p.
68
The Un-Erected Monument for P.D. Tcitcianov: a Case for the Imperial Idea in Caucasus Authorities’ Memorial Works in Late of the 19th – Early of the 20th cc.
Purpose: The article address an attempt of comparison studying of Russian and British commemoration experience in the issue of memorials erecting in 19th–20th cc. It focuses on the stories of erecting monuments for prominent empire-builders and examines the attitude to them of the locals.
Tools of assessment (Methods): This paper explores the Caucasus materials in the shade of Western anthropological approach to History. The works of Charles King and books of Jeremy Paxman developed the ideas on either Caucasus or British colonial materials. Papers from the Russian Central archives vaults (like RGIA) and books published in the early of 20th c. provide a lot of support to the study.
Discussion: One of the very base idea of the military authorities activity in the far-away region was the empire positive image promoting among the locals. A lot of prominent people belonged to the high military ranks sacrificed themselves to the goal of building Empire and spreading its frontier boundaries further and wider. Figures of P.D. Tcitcianov in Russian and Charles Gordon in British empires seems to be fair good examples. It looked natural for the further authorities to celebrate their memories by erecting some monuments in the Caucasus Tiflis and Sudan Khartoum. Being intended to pay a tribute to their predecessor by erecting a memorial further military authorities were either in the mood ‘to remind the locals who was the boss’ – as Jeremy Paxman had put it – in the region via pump statues and memorials.
This ambiguous image of memorial activity looks to be highly applicable to the story of an attempt to erect a monument for P.D. Tcitcianov in Tifl is. Although, the monument project was confi rmed by Russian Tsar, and the bronze parts casted a staggering cash, the erecting was kicked into the long grass by the Viceroy M.S. Vorintsov claimed not to irrigate the natives. Thus, the idea to celebrate the memory of the first Russian Caucasus Army’s commander failed.
The story headlines that all the facts and even prominent people, inconvenient for the political sakes of the state authorities tended to be erased out of the historical memory. We can trace the same destiny of celebrating the memory of solemnly all Imperial Generals, no matter what Empire is the point. And the story of Charles Gordon’s monument move from Khartoum to London with the further oblivion sounds like a good addition to the story of un-erected monument for P.D. Tcitcianov in Tiflis.
Results: The research underlines the importance of the scrutinized studying of the regional issues in the memorial activities. Although prominent empire builders contributed much into the acquaintance of regions and thus are definitely
worth to be celebrated in statues and memorials the question whether it worth rattling the natives cage is extremely doubtful.
Tools of assessment (Methods): This paper explores the Caucasus materials in the shade of Western anthropological approach to History. The works of Charles King and books of Jeremy Paxman developed the ideas on either Caucasus or British colonial materials. Papers from the Russian Central archives vaults (like RGIA) and books published in the early of 20th c. provide a lot of support to the study.
Discussion: One of the very base idea of the military authorities activity in the far-away region was the empire positive image promoting among the locals. A lot of prominent people belonged to the high military ranks sacrificed themselves to the goal of building Empire and spreading its frontier boundaries further and wider. Figures of P.D. Tcitcianov in Russian and Charles Gordon in British empires seems to be fair good examples. It looked natural for the further authorities to celebrate their memories by erecting some monuments in the Caucasus Tiflis and Sudan Khartoum. Being intended to pay a tribute to their predecessor by erecting a memorial further military authorities were either in the mood ‘to remind the locals who was the boss’ – as Jeremy Paxman had put it – in the region via pump statues and memorials.
This ambiguous image of memorial activity looks to be highly applicable to the story of an attempt to erect a monument for P.D. Tcitcianov in Tifl is. Although, the monument project was confi rmed by Russian Tsar, and the bronze parts casted a staggering cash, the erecting was kicked into the long grass by the Viceroy M.S. Vorintsov claimed not to irrigate the natives. Thus, the idea to celebrate the memory of the first Russian Caucasus Army’s commander failed.
The story headlines that all the facts and even prominent people, inconvenient for the political sakes of the state authorities tended to be erased out of the historical memory. We can trace the same destiny of celebrating the memory of solemnly all Imperial Generals, no matter what Empire is the point. And the story of Charles Gordon’s monument move from Khartoum to London with the further oblivion sounds like a good addition to the story of un-erected monument for P.D. Tcitcianov in Tiflis.
Results: The research underlines the importance of the scrutinized studying of the regional issues in the memorial activities. Although prominent empire builders contributed much into the acquaintance of regions and thus are definitely
worth to be celebrated in statues and memorials the question whether it worth rattling the natives cage is extremely doubtful.
memorial works of the militaries, monuments erecting, commemoration, P.D. Tcitcianov, Ch. Gordon, Russian military authorities, historical and cultural monuments, The Caucasus army, historical memory