Copyright 2010 Sharyl M. Corrado the “END of the EARTH”: SAKHALIN ISLAND in the RUSSIAN IMPERIAL IMAGINATION, 1849-1906
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright 2010 Sharyl M. Corrado THE “END OF THE EARTH”: SAKHALIN ISLAND IN THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL IMAGINATION, 1849-1906 BY SHARYL M. CORRADO DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Mark D. Steinberg, Chair Professor Diane P. Koenker Professor Antoinette Burton Associate Professor John W. Randolph Associate Professor Matti Bunzl ABSTRACT This dissertation examines Russian discourses concerning colonization of Sakhalin Island from the 1850s, when explorers claimed the island as innately Russian land, to 1906, when Russia withdrew colonists after surrendering southern Sakhalin to Japan. By examining not only the ever-changing state policies toward Sakhalin, but also the shifting place of Sakhalin in the Russian imagination, I investigate the changing meaning of Russianness itself as the state sought to transform Russia from a backward nation to a modern colonial power. By looking at Sakhalin before it was colonized, early Russian colonization of Sakhalin, the island’s intended role in penal reform, and the resulting new Sakhalin identity, the dissertation explores the relationships between discourse and policy, science and its implementation, and Russian identity as defined from above and as experienced from below. Sources include not only the scientific data of explorers and statesmen, but also narratives of those who visited or lived on Sakhalin, from state officials to convicted criminals. Additional data derives from the European Russian mainland, where Sakhalin’s discursive position as a colonial Other reveals the struggle of Russian society with its new Russian imperial identity and the European modernity in which it arose. This dissertation illuminates the processes of Russia’s transition into modernity and Sakhalin’s role in it. Challenging the prevailing assumption that colonization of Sakhalin represented Russian backwardness, I demonstrate that the same factors that generated the Great Reforms led to the colonization of Sakhalin Island and that the exile of criminals to the island was consistent with modern European values of science, humaneness and rational thought. Upon closer investigation, however, penal colonization of Sakhalin reveals shifting definitions of Russianness itself, as pure Russian land was redefined as steppe alone, rather than the contiguous Eurasian territory, thereby excluding Sakhalin, and the Russian citizen molded on Sakhalin needed no longer to speak Russian or worship a Russian God, but rather to labor efficiently and yield a profit for the state. The failure of penal servitude on Sakhalin, I argue, is a sign of the chaos and ambiguity that characterized this transition. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: PROCLAIMING SAKHALIN RUSSIAN; MAKING SAKHALIN RUSSIAN, 1849-1868 ......................................................................................................................................17 CHAPTER 2: FORMING THE EMPIRE; REFORMING THE STATE; TRANSFORMING THE PEOPLE, 1869-1889 .............................................................................................................44 CHAPTER 3: ORIENTALIZING SAKHALIN, 1890-1903........................................................76 CHAPTER 4: RE-ORIENTING SAKHALIN: RESPONSES OF THE STATE, SOCIETY AND SAKHALINTSY ................................................................................................................110 CHAPTER 5: A RICH WASTELAND ONCE MORE, 1904-1906 ..........................................150 CONCLUSION: AN EPILOGUE ..............................................................................................166 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................172 iii Acknowledgements The making of a historian is complicated process, and many people have provided guidance along the way. While they may not realize it, Irwin Weil, Pete Lowman, Lyle Dorsett, Steve Kang and Anita Deyneka provided crucial direction toward what has become a challenging and rewarding career. Perhaps more than anyone else, I owe Mark Elliott gratitude for recognizing my gifts and calling, and encouraging me to pursue them. At the University of Illinois, I received financial assistance from REEEC, the History Department, and Titles VI and VIII of the U.S. Department of Education. For my dissertation research (2004-05), I was sponsored by a Fulbright-Hays DDRA award and hosted by the Sakhalin Regional Museum, for which I thank director T.P. Roon, V.M. Latyshev, N.Iu. Illina. I spent one month at the Slavic Research Center of Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan, for which I thank director Tabata Shinichiro, Professor Arai Nobuo, and librarian Tonai Yuzuru. I thank the Institute of History of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, especially L.I. Galliamova, for arranging my stay in Vladivostok. In Moscow, I enjoyed the hospitality of staff at GARF and OR RGB. In St. Petersburg, as well as the exceptionally helpful staff at RGIA, NLR, IRLI, and RGA VMF, I thank St. Petersburg Christian University for logistical support. Mark Steinberg has been everything an advisor should be and more, and I look to him not only for academic guidance, but as a role model as a teacher, colleague, community member and friend. Diane Koenker and John Randolph have likewise gone beyond the call of duty. I am grateful to Antoinette Burton and Matti Bunzl for adding my dissertation to the many demands on their time. I am indebted to colleagues and friends in Russia who so willingly shared information and advised me on the Russian language, the Siberian exile system, and pre-revolutionary Russian Sakhalin. In Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, V.M. Latyshev, M.V. Gridiaeva, M.I. Ishchenko, A.I. Kostanov, E.I. Sevel’eva, V.G. Borisova, and M.S. Vysokov willingly shared their insights—and notes!—from decades of research. In St. Petersburg G.I. Dudarets helped with sources, historical background, and difficult handwriting. In Sapporo, I appreciated the friendship of fellow visiting scholars M.I. Ishchenko and A.V. Grinev. In Vladivostok, I enjoyed the company of Yu.A. iv Pavlov, who continues to serve as a valuable consultant by e-mail, as do M.I. Ishchenko, M.V. Gridiaeva and V.S. Latyshev. S.V. Bukchin of Minsk, Belarus, has generously shared his expertise on Doroshevich and numerous other topics. The tremendous resources and services of the University of Illinois Slavic Library have proven essential for this dissertation. I thank Helen Sullivan and her staff at the Slavic Reference Service for endless hours of assistance. Likewise, Kathy Danner and her staff at the Inter Library Loan office provided access to 253 articles and books (yes, I counted!) from libraries around the world. I have benefited from the willing advice of Andrew Gentes, who has always been just an e-mail away. Likewise, Julia Ulyannikova has been exceedingly generous with sources, advice, and ideas. Others who have commented on portions of this dissertation include members of the Russkii kruzhok and the dissertation writing workshop at Illinois, as well as Willard Sunderland, Bruce Grant, Cathy Popkin, Ilya Vinkovetsky, Michael Finke, Genzo Yamamoto, Scott Lingenfelter, Stephen Woodburn, Elana Jakel, Dmitry Tartakovsky and Larry Corrado. Finally, my family and friends have been my much-needed fan club for years, and I thank them for it. I thank my parents for overcoming their fears to support my work and study in Russia. While writing, I enjoyed the support of the Cosmo House and Hessel Park CRC. Finally, I thank my cohort in the history department, with whom I have shared the joys and trials of coursework, teaching, prelims, proposals, research, writing, and finally, dissertation defense. v INTRODUCTION In 1899, medical doctor Sigismund Brodovich reported in a major Moscow newspaper on the poor conditions of the Sakhalin Island penal colony. In his article, Brodovich repeated a phrase introduced by Anton Chekhov which epitomized the island to many Russians. Explaining in detail the discomforts he experienced and horrors he witnessed during his short visit, he concluded that, “It is no surprise, that … no one voluntarily travels to the edge of the world [ na krai sveta ].” 1 Located off the eastern shore of Siberia and the final port of a two-month voyage by sea, geographically, the island gave the impression of the end of the earth. As Chekhov had written after his 1890 travels, “this is where Asia ends…. It seems like the end of the world, like there is nowhere further to go.” 2 Yet only a half-century earlier, Sakhalin had been described as a “promised land” [ obetovannaia zemlia ], 3 an abundant land granted by God to his chosen Russian people. In a letter to his family, Lieutenant Voin Rimskii-Korsakov, commissioned to explore the Tatar Strait and the western shores of Sakhalin Island, wrote from his schooner, “It is unbelievable that we failed to devote attention to this golden land [ zolotoi krai ] for so long…. What forests, and in what abundance, how many fish in the rivers, salmon… I can’t think of anything that is not [plentiful] here!” 4 This fundamental shift in Sakhalin’s place in the Russian imagination illuminates not only the sweeping changes