Comp. by O. V. Karimov, Moscow: Russkaya razvedka Publ., 2014, 480 p.

In an article published at the end of 2013 in the journal "Ethnographic Review", the author of these lines wrote:: "History teaches that the attitude towards the figures of the past changes with the change of socio-political conditions in the country. This fully applies to Miklukho-Maklay. After he was proclaimed "a great Russian humanist scientist" in 1937, on the instructions of "above", his scientific achievements were exaggerated in scientific and popular publications, in films and on television, and his struggle against all types of colonialism and racism became truly epic. In a new era rich in dramatic upheavals in the history of our country, which began after the collapse of "real socialism" and the collapse of the USSR, the image of Miklukho-Maklay underwent a certain de-ideologization. Now it is possible to objectively assess his life path, social activities, personality and scientific heritage." The author expressed the opinion that in recent years, "with the strengthening of national-patriotic ideas in society, often planted" from above", " the process of reviving the cult of Miklukho-Maklay seems to have begun, this time as a great Russian patriot who not only made an outstanding contribution to world science, but also actively defended the interests of the Russian Federation. Russian empire, calling for strengthening Russia's geopolitical position in the Pacific Ocean through colonial expansion [Tumarkin, 2013, p. 99]. The author referred to two short articles [Aliev and Labetskaya, 2010; Aliev and Labetskaya, 2011].

This observation was confirmed sooner than expected. In the summer of 2014, a collection was published, the main author and compiler of which P. L. Belkov declared Miklukho-Maklay a great ethnographer and anthropologist, even "the greatest creator of ethnography as a special culture".

disciplines" [Old and new, 2013, p. 22]. Such enthusiastic descriptions have not appeared for several decades, since the cult of the "great Russian scientist-humanist" gradually stopped inflating after Stalin's death. And in the autumn of the same year, a peer-reviewed book appeared on the shelves of bookstores, in which an attempt was made to "look at the activities of this great traveler from the other side" - to portray him as an outstanding scout (p.4-5). The abstract says that the book is addressed primarily to " specialists and students of geographical and foreign policy faculties and departments."

The author of the book and the author of the introductory article (p.6-49), military historian O. V. Karimov, is clearly a novice in Maclean studies and is poorly acquainted with the existing literature. Describing the life of the famous traveler, he for some reason relies on the biographical sketch of N. A. Butinov, published in 1953 in the five-volume collected works of Miklukho-Maklay (Butinov, 1953). There are many errors and inaccuracies in this essay. For example, following Butinov, O. V. Karimov asserts that in February 1864 Nikolai Miklukha was expelled from the list of free students of the St. Petersburg University "without the right to enter other Russian universities" (p. 7). Meanwhile, B. N. Komissarov convincingly proved the inconsistency of this statement: as can be seen from archival documents, the future traveler was given "no right to enter other Russian universities".repeated violation of the rules "was simply forbidden "further entry" to this university [Komissarov, 1983, p. 135]. O. V. Karimov makes extensive use of the new, six-volume collected works of Miklukho-Maklay, published in 1990-1999. The fifth volume of this publication contains a biographical sketch written by the author of the review. It is more detailed and precise than Butinov's essay, and is largely based on new archival materials (Tumarkin, 1996). But O. V. Karimov, for some unknown reason, ignores the biography published in 1996. Moreover, he is obviously unfamiliar with a large monograph that summarizes all the materials accumulated in Maklev studies about the life and work of our famous compatriot [Tumarkin, 2011].

"Most of the documents used in the collection," writes O. V. Karimov, " were already published in the 1990s in the 6-volume collected works of N. N. Miklukho-Maklay, edited by D. D. Tumarkin.".. > Comments to the documents are given in accordance with the comments made to the specified collection of works" (p.48). In this regard, I would like to emphasize two things. First, not most, but almost all of the documents published in the reviewed collection were used in the fifth volume of the collected works, published in 1996: most of them are fully described, while others are described and cited in extensive notes [Miklukho-Maklay, 1996, pp. 576-791]. Secondly, the comments in the reviewed collection are not "given in accordance" with the comments in the fifth volume, but simply reprinted from there, sometimes with small changes and abbreviations. Judging by the few clarifications that O. V. Karimov made in the published texts, he worked in the Moscow and St. Petersburg archives, but clearly was not in the Western European and Australian archives, in which the author of these lines conducted research in the 1970s and 1980s. He says that he used "materials from foreign archives and libraries", but does not mention that he borrowed them from my publications. As in the comments to the fifth volume, O. V. Karimov gives abbreviated names of foreign archives (ML, VGKA, QSA, BL, SMH, etc.). But in the fifth volume, a "List of abbreviations" is printed, which is not in the reviewed collection, and therefore these abbreviations are incomprehensible to its readers.

