Novorossiya: Kalmyk Ulus

KALMYK ULUS

While Andrei Mikhailovich was seeing to the Kalmyk administration, in Kathmandu an employee of the British East India Company named Brian Hodgson obtained copies of some ancient Tibetan texts. These writings were based on old Sanskrit manuals from Bihar, India, where Prince Siddhartha Gautama achieved enlightenment under the “Bodhi Tree.” Hodgson, realizing the potential significance of these texts, sent them to the authorities of the Royal Asiatic Society (London,) and La Société Asiatique (Paris.) The Paris shipment found its way to Eugène Burnouf, a French Orientalist, who would spend the next few years producing a translation. The fruit of his labor, Introduction à l’histoire du Bouddhisme Indien, would be the single most important work on the subject of “Buddhism” up to that time.

Europeans were only just now realizing that the various traditions that existed throughout Asia belonged to the same tradition. Up until this point, Europeans classified religion using a quaternary division. There were the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam,) and there were pagans/heathens.[1] The traditions which would soon be known as “Buddhism,” fell under the latter category. With colonial expansion, came cross-cultural interaction. The pattern that emerged suggested that “Buddhism” was a distinct religion. There certainly were undeniable similarities among the beliefs and practices in territories ranging from Ceylon (Sri Lanka,) Burma (Myanmar,) Siam (Thailand,) to Japan, China, and the Russian frontier. Similar, in a sense, to its role in nation-building, philology was being used as a foundation for spiritual nations, or religion. “Buddhism” was a textual construct by philologists. By studying the texts, scholars were able to trace the origins of this vast web of phenomena to the sixth century B.C.E. in northern India. Their focus centered on the near-mythological figure of Prince Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha; as well as the volumes of texts and lore (in various Asian languages) that were produced in the years after Gautama’s death. Owing to the Protestant character of many of the philologists (and the institutions which produced/sponsored them,) the project placed a premium on the alleged thoughts and deeds of Buddha, and on the texts he allegedly authorized (not unlike sola scriptura.) These philologists claimed to be in the exclusive position to understand the essential nature of Buddhist teaching Indeed, they felt that the Buddhist texts had been “corrupted” over the centuries, and they saw it as their responsibility to restore the sacred literature to their original “purity.” The lived religion of actual “Buddhists” was of secondary importance. Just as Luther had rejected papal authority, in this European conception of Buddhism, Prince Siddhartha Gautama was a revolutionary spiritual leader who rejected the Vedic authority of “corrupt” Brahman priests. Just as soon as the Europeans invented Buddhism, it would seem, a Restorationist movement similar to Christian Primitivism was underway, a “Buddhist Primitivism.” It would mark a pivot in the West’s understanding of “world religions.” It is perhaps worth noting that the prophecy of Christ’s return (as predicted by the Millenarians) did not come to pass in 1836.[2] This deflated Biblical event (regardless of one’s personal belief,) would have certainly been in the public consciousness at the time.

The Kalmyk people that Andrei Mikhailovich was sent to govern were Buddhists, but, as the word was yet to enter the vernacular, they were called “Lamaists” owing to their origin. The tributaries of Tibetan Buddhism first entered the Mongolian steppes in the 13th Century, becoming quite widespread by the 17th Century, during a period when some Mongol uluses (tribes) migrated into Russia.[3]

Two Mongol streams went north, with one group, the Buryats, settling near Lake Baikal in Siberia. The other group, the Oirats, traveled further westwards to the Volga River in Europe with their khuruls (movable temples,) consisting of three of more kibitkas, (yurt tents.) In 1719 the 10 thousand kibitkas of the Bolshederbetovsky District were appointed to guard the borders of the Don army. They remained as a nomad camp on the lands and in 1731 they were subordinated to its administration.

