Georgian Research on the Role of Georgians in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution

Before I begin, I should say that I have not been able to get all the material I wanted; the Georgian Republic is still recovering from the aftershocks of independence and is suffering from acute shortages of water and electricity. I have also not been able to obtain much primary source material; rather, I have obtained some books and articles on the subject at hand. It is this material I will examine. I hope to convince you that Georgian sources provide a rich wealth of source material for the Iranian constitutional revolution which has been too-long ignored. It should be said that Georgian studies of the constitutional period is underdeveloped relative to other branches of Georgian Iranology such as Safavid and early Qajar studies and philology, for reasons I can only speculate on.

The most active author in the field seems to have been the late Giorgi Chipashvili, who passed away recently. The first work of his I am aware of is an answer, published in a popular magazine in 1969, to a 1966 biography of Konstantin Orjanikidze, the famous Georgian Bolshevik, by Anton Kelenjaridze, Sergo Orjonikidze—zhurnalisti, a work I have not been able to obtain. He had evidently claimed that Orjanikidze had not only actively participated in, but had played a leadership role in the Iranian constitutionalist revolution, and identifies him with the author who wrote under the pseudononym Gurji Sergo the memoirs of a Georgian volunteer who had participated in the constitutionalist march from Rasht to Tehran.

Chipashvili discusses this further in a later monograph, a study of these memoirs titled Sergo Gamdlishvili “Sergo Gurgi”da misi iranuli dghiuregi , and convincingly demonstrates that in fact Orjankidze could not possibly have been the author of these memoirs, nor is there any indication that he had participated in the constitutionalist movement, although it is well-known that he had lived in Iran as an exile towards the end of the march on Tehran. This kind of confusion has spilled into Iranian historiography. Thus, Fakhra’i makes the claim that not only Orjanikidze, but Joseph Stalin had a hand in the agitation in Gilan. So it is interesting to look at what Chipashvili has to say on this matter.

He first sums up the valid points covered in the book he is criticizing he is criticizing. Orjanikidze was in Iran autumn 1909-1910, almost one year. He wrote for Sxiv and Axali Sxiv and Chvens Gazeti and Momaval. On the other hand, his works were a socio-economic-political analyses of Iran or material of chiefly historical interest. (It is an indication of how Georgian studies of constitutionalist Iran are that this material has not evidently been published, let alone systematically studied.) Moreover, his dispatches had no news about the participation of the internationalists (especially. the Georgians) Indeed, this biographer or Orjanikidze, Kelenjaridze, quotes very little from this material in book. On the contrary, the diarist whom Kelenjaridze identifies with Orjanikidze wrote on entirely different themes. His writings contain very little or the theoretical. They are almost entirely military journalism. This tallies well with the observation by the Georgian Old Bolshevik Japaridze, who had written memoirs of, among other things, his role as a constitutionalist fighter. (It appears that these memoirs are unpublished. References to them in Chipashvili make no mention of a published edition.) He relates that he know two Sergos, one being Sergo Gamdlishvili, an active participant from the end of 1908 to the fall of 1909. The other, Japaridze wrote, was Orjanikidze, who was distinguished by his political character and was never mentioned in connection with military participation when he speaks of his military participation.

Moreover, Orjanikidze was not in Iran for much of what was described, but in the Tsar’s prisons and then in Baku, etc., and then Siberia. He fled from there and went to Baku in August 1909. Got to Iran by autumn. The Rasht uprising was in February 1909. Kelenjaridze’s book evidently had many other weaknesses. After the Russian occupation of Tabriz in April 1909, Rasht rose up. Kelenjaridze says that this was led by the Bolshevik group in Gilan and that Orjanikidze played a major role, an error Fakhra’i, as we will see, fell into. But Tabriz was not occupied in February 1909, the date of the Rasht uprising. Kelenjaridze said that Orjanikidze led the march from Rasht—where he couldn’t in any case have been yet—to Tabriz. This of course is not where the march went. Kelenjaridze says Orjanikidze had much influence on Sattar Khan’s movement going to Tehran, this has been spread by certain others who repeated it. This is, of course, impossible. Among other things, Sattar Khan could not have led the revolutionary forces to Tehran; he was in Russian-occupied Tabriz. Chipashvili points out that other Soviet scholars of the period picked up on these errors. Chipashvili decides the author of these memoirs was Sergo Giorgi dze Gamdlishvili, someone who was executed just before the publication of the diary, November 18, 1910, at the age of 28. We know that he entered Rasht with his comrades between November 1908 to May 1909. According to Japaridze’s memoirs, three Georgian volunteers went from the Tbilisi Social Democrat committee to the Baku Social Democrat committee. Sergo with an Armenian pseudonym, went first, and two other Georgians (a villager and a water worker) followed two days later. They went to Lankeran with false documents, claiming to be working for Nobel. Stayed with one Mohammad Baqer. Their job would be to work on the bombs. The other two left for organizational work in Baku and never actually went to Iran. Those who went were 1) Aliosha of the Potemkin, 2) the German Theodore, an artillerist, 3) “Diagonali” (Russian), communications, and 3) Sergo Gamdlishvili. Also, a Baku student, Pasha Khan, and two Baku Muslims. From this, we see that Giorgi Sergo came in November 1908. We also know that Sergo Gamdlishvili was a sometime correspondent for Roskoe Slovo. In the diary, there is evidence that its author was working for Roskoe Slovo. Gurji Sergo is described as having experience in this during the Russo-Japanese war. Also, Aliosha and an infantryman Petre. We know that Sergo Gamdlishvili had been an engineer in the Russo-Japanese war in Manchuria. The author obtained information from his brother. As Chipashvili reconstructs his life, he was born 1882 in Tbilisi village of a peasant family to one Giorgi Keykhosros dze Gamdlishvili. Out of six kids, only two survived childhood. He studied in Gori and graduated in 1899. Then to communications technium. Graduated there in 1901. In the army, he came into contact with revolutionaries and joined revolutionary movement in Moscow where he participated in the December 1905 uprising. He returned to Georgia in January 1906, where he jointed the Georgian peasants movement. He took part in confrontations between the Black Hundreds and the red partisans. He ultimately left for Tbilisi. The Black Hundreds tried to keep him from work, but, being a veteran, he was able to get a job in the Baku telecommunications system, where he joined an illegal circle in Balakhan-Sabunchi. He was arrested in February 1908 and exiled north, but escaped and returned to Baku. But he was unable to stay long. The legal Social Democrat Akhali Sxvita announced the great need for volunteers in Gilan. He smuggled himself into Iran and lived secretly in Rasht with Mo`ez os-Saltane and his brothers. In February 1909, along with some other revolutionaries, he participated in the attack on the governor’s office and the uprising against the central government. His military resourcefulness and professionalism, learned in the Tsar’s army, was put to the service of the revolution. He returned to Baku in autumn 1909, then to Tbilisi, where he wrote his memoirs. Went to Russia with Kako Korinteli and Sedrag Zaridze, was arrested by the Okhrana on the way, and sent to Ekaterinograd. He was executed in November 18, 1910.