A vivid example of O. V. Karimov's ignorance of the historiography of the problem is his note to the memo of the well-known foreign military official Baron N. V. Kaulbars on the desirability of Russian colonization in the Pacific Ocean (its manuscript, dated May 22 (June 3), 1870, is kept in the archive of the Russian Geographical Society): "The document has not been published before. The second part of Baron Kaulbars 'note is being prepared for publication < ... >" (p. 65). Meanwhile, it was to this note that I devoted a report published in the magazine "Vostok (Oriens)" (Tumarkin, 2009). In the report, Kaulbars ' note is presented, quoted and considered in a broad political context. Moreover, it is indicated that it was published on August 8(20), 1870 in the newspaper "St. Petersburg Vedomosti"with minor abbreviations and editorial changes. Thus, the acquisition of Kaulbars 'note is a "discovery", as they say, not of the first freshness.

By the end of the collection, the compiler was "tired of holding the pen" or did not have enough time to read the text, because the data given by him do not fit together: on pages 299-302, a copy of the "All-important report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on questions relating to the Pacific" (December 18, 1884) is published, but its last paragraph and signature appear on page 306. And in the interval, on pages 302-306, a summary (with references to sources) is printed in the same font of correspondence concerning the German seizure of the Coast of Maklay (1884-1885) and the discussion in 1886 at the Special Committee of Miklukho-Maklay's "assumptions" about the creation of a Russian colony in the Pacific, up to the resolution of Alexander III: "Consider This case is finally over,

Refuse Miklukho-Maklay." The text on these pages is a verbatim reproduction of extensive comments on two letters of the traveler [Miklukho-Maklay, 1996, pp. 743, 767-768]. O. V. Karimov was clearly confused in the material, the publishing editor did not notice the confusion, and the result is very similar to plagiarism.

The appendix to the collection contains a chapter of the monograph of the famous scientist-australologist A. Ya. Massov, dedicated to Miklukho-Maklay (Massov, 1998, pp. 144-178). The author treats the author with great reverence, emphasizing that he is"a leading expert in Russian historical science in the field of Russian-Australian relations" (p. 45). I agree with this assessment. But what is mentioned in the published chapter - O. V. Karimov claims that it is devoted to "the intelligence activities of a Russian scientist" (p. 46). In fact, this chapter focuses a lot on Miklouho-Maclay's scientific research, his role in the development of science on the fifth continent, and the struggle to protect the human rights of the Oceanian islanders, especially the Papuans of the Maclay Coast. Referring to the works of domestic and foreign researchers who have studied this issue in sufficient detail, A. Ya. Massov notes the active work of the Russian scientist aimed at "preventing the colonial enslavement of New Guinea by England and Germany and the creation of a Russian resettlement colony on this island" [Massov, 1998, pp. 153-154]. Miklukho-Maklay's" intelligence activities " were reviewed by A.Ya. Massovym on p. 154-169. But his conclusions contradict the concept of O. V. Karimov: "N. N. Miklukho-Maklay's use of exclusively open sources in itself makes it possible to strongly and unequivocally reject the possibility of accusing the Russian scientist of espionage. His reports were not the result of "intelligence activities". N. N. Miklukho-Maklay acted only as a collector and systematizer of information available to him about military preparations and the political situation in Australia and Oceania" [ibid., p. 161].

The conclusion of the venerable researcher seems unnecessarily categorical. It is known from the history of intelligence that a significant part of the information was extracted from the collection and analysis of facts contained in "open sources", from seemingly innocent conversations with persons with classified information, and visual intelligence, which Miklukho-Maklay used, although quite rarely. With all the emotional rejection of the assignment entrusted to him to inform St. Petersburg "about everything that is happening in Australia and Oceania", for a number of reasons indicated by A. Ya. Massov, he could not refuse and became in 1885-1886, unwittingly, an amateur scout.

O. V. Karimov did not ask why the "intelligence activities" of the Russian scientist remained unknown to the British and German governments and their counterintelligence agencies. Some information on this issue is contained in my monograph [Tumarkin, 2011, pp. 487-489]. At that time, post offices both in St. Petersburg and in the capitals of the Western powers had "black cabinets" where they skillfully opened, read and, if necessary, copied or photographed letters from a regularly updated list of individuals, institutions, diplomatic missions, consulates and certain addresses. Miklukho-Maklay guessed that he was on the list of suspects. Why it is not using encryption or cryptography, resorted to different ways, I have described above, to his letter, sent to Russia, passing through the UK and Germany-the country, the colonial policy which he actively resisted.