Attracted to the lifestyle of the Don Cossacks, this latter group integrated many elements from their neighbor. Here they became known as “Kalmyks.” (This name was given to them by their Turkic neighbors, referencing the Oirats’ preserving their pagan traditions when other groups adopted Islam.) [4] Subsequent generations would enter into treaties with the Tsardom of Russia, to establish the Kalmyk Khanate. The head of the Kalmyk Buddhist community held the honorary title of “Lama,” while the other residents of the monasteries were known as khuvaraks (pupils) regardless of whether or not they were monks or novices.[5] Tibet was a sacred country, and the Dalai Lama was their spiritual center. In 1771, however, Catherine the Great abolished the Kalmyk Khanate, and it was absorbed into the Astrakhan Guberniya of the Russian Empire. She subsequently prohibited any relationship with Tibet. Instead of the Dalai Lama, she created the post of “Chief of Kalmyk Buddhists,” thus Kalmyks became regulated by Russian authorities.[6] (Some decided to return to Mongolia, but a third of them died during this Kalmyk Exodus.) Keenly aware of the instability that sectarian movements could inflict upon society, the Imperial administration established orthodox definitions for each of the tolerated religions within the empire. This process, known as “confessionalism,” sought to prevent the rise of personal or charismatic interpretations of these faiths. There were no prohibitions on the conversion of Kalmyk, it seems, During the time of Andrei Mikhailovich, a considerable part of the New Testament was translated into the Kalmyk language by Isaac Jacob Schmidt, a Moravian Missionary, and Treasurer of the Russian Bible Society.[7] Schmidt likewise translated Tibetan texts into European languages, such as The Diamond Sutra in 1837. (Schmidt was one of the first to recognize “Lamaism” as “Buddhism.”)[8]

In 1793 authorities tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade these Kalmyks to return to their former places in the Astrakhan Province and unite with other Kalmyks. Only in the order of management of the Bolshederbetovsky were some changes that were made. The command that managed them was recognized as unnecessary and was replaced by a joint Board subordinate to the Don Military Chancellery. (This Board examined and resolved all disputes, adjudicated complaints and lawsuits, etc.) In 1800 the Kalmyks here were given some of the following privileges: 1. The right to choose their own boss. 2. Independence from the Don Cossacks. 3. Depend directly on the State.^[9]

In 1822, the Kalmyk nobility and high clergy met at Jinjil to draft legislation that supplemented and amended traditional Kalmyk law. Among other things, this assembly introduced new rules for maintaining and improving the spiritual discipline of the Kalmyk clergy which stopped actively participating in the development of laws after the Jinjil decrees. Legislative acts of the Russian empire, however, considered the Kalmyk’s adherence to Buddhism. In 1834 the Russian government approved the “Regulations for the Administration of the Kalmyk People,” which established the Buddhist Spiritual Directorate. Kalmyk Buddhist leadership was to provide St. Petersburg with updates regarding situations in the khuruls. (The Buddhist church was excluded from participation in civil affairs and given responsibility over spiritual matters.) Kalmyk administration consisted of the zargo court, an institution consisting of eight advisors to the Kalmyk Khan.[10] Andrei Mikhailovich thought this framework left much to be desired and would benefit more by making the zargo into a tight framework. Almost all previous Astrakhan officials tried such reform measures but were inevitably removed from their posts before any change could occur. They were replaced with another bureaucrat from St. Petersburg who was sent to serve in Astrakhan only so they would not die of hunger in the capital.[11]

The material organization of the new government occupied Andrei Mikhailovich for the entire year. Then there were ceremonies and rituals, like the solemn opening of the Zargo court. Each of the ulus was supposed to be given a special copy of the Code of Laws.[12] When Andrei Mikhailovich opened one of these courts in the ulus, a strong wind overturned the Kalmyk kibitka in which the new court was located. It quickly carried away the paper and the books of the Code of Laws far across the steppe. Despite a hasty pursuit of them and a thorough search, several volumes of the Code of Laws could not be found. When the Lama administration opened, it was somewhat humorous seeing the perplexed and tired condition of the officiating Lama (its representative and president.) This administration was located in the same huge house where the entire Kalmyk administration was, and the Lama, a kind Kalmyk priest, looked at this whole procedure, in his red robe, with the same look the Native Americans had when the Europeans first arrived. This Lama had spent his whole life in the steppe, in the open air, in a nomadic kibitka, and the indoor atmosphere was unbearable for him. Therefore, without waiting for the end of the ceremonies, he turned to Andrei Mikhailovich, pale and upset, with a convincing request to be released from the presence chamber into the open air. Andrei Mikhailovich, considering his depressed state, could not refuse him. Soon after, despite Governor Timiryazev’s resistance, it was deemed necessary to allow the Lama synod to move to kibitka on the banks of the Volga.[13]