Chipashvili then discusses the importance of these memoirs. He says that the Georgian presence in the Iranian constitutional revolution has not been properly studied. He gives a full bibliography of sources in the Soviet and the Iranian scholarly literature. He regrets that the Georgian press, which took a keen interest in this movement and published on-the-scene articles on it, has not been adequately utilized. In particular, these memoirs, which were published in Akhali Sxvivi, a legal Social Democrat journal, during February and March 1910, under the title sparsetis modzraobis istoriidan, a large text which covered several pages in 19 issues and covered the revolutionaries’ arrival from the Caucasus through the long march from Rasht to Tehran.

I will turn the discussion to some of the interesting features of these articles as they are reported in Chipashvili’s monograph on “Sergo Gurgi”. I was unable to obtain the originals.

There are some interesting vignettes, such as the meeting between Sepahdar and “two well-armed and well-dressed Georgians being introduced to Sepahdar”.

Then I and some other Georgians were invited to the opulent and decorated palace. Five or six mullahs were also waiting for Sepahdar and when they saw how freely we behaved, especially when we sat down on the expensive chairs without permission, they broke out laughing….

No more than 10 minutes passed before the doors opened and an old man of 60 to 65 years with a slow gait. As soon as he entered, everyone jumped to their feet, and we got up, too. The mullahs stood by idly and bowed their heads. The mullahs followed Sepahdar’s armed retainers who were stationed there and mumbled something. This was the old man Sepahdar. Sepahdar approached us and greeted us somewhat angrily. After greeting us, he asked if we knew Tatar or Persian, and when he realized that we didn’t know anything but Georgian and Russian, he shook his head and said, “khub nist”. We then returned.

The diarist gives the following impression of Sepahdar:

We didn’t like Sepahdar at all. He was an old man of about sixty, of medium physique, stooped, whitish hands, with a khan’s arrogance, who addressed us with diSocial Democratain. As soon as he entered the door, my comrades said, “ .“

In general, the diarist was less than impressed by the Gilanis and especially the khans who would lead the march on Tehran, especially in comparison with the Tabrizis and their valiant struggle against the central government. He says that in Azerbaijan, especially Tabriz, the movement had a relatively conscious and mass character. Sattar Khan was a hero from the masses. Iranian Azerbaijan’s popular-democratic leadership inspired by the Caucasians, the Azerbaijanis being neighbors of the Caucasus and more or less married with it and benefited by bringing what they needed from there. As for Gilan, it is one of Iran’s northern provinces, but it does directly neighbor the Caucasus and so has no direct political and economic ties with it. The Russian revolution’s influence on it was relatively weak. It had stagnated politically before the constitutional revolution. The broad class of people there did not throw up an indigenous leadership which had learned from its victories, according to. This led to the Gilan revolution’s character and its outcome. This revolution was prepared and executed by Caucasian and native revolutionaries’ initiative. But the benefit went to the anti-Shah khans. “The more odious the khan the bigger the share. Probably the Persian khans of today are worse bloodsuckers than the ones before.” Although this revolution took on a popular coloration, everywhere it changed into something for the khans and the Qajars because of the masses’ low consciousness. Generally, the Gilanis are very woman-hearted, rascally, two-faced, and cowardly. They are always ready to betray with equanimity everything so that they can gain. When Gilanis need a neighbor, they lick his hands and feet. When he is strengthened, he turns from friend to foe. Chipashvili objects to this generalization, says it’s referring to the rich khans. Later on, the diarist explains how these khans turned from the Shah and backed the constitutionalists. Mo`izz’s uncle, Sardar Mansur, had a post in the Shah’s government. But for some reason, the Shah thought he was pro-Sattar Khan. Sardar Mansur was forced to take refuge with the British consulate. Amir Bahador Jang extorted a large sum from him. Then, when he went to the British, he extorted money his nephew, Mo`ezz. The latter was highly dependent on the Shah and got insulted and turned from the Shah. He saw it profitable to himself to join Sattar Khan’s side. The opposition was delighted. Sa`id `Ali Mohammad was the well-known bourgeois-liberal and Majlis representative Taqizade’s brother in law. He had been a Tabriz Anjoman member. Fled to Iran when the Anjoman was attacked by the Shah. Now joined with Mo`ezz. “This is what the Iranian khans consider revolutionary.” The author adds: They were fellow-