The fact is that in the mid-1870s, the colonial division of the still "free" islands of Oceania began. This, as the scientist put it, "unceremonious division" alarmed Miklukho-Maclay. He concluded that Russia, "before it's too late," should take care of its interests in the region. Somewhat presumptuously hoping to combine Russia's geopolitical interests with the protection of the islanders from the atrocities of the colonialists, Miklukho-Maklay began sending letters to Russian dignitaries, and then to the tsar, calling for the establishment of a naval station on one of the islands or in other ways to ensure the Russian presence in Oceania. After visiting Russia in 1882, the scientist obtained the consent of Alexander III in principle to raise the Russian flag, with the consent of local residents, on one of the Pacific islands. Before leaving for Australia, Miklouho-Maclay received instructions from the relevant department of the Foreign Ministry to protect letters from interception and perlustration, including addresses of "mailboxes" in Vienna and possibly in other cities belonging to persons who were beyond suspicion of the local authorities; they were to be secretly picked up by embassy staff and forwarded to the appropriate address. your channels to St. Petersburg. I found the" Vienna trace " in the Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire, studying the bulky volumes in which materials concerning the "assumptions" of Miklukho-Maclay are neatly filed [AVPRI, l. 113]. Subsequently, in this way

the scientist sent letters on territorial issues and the notorious three "intelligence" reports of 1885-1886.

Miklukho-Maclay's "intelligence" materials were generally of little value, having been collected by a layman and carelessly. This was rightly noted by A. Ya. Massov [Massov, 1998, p. 163]. But there is no need to deny the obvious. The scientist was a man of his time and went through a difficult life path. A rebellious student who left Russia in 1864, fearing arrest, he became an apolitical researcher, but in the early 1870s he became a passionate fighter against racism and colonialism, and raised his voice in defense of the human rights of the islanders of Oceania. In the last period of his life (he died of cancer in 1888), Miklukho-Maklay collaborated with the Russian government, received a subsidy from the tsar to prepare for the publication of his scientific works, and as a patriot took care that Russia was not bypassed in the division of the "free" islands of Oceania. But the "spy interlude" is a secondary aspect of the scientist's eventful family, academic and social life in Australia. It is not by chance that, concluding the chapter of the monograph published in the book under review, A. Ya.Massov emphasized that in the "general assessment of the Australian period of the biography of N. N. Tolstoy, the author of the book is not an expert. The scientific and humanitarian aspects of Miklukho-Maklai's activities are not brought to the fore, but rather to the fore" [ibid., p. 170].

The image of Miklouho-Maklay- "man from the moon", "white papuan" - is shrouded in legends and legends not only in New Guinea, but also in Russia, the birthplace of the scientist. As I noted in the preface to my monograph, scientific and popular science literature about him is characterized by his idealization and mythologization, repetition of unreliable information, numerous factual inaccuracies, etc. [Tumarkin, 2011, p. 3]. Classifying the scientist as an outstanding Russian intelligence officer (p.5)-the appearance of another myth, worked rather clumsily.

list of literature

Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AVPRI). F. 155. 1-5. Op. 403. D. 104.

Aliev O., Labetskaya E. 130 years after Maklay // Men's work. N 33. 2010. Sept.-Nov.

Aliev O., Labetskaya E. Travel to the Stone Age / / Science Illustrated. 2011. N 9.

Butinov N. A. N. N. Miklukho-Maklay (Biographical sketch) / / N. N. Miklukho-Maklay. Collected Works in 5 volumes, vol. IV. Moscow: AN SSSR Publ., 1953.

Komissarov B. N. Rannie gody N. N. Miklukho-Maklay (K istorii pervogo peterburgskogo perioda zhizni) [The Early Years of N. N. Miklukho-Maklay (On the History of the first Petersburg period of Life)]. 1983. N 1.

Russia and Australia in the second half of the XIX century. St. Petersburg, 1998.

Miklukho-Maklay N. N. Collected works in 6 volumes, vol. 5. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1996.

Old and new in the study of N. N. Miklukho-Maklay's ethnographic heritage. Essays on historiography and source studies. and comp. by P. L. Belkov, St. Petersburg: MAE RAS, 2014.

Tumarkin D. D. Nikolay Nikolaevich Miklukho-Maklay (Biographical sketch) / / Miklukho-Maklay N. N. Collected works in 6 volumes. Moscow: Nauka, 1996.

Tumarkin D. D. The island of New Russia (from the history of Russian politics in the Pacific) / / Vostok (Oriens). 2009. N 6.

Tumarkin D. D. White Papuan, N. N. Miklukho-Maklay on the background of the epoch, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2011.

Tumarkin D. D. On the principles and prospects of further study of the scientific heritage of N. N. Miklukho-Maklay // Ethnographic review. 2013. N 6.

Permanent link to this publication: