The Western field of oriental studies and orientalism - criticised by Edward Said among others for encouraging the orient to be viewed in a particular way - has a counterpart in Russia and the Soviet Union. This book examines this Russian/Soviet intellectual tradition of oriental scholarship covering Islamic history and Muslim literatures of the USSR republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Russia's own Orient examines how intellectuals in early twentieth-century Russia offered a new and radical critique of the ways in which Oriental cultures were understood at the time. Out of the ferment of revolution and war, a group of scholars in St. Petersburg articulated fresh ideas about the relationship between power and knowledge, and about Europe and Asia as mere political and cultural constructs. Their ideas anticipated the work of Edward Said and post-colonial scholarship by half a century. The similarities between the two groups were, in fact, genealogical. Said was indebted, via Arab intellectuals of the 1960s who studied in the Soviet Union, to the revisionist ideas of Russian Orientologists of the fin de siècle. But why did this body of Russian scholarship of the early twentieth century turn out to be so innovative? Should we agree with a popular claim of the Russian elites about their country's particular affinity with the 'Orient'? There is no single answer to this question. The early twentieth century was a period when all over Europe a fascination with things 'Oriental' engendered the questioning of many nineteenth-century assumptions and prejudices. In that sense, the revisionism of Russian Orientologists was part of a pan-European trend. And yet, Tolz also argues that a set of political, social, and cultural factors, which were specific to Russia, allowed its imperial scholars to engage in an unusual dialogue with representatives of the empire's non-European minorities. It is together that they were able to articulate a powerful long-lasting critique of modern imperialism and colonialism, and to shape ethnic politics in Russia across the divide of the 1917 revolutions.

I.B.Tauris in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies Few fields of Islamic studies have witnessed as much progress in modern times as Ismaili studies, and in even fewer instances has the role of a single individual been as pivotal in initiating progress as that of Wladimir Ivanow (1886-1970), whose memoirs are now published here for the first time. The breakthrough in modern Ismaili studies occurred mainly as a result of the recovery and study of a large number of texts relating to the field, which had not been available to the earlier generations of orientalists. The Persian and Arabic Ismaili manuscripts, many edited and published by Ivanow, reflect a rich diversity of intellectual and literary traditions. Ivanow left his native Russia soon after the October Revolution of 1917 and settled in India where he was formally commissioned in 1931 by Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III, the 48th Imam of the Nizari Ismailis, to investigate the history and teachings of the Ismailis. Henceforth, Ivanow began the systematic recovery and study of texts from this tradition of Shi'i Islam, discovered in India, the Middle East and Central Asia, amongst other regions. He also played a key role in the establishment of the Ismaili Society - the first research institution of its kind with a major collection of Ismaili manuscripts. Ivanow made these manuscripts available to other scholars, thereby contributing to further progress in the field. Ivanow completed his memoirs, entitled Fifty Years in the East, in 1968, shortly before his death. This work, originally written in Russian, is comprised of an autobiography and vivid accounts from his travels. These convey his ethnologist's interest in 'the archaeology of the way of life' and profound curiosity for regional customs and languages. The memoirs, written in Tehran during Ivanow's final years, have now been edited with substantial annotations by Farhad Daftary. They reveal for the first time the circumstances under which modern Ismaili studies were initiated and an eyewitness account of several regions during the early decades of the twentieth century before the rapid onset of modernisation.

Originally published in 1980, Alber’s translation of Semanov’s study aimed to contribute to the studies of Chinese literature and the knowledge of Lu Hsün’s work to an English-speaking reader. Lu Hsün was an influential democrat and humanist in early twentieth Century China and his work had a great influence on literature in China. Semanov therefore attempted to place his life and work in the context of his literary predecessors as well as commenting on his world view, his teaching and place in history. This title will be of interest to students of Asian studies and Literature.

Here, the author examines Russian thinking about the Orient before the Revolution of 1917. He argues that the Russian Empire's bi-continental geography and the complicated nature of its encounter with Asia have all resulted in a variegated understanding of the East among its people.

Orientalism – the idea that the standpoint of Western writers on the East greatly affected what they wrote about the East, the "Other" – applied also in Russia and the Soviet Union, where the study of the many exotic peoples incorporated into the Russian Empire, often in quite late imperial times, became a major academic industry, where, as in the West, the standpoint of writers greatly affected what they wrote. Russian/Soviet orientalism had a particularly important impact in Central Asia, where in early Soviet times new republics, later states, were created, often based on the distorted perceptions of scholars in St Petersburg and Moscow, and often cutting across previously existing political and cultural boundaries. The book explores how the Soviet orientalism academic industry influenced the creation of Central Asian nations. It discusses the content of oriental sources and discourses, considers the differences between scholars working in St Petersburg and Moscow and those working more locally in Central Asia, providing a rich picture of academic politics, and shows how academic cultural classification cemented political boundaries, often in unhelpful ways.

This book demonstrates that transformative processes occurred in Chinese religions during the last decade of the Qing dynasty and the entire Republican period. Focusing on Shanghai and Zhejiang, it delves into the workings of social structures, religious practices, and personal commitments as they evolved during this period of wrenching changes.