Andrei Mikhailovich once invited the simple Lama to his place in the evening. The Lama came accompanied by two gelungs (senior monks.) Having settled down in the drawing room very decorously, he talked with everyone through an interpreter.[14] When the Lama was brought a tray with glasses of tea and all the accessories, he took a glass, put it on the table, then dipped all five fingers of his right hand in the milk jug, shook them towards himself in the tea, dipped them again and shook them, and so repeated until the tea was drunk. He was engaged in this for quite a long time, very seriously, importantly, and thoughtfully. Everyone in the room, especially the Fadeev children, had difficulty restraining their laughter. Of course, the milk jug was taken away and replaced by another, but the same operation was invariably performed with the subsequent glasses. (The tea ceremony among the Kalmyk was a sacred affair, and the beverage was ritualistically poured over the bowl in such a way as to mirror a cycle in the sun.)[15]

When the Lama was about to leave, Andrei Mikhailovich ordered the carriage to be harnessed for him. The carriage was brought to the porch and the footman opened the doors and folded down the footrest. The lama, with a ceremonious farewell, accompanied by everyone, slowly descended the stairs and, suddenly, to everyone’s amazement, instead of getting into the carriage, sat down on its step! They offered him to sit in the carriage, but he refused outright. They asked him again, insisting on the necessity of changing seats, but he did not want to hear about it, assuring him that he was fine like that, much better and calmer than inside the carriage, and insisted that the ride outside would be very pleasant. No matter how much they tried to persuade him, nothing helped, and finally, almost by force, they seated him in the carriage. Then he invited Andrei Mikhailovich and his family to visit him. He received them very kindly, and he was cordially entertained. The meal consisted of five dishes on a table in the middle of the room, one with sunflower seeds, another with pumpkin seeds, a third with watermelon seeds, a fourth with cantaloupe seeds, etc. Then they served Kalmyk tea with fried foal and mutton fat bulmg in wooden cups. The lama and his gelungs seemed very pleased with the sophistication of their treat.[16]

Tyumen Serebdzhab (seated) with brothers

Tseren-Norbu (right,) and Batur-Ubashi (left.) c. 1820s.

Andrei Mikhailovich visited the steppe uluses to get acquainted with the life of the Kalmyk people and their princes. He became convinced that those who were considered “educated” fared worse than those who “retained their primitive type and simplicity of law.” He met Prince Tyumen Serebdzhab, the first of this nomadic people who exchanged his kibitka for a European dwelling, and one of the wealthiest and most influential of all the Kalmyck chiefs. In 1815 he raised a regiment at his own expense, and led it to Paris, for which meritorious service he was rewarded with numerous decorations. During his stay in Paris, Prince Tyumen managed to greatly puzzle the Parisian public. Wandering through the streets and shops, he bought himself a great many different small-geared musical instruments (like music boxes.) He greatly amused himself with these treasures and carried them everywhere in his pockets. Once at the theater, during the intermission, Prince Tyumen wound up all his musical instruments with a proud smile, expecting an extraordinary effect and approval for such a pleasant Kalmyk surprise. The audience, initially perplexed, listened to the motley jumble of nonsense with rising annoyance. Eventually, they found the source of the toy orchestra in one of the rows of chairs. Prince Tyumen, agitated, began to make noise, and from all sides, loud cries were heard: “What’s wrong?” The police intervened, and Prince Tyumen was led out of the theatre to the accompaniment of such an explosion of jeers that they completely drowned out the impromptu concert of his toys. From that time on, Prince Tyumen took the most unfavorable view of the French and spoke of them with the utmost contempt.[17] Andrei Mikhailovich found him to be, in essence, “just a spoiled Kalmyk.” Prince Tyumen had built a house in his ulus in the European style and had planted a garden. He even had a Russian cook and especially kept abundant supplies of champagne.[18] Prince Tyumen held the rank of Commander of the Second Astrakhan Kalmyk Regiment and was the absolute master in his own family (among the Kalmyks the same respect is paid to the eldest brother as to the father.) He possessed a considerable amount of land (and several hundred families, from which he derives a considerable revenue.) His people, which belonged to the tribe of the Khoshut, were among the most ancient and respected among the Kalmycks.[19] Repeatedly tried by severe afflictions, his mind had taken an exclusively religious bent, and the spiritual practices to which he devoted himself gave him a great reputation for sanctity among his people. An isolated pavilion some distance from the palace was his habitual abode. It was there where he spent his life in prayer and hosted religious conferences with the most celebrated priests in the country. No one but these latter were allowed admission into his mysterious sanctuary, and even his brothers were denied entry.

There was another Kalmyk noyon (noble) whose company Andrei Mikhailovich much rather preferred, Tseren-Ubushi Dugarov of Kharakhus ulus. During his lifetime he made a handsome profit from horse breeding, yet he completely preserved the simplicity of habits of his ancestral way of life.[20] He was an honest man, loved by his people, and not at all convinced of the persuasions of changing his way of life. For the reception and entertainment of Europeans arriving in his ulus, Tseren-Ubushi had everything in stock and even in excess; but he himself lived completely in his national spirit, faithful to tribal customs. The Kalmyks belonging to him lived in abundance and loved him. He never left his ulus and never even saw a single city, or even a single village, until he was fifty years old.[21]

Of the Kalmyks who were not nobles, the experience could be much different. One of the former Serfs of the landlord Brekhov, the seventy-one-year-old Nikolai Vasilyevich Ulyanov had an altogether different biography. He acquired the surname “Ulyanov” around 1835 (It was previously Ulyanin,) when he purchased a modest property in Kossa (“Sandbank,”) he raised his family in one of the poorest quarters of the city, very close to the harbor. The street where Ulyanov lived with his wife Anna Aleevna, and their four children, was something of a lagoon at the bottom of Zayachi Gor (Hare’s Mound,) and the neighborhood was crowded with paupers, artisans, sailors, and soldiers. It was far from healthy. (Just five years earlier the population had been ravished by a cholera outbreak.) Ulyanov would die in 1838, but the experience in the city would live on in the memory of his family. Though it would have seemed unimaginable at the time, in eighty years Ulyanov’s grandson, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, would lead a revolution that would end the Russian Empire.[22]

← Previous

SOURCES:

[1] In their original sense, pagans and heathens were monikers for “unsophisticated” country-dwellers. We get pagan from the Latin word pagus, meaning “rustic” or “villager,” with the implication being an opposition to the “intellectual” or “cosmopolitan” city dweller. Heathen is of Germanic origin and carried the same implications; it meant one who lived in “open country” among the heath trees.

[2] Lehmann, Hartmut. “Pietistic Millenarianism In Late Eighteenth-Century Germany.” In: (ed.) Hellmuth, Eckhart. The Transformation Of Political Culture: England And Germany In The Late Eighteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford, England. (1990): 327-338.

[3] Hodong, Kim. “Formation And Changes Of Uluses In The Mongol Empire.” Journal Of The Economic And Social History Of The Orient. Vol. XII, No. 2/3 (2019): 269–317.

[4] Badmaev, Valeriy N; Holland, Edward C; Ulanov, Mergen S. “Buddhism And Kalmyk Secular Law In The Seventeenth To Nineteenth Centuries.” Inner Asia. Vol. XIX. (2017): 297-314.

[5] Terentyev, Andrey. “Tibetan Buddhism In Russia.” The Tibet Journal. Vol. XXI, No. 3. (Autumn 1996): 60-70.

[6] Kitinov, Baatr. “Kalmyks In Tibetan History.” The Tibet Journal. Vol. XXI, No. 3. (Autumn 1996): 35-46.

[7] Henderson, Ebenezer. Biblical Researches And Travels In Russia. James Nisbet. London, England. (1826): 413-414

[8] In his 1835 essay, “Lamaism,” Schmidt writes: “This brief review of a not unimportant subject in the cultural history of humankind […] should suffice to demonstrate the lack of foundation for the European idea of Lamaism, above all else, however, to refute this bizarre notion that Lamaism somehow owed its existence to Christianity and its organization to the papal hierarchy, an idea that was brought to Europe about 150 years ago by some Capuchins who had visited Tibet as missionaries and that found unquestioning agreement in Europe […] This monkish prejudice had absolutely no awareness of the fact that equal circumstances must produce similar results, that just as the earlier semi-barbarism of Europe in its time produced the papacy out of Christianity, so, under equal conditions, the semi-barbarism of Asia, which continues until today, could not find it very difficult to produce a similar dominating priesthood out of the considerably older and no less dogmatically constructed Buddhism, and that it was not at all necessary for one [of those priesthoods] to assist the other. Every spiritual corporation, just as soon as its power is able to reach a certain height and to govern and dominate the benightedness of the ignorant masses arbitrarily through the mental predominance of an elevated culture, will not fail to demonstrate similar manifestations at any time in any country, but these manifestations must gradually grow more obscure and disappear eventually just as soon as the inheritance of all humankind, namely the spirit of examination, discrimination, and knowledge, gradually achieves maturity.” [Lopez, Donald S. Prisoners Of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism And The West. University Of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. (1999): 35, 158.]

[9] [Article III in: Buhler, Fyodor Andreevich. Nomadic And Sedentary Foreigners In The Astrakhan Province: Article I.” Otechestvennye Zapiski. No. 7 (1846); Buhler, Fyodor Andreevich. Nomadic And Sedentary Foreigners In The Astrakhan Province: Article II.” Otechestvennye Zapiski. No. 8 (1846); Buhler, Fyodor Andreevich. Nomadic And Sedentary Foreigners In The Astrakhan Province: Article III.” Otechestvennye Zapiski. No. 10 (1846); Buhler, V. Nomadic And Settling Foreigners In The Astrakhan Province: Article IV.” Otechestvennye Zapiski. No. 11 (1846.)]

[10] Badmaev, Valeriy N; Holland, Edward C; Ulanov, Mergen S. “Buddhism And Kalmyk Secular Law In The Seventeenth To Nineteenth Centuries.” Inner Asia. Vol. XIX. (2017): 297-314.

[11] Fadeyev, Andrei Mikhailovich. Vospominaniia: 1790-1867. Vysochaishe Utverzhd. Yuzhno-Russkago. Odessa, Ukraine. [Russian Empire.] (1897): Part I: 123.

[12] Fadeyev, Andrei Mikhailovich. Vospominaniia: 1790-1867. Vysochaishe Utverzhd. Yuzhno-Russkago. Odessa, Ukraine. [Russian Empire.] (1897): Part I: 122-123.

[13] Fadeyev, Andrei Mikhailovich. Vospominaniia: 1790-1867. Vysochaishe Utverzhd. Yuzhno-Russkago. Odessa, Ukraine. [Russian Empire.] (1897): Part I: 123.

[14] Bormanshinov, A. “Who Were The Buzāva?” Mongolian Studies. Vol. X. (1986): 59–87

[15] Urgadulova, Alsa. “Kalmyk Food Discourse: Linguistic And Cultural Features.” In Social And Cultural Transformations In The Context Of Modern Globalism. (ed.) D. K. Bataev. European Proceedings Of Social And Behavioural Sciences. Vol XCII. (2020): 3485-3491.

[16] Fadeyev, Andrei Mikhailovich. Vospominaniia: 1790-1867. Vysochaishe Utverzhd. Yuzhno-Russkago. Odessa, Ukraine. [Russian Empire.] (1897): Part I: 123n-124n.

[17] Fadeyev, Andrei Mikhailovich. Vospominaniia: 1790-1867. Vysochaishe Utverzhd. Yuzhno-Russkago. Odessa, Ukraine. [Russian Empire.] (1897): Part I: 124n.

[18] Adèle Hériot writes: “The little island belonging to Prince [Tyumen] stands alone in the middle of the river. From a distance it looks like a nest of verdure resting on the waves and waiting only a breath of wind to send it floating down the rapid course of the Volga; but, as you advance, the land unfolds before you, the trees form themselves into groups, and the prince’s palace displays a portion of its white facade, and the open galleries of its turrets […] I was quite unprepared for what I saw; and ready in passing through two salons which united the most finished display of European taste with the gorgeousness of Asia, on being suddenly accosted by a young lady who welcomed me in excellent French, I felt such a thrill of delight, that I could only answer by embracing her heartily! In this manner an acquaintance is quickly made. The room where we took tea was soon filled with Russian and Cossack officers, guests of the prince’s, and thus assumed a European aspect […] The old Prince [Tyumen,] the head of the family, joined us by and by, and thanked us with the most exquisite politeness for our obliging visit. After the first civilities were over, I was conducted to a very handsome chamber, with windows opening on a large verandah. I found in it a toilette apparatus in silver, very elegant furniture, and many objects both rare and precious. My surprise augmented continually as I beheld this aristocratic sumptuousness. In vain I looked for anything that could remind me of the Kalmucks; nothing around me had a tinge of couleur locale; all seemed rather to bespeak the abode of a rich Asiatic nabob; and with a little effort of imagination, I might easily have fancied myself transported into the marvelous world of the fairies, as I beheld that magnificent palace encircled with water, with its exterior fretted all over with balconies and fantastic ornaments, and its interior fretted all over with velvets, tapestries, and crystals, as though the touch of a wand had made all these wonders start from the bosom of the Volga! […] The position of the palace is exquisitely chosen and shows sense of the beautiful as developed as that of the most civilized nations. It is built in the Chinese style and is prettily seated on the gentle slope of a hill about a hundred yards from the Volga. Its numerous galleries afford views of every part of the isle, and the imposing surface of the river. From one of the angles the eye looks down on a mass of foliage, through which glitter the cupola and golden ball of the pagoda. Beautiful meadows, dotted over with clumps of trees, and fields in high cultivation, unfold their carpets of verdure on the left of the palace, and form different landscapes which the eye can take in at once. The whole is enlivened by the presence of Kalmuck horsemen, camels wandering here and there through the rich pastures, and officers conveying the chief’s orders from tent to tent.” [de Hell, Xavier Hommaire. Travels In The Steppes Of The Caspian Sea, The Crimea, The Caucasus, &c. Chapman And Hall. London, England. (1847): 166-170.]

[19] The Oirat Confederation, or the Dörben Oirat, consisted of four smaller tribes, the Dzungar, Dorbets, Torghut and Khoshut. [Badmaev, Valeriy N; Holland, Edward C; Ulanov, Mergen S. “Buddhism And Kalmyk Secular Law In The Seventeenth To Nineteenth Centuries.” Inner Asia. Vol. XIX. (2017): 297-314.]

[20] Bormanshinov, Arash. “Kalmyk Pilgrims To Tibet And Mongolia.” Central Asiatic Journal. Vol. LXII, No. 1 (1998): 1–23; Ishihama, Yumiko; Tachibana, Makato; Kobayashi, Ryosuke, Inoue, Takehino. The Resurgence Of “Buddhist Government.” Union Press. Osaka, Japan. (2019): 73.

[21] Fadeyev, Andrei Mikhailovich. Vospominaniia: 1790-1867. Vysochaishe Utverzhd. Yuzhno-Russkago. Odessa, Ukraine. [Russian Empire.] (1897): Part I: 124-125.

[22] Deutscher, Tamara. Lenin’s Childhood. Oxford University Press. Oxford, England. (1970): 1-7; Grebennikov, Gennadi. “54 Years And Immortality.” Soviet Life. No. 2 (February 1970): 16-19, 35,56; Page, Stanley W. “Lenin, Turgenev, And The Russian Landed Gentry.” Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes. Vol. XVIII, No. 4 (December 1976): 442-456.