a title and meagre historical notes on the Tatar provinces. MichaÅ Andrzejkowicz, on the other hand, was, in Janiszewskiâs eyes, an industrious compiler. The Pole also wrote with reserve about his own self. He pointed out that in Åada-ZabÅockiâs letter he was listed as a poet, prose writer, and musician, but explained that although in the past he had indeed devoted himself much to poetry and created music as an amateur, he had since abandoned the former of these occupations, and was only connected with the latter in that he gave daily music lessons. He also admitted that literature would gain little if his works were published (Janiszewski 1850: 115).
In the pieces of Poles who resided in the Caucasus in the 19th century and wrote about the region, we find clear traces of the fact that they did not consider themselves to be researchers of the region. For example, WÅadysÅaw Strzelnicki in his introduction to the book Szkice Kaukazu noted:
I am not a researcher by profession. [â¦] I only make known to you [i.e. the readers â P.A.] and will make known that which I have experienced, have heard from knowledgeable people, have ultimately seen with my own eyes [â¦] during my wanderings done out of duty and not out of curiosity, already on war expeditions [â¦]. (Strzelnicki 1860a: 32)
A similar statement was made by Ignacy Dobrski, who wrote that the reader âwill encounter only faint sketches of this country, as well as a few incoherent thoughts thrown about, thoughts put down with a spurious pen and scribbled scratchily amidst the tedium and hardships of a wandererâs life in the Caucasusâ (Dobrski 1850: 7). The natural scientist Edward Strumpf also did not consider the trip he took to the Caucasus at the end of the 19th century to be scientific. In a book about it, he stressed: âAll parts of the Caucasus land I did not see, so I could not give a complete and comprehensive picture. I wrote down loose notes and impressions I experienced here and there, noted what I saw, what I managed to find outâ (Strumpf 1900: 9). It should be assumed that this was the case with almost all works by Polish authors from this period.
The popularity of the contemporary idea concerning the exceptional contribution of Poles to the culture of the Caucasus is also evidenced by an article that appeared in one of Polandâs most widely read editorial magazines, in which the author promoted the view that it was Kazimierz ÅapczyÅski, a Pole exiled to the Caucasus in the 19th century, who was the first to translate the Georgian epic âThe Knight in the Pantherâs Skinâ, and it was only from Polish that it was then translated into other languages of the world (Geremek 2008: 81). Polish, however, was not as popular as the author of the article presumed, for it to be the source from which the Georgian national epic was translated into other languages of the world. To date, it has been translated into some forty languages, most often either directly from Georgian or from Russian, not from Polish. Nevertheless, Polish was one of the first languages into which âThe Knight â¦â was translated. The first two short fragments of the poem were published in Polish translation in 1830 by Konstanty RduÅtowski (RduÅtowski 1830: 149â160). Kazimierz ÅapczyÅski, in turn, also published excerpts, albeit more extensively, in the periodical Biblioteka Warszawska in 1863. The first complete translation of a version of âThe Knight in the Pantherâs Skinâ was published in Poland in 1960 as a translation from Russian by Igor Sikirycki, and from Georgian by Jerzy Zagórski in 1976. A popular theory also persists that the Polish traduction is considered to be the first translation of âThe Knight â¦â into a European language (Kapla 2017: 16; Krawczyk-Wasilewska 1991: 10; RohoziÅski 2016: 22). This happens to be the information found, for example, on the Polish version of Wikipedia (Rycerz). This is not, however, strictly factual. The fragments translated by RduÅtowski were, admittedly, among the first, but not the first. Before him, Evgenii (Evfimii Bolkhovitinov), a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, also published a small fragment in Russian in 1802 (Bolxovitinov 1802: 90â91), while in French this was done in 1828 by the Kartvelologist Marie-Félicité Brosset (Brosset 1828: 277â294).
At the same time, one cannot deny the fact that in the 19th century, Poles did naturally contribute to scientific knowledge of the Caucasus, and my goal is not to negate this. In historical research, Siemion Broniewski holds an important, perhaps even the most important, place. He hailed from a Polish noble family that settled in the Smolensk Governorate (one could of course debate over to what extent he felt Polish, and to what Russian). Broniewski was born in 1763, and in the early 1790s he travelled to the Caucasus and joined the service of Count Valery Zubov. He took part in the Russo-Persian War, and in the early 1800s became administrator of the chancellery under Pavel Tsitsianov, commander-in-chief of the Russian army in the Caucasus. Broniewski was then given the post of Director of the Asiatic Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Saint Petersburg. The then minister Adam Czartoryski had Broniewski write a textbook on the history of Russiaâs diplomatic relations with the Caucasus countries and Persia. The result of this work is the publication IstoriÄeskie vypiski o snoÅ¡eniyax Rossii s Persieyu, Gruzieyu i voobÅ¡Äe s gorskimi narodami, v Kavkaze obitayuÅ¡Äimi, co vremen Ivana VasilʾeviÄa donyne. Siemion Broniewski also authored the two-volume work NovejÅ¡ie geografiÄeskie i istoriÄeskie izvestiya o Kavkaze, published in Moscow in 1823. It contains a great deal of material on the ancient and modern history of the peoples of the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe, plus materials on the geography, flora and fauna, and hydrology of the Caucasus. In addition, the author provided information on the archaeology and ethnography of the mountain tribes, including matters of religion. In doing so, he used a wide range of predecessorsâ works â Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Persian, Turkish, or Genoese historians and travellers, as well as Georgian, Chinese, Arab, and Persian chronicles. For a long time, Siemion Broniewskiâs work was the primary source of information on the Caucasus in Russia (Savelʾev 2010: 10â11). In Poland, however, he is virtually unknown, and his publications are hardly mentioned in the context of Poles writing on the Caucasus. This is probably due to the fact that he published all his works in Russian and was in the service of the tsar, which makes it more difficult to discern his Polish origins, all the more hindered by his unusual (for a Pole) name. If his pieces are mentioned, their authorship is attributed to WÅodzimierz Broniewski (Inglot 1957: 540; Occheli 2009: 241), who was in fact a relative of their real author, Siemion.
For Caucasian â mainly Turkic â folklore, the greatest contribution was made by Aleksander Chodźko, a poet and orientalist, who spent many years in Russian service working at consular posts in Rasht and Tehran, among other places. He collected Turkic folk songs, which he translated into European languages. He was one of the first to take up the study of the Talysh language (Calmard 1991). Tadeusz Åada-ZabÅocki also collected and translated Turkic folk songs, putting them into Polish (Reychman 1963: 126).
An unquestionable contribution to the knowledge of the Caucasus through the prism of the technical sciences was made by Józef Chodźko, Aleksanderâs brother. He was one of the main executors of this regionâs triangulation. He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general by the tsarist authorities for his merits in this regard. Józef Chodźko was also head and one of the founders of the Caucasus Branch of the Imperial Geographical Society, which, after the Poleâs retirement, established an award named after him for the best geographical work on the Caucasus. However, false information concerning Józef Chodźkoâs achievements also exists. For example, in Poland, one may encounter the view that he was the first person in the world to reach the summit of Ararat in 1850 (Chodubski 2000: 414; idem 2000a: 72; idem 2006: 14; idem 2012: 314; idem 2016: 13; idem 2016a: 59).5 In actuality, the mountain was first climbed in 1829 by an expedition of six people led by the German Friedrich Parrot, a professor at the University of Dorpat (Parrot 1846: 196).
Among Polish representatives of the technical sciences who made their presence felt in the Caucasus, Witold Zglenicki and PaweÅ Potocki also deserve mention. Their names are closely linked to the development of the oil industry on the Absheron Peninsula. The former was an employee of the Bakuvian Assay Office from 1891. He is known for his construction of an apparatus for measuring the curvature of wells, and also for his plans to extract oil from under the seabed on an industrial scale. The latter of these ideas, however, was not recognised by officials and was not implemented at the time. Zglenickiâs unquestionable merit was the delineation of oil-bearing plots â he discovered oil in more than 100 spots on the Absheron Peninsula (Adamczewski 2013: 183â204). Potocki, in turn, had been in charge of backfilling the bay of Bibiheybat from 1910, as the authorities concluded that this would be the most cost-effective way of extracting oil from the site. The Pole was such a respected specialist that he was left at his post even after the establishment of communist rule in Azerbaijan (AdamÄevski/Kuzavleva-AdamÄevska 2016: 51â60).
Poles in the Caucasus also made a name for themselves in the field of natural sciences, with Ludwik MÅokosiewicz holding primacy here. In Poland, he is portrayed as a biologist (e. g. Piwnicki 2000: 246; idem 2001: 229; idem 2011a: 122; idem 2012: 86), but although he had been fascinated by nature since childhood, he lacked any instruction in this field. During his military service, which he volunteered for, he was sent to the Caucasus at his own request, where he remained for the rest of his life. One of MÅokosiewiczâs greatest contributions to the region was collecting previously unknown specimens and sending them to European academics, who then described them (Hryniewiecki 1950: 138). One such case involved several Caucasian grouse attained on a hunt that had puzzled him by their uniqueness. So, he had them sent to Warsaw to ornithologist WÅadysÅaw Taczanowski. He in turn wrote a description of this new species of grouse and named it Lyrurus mlokosiewiczi to honour his friend (Potapov/Pavlova 2009: 889). Academics of the era did not regard MÅokosiewicz as a professional colleague, although they undoubtedly appreciated his merits. This is confirmed, for example, by publications of one of the most eminent Polish botanists, BolesÅaw Hryniewiecki. In his memoirs, he described MÅokosiewicz as a âlover of natureâ who, through his hospitality and knowledge of the region, helped researchers carry out scientific studies (Hryniewiecki 1949: 73).
Occasionally, the intellectual activity of the Polish intelligentsia in the Caucasus is used as an argument to assert its close relations with the local intelligentsia. This argument, however, is often unsubstantiated. In this regard, one flagship example is the relationship between Abbasgulu Bakikhanov and Tadeusz Åada-ZabÅocki. In Polish publications, one can find information that the two were connected through friendship and warm relations, evidenced by the fact that Åada-ZabÅocki translated a large portion of Bakikhanovâs work Gyulistan-i Iram into Russian (e. g. Piwnicki 2001: 121; idem 2003: 210â211). However, an analysis of the Poleâs letters shatters this picture of friendship between the two. In one such document, Åada-ZabÅocki wrote to one acquaintance:
A few days ago I took up the task of translating Abbasguluâs âHistory of the Transcaucasian Landâ from Persian into Russian. I am working under the authorâs supervision. [â¦] This task, which I have been forced to undertake ex officio, is now consuming every moment of my spare time.
And in another letter:
As I have just returned from expedition, I have not yet had time to gather my wits when I am saddled with thankless work, from which neither fame nor advantage to me, nor general benefit to the nation can arise. For several months I have been working on a translation into Russian of the âHistory of the Eastern Part of the Transcaucasian Landâ written by Colonel Abbasgulu Baku Khan. I do this work ex officio, under the guidance of its very author, so the fame and benefit will go to the author Abbasgulu himself. My name as the translator will not even be known. I kill about six hours per day over this tedious labour, and I am so disheartened that, to free myself from it for a short while, I took advantage of a fortunate circumstance two months ago and visited Great Armenia, which none of ours had visited before. (Filina/Ossowska 2007: 243â244, 254)
It is clear then from these letters that cooperation between Åada-ZabÅocki and Bakikhanov was not the result of friendship but of a top-down decision by the command, who instructed the Pole to take on the translation of the work into Russian.
At the same time, it is likely that Åada-ZabÅocki did have contacts with some representatives of the Georgian intelligentsia, such as the Romantic poets Mikhail Tumanov (Tumanishvili) and Nikoloz Baratashvili. However, too little research material has survived to modern day to analyse this issue in a broader context. This was evident to Mark Å»ywow, who was one of the first to take up the subject of relations between exiled Polish poets and Caucasian intellectuals, as early as the 1950s (Å»ywow 1959: 564â565). There is also no research to support the thesis that some exceptionally positive image of Polish culture has formed in the Caucasus, as no research has been carried out on this topic. One of the few initiatives in this regard took place in 2008. At that time, I prepared a questionnaire for students of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and Ilia State University. It was filled out by 159 respondents. One of the questions related to attitudes towards Polish culture. The respondents were asked to rate the nine cultures listed in the questionnaire on a scale from 1 (lowest rating) to 5 (highest rating). Georgian culture was rated best with an average score of 4.84, followed by Jewish culture with 3.61, Russian with 3.37, Arab with 3.36, Iranian with 3.18, Polish with 3.06, American with 2.9, Turkish with 2.72 and Armenian with 2.43 (AdamÄevski/Kuzavleva-AdamÄevska 2013: 113â134). Naturally, this survey had many shortcomings and the results cannot be considered representative. However, it was one of few studies that addressed the topic of Polish cultureâs perception in Georgia.
Edward Strumpf (1873â1901) was a Polish botanist. His work Obrazy Kaukazu (Images of the Caucasus), in which he described his journey to the Caucasus, was published in 1900.
Modern-day Makhachkala.
Kujawiak â a Polish folk dance originating from Kuyavia and derived from Kuyavian wedding rituals.
Among KrusiÅskiâs works (1675â1751), the most famous throughout Europe was Relatio de mutationibus Regni Persorum, published in 1727, which was translated from Latin into many European languages. In addition, he authored works like Chronicon peregrinantis seu historia ultimi belli Persarum cum Aghvanis published in 1731, Prodromus ad historiam revolutionis persicae from 1733, and Pragmatographia de legitymo usu ambrozyi tureckiei, to jest: Sposobu należytego zażywania kawy tureckiej, przez X. Tadeusza KrusiÅskiego S.J. Missyonarza Perskiego. Rzecz z rÄkopisma Jego wybrana y do druku podana z 1769 r.
It is interesting that this opinion appeared already in the 19th century. He reproduced it, among others: Zygmunt Rewkowski in his memories (see: Rewkowski 2011: 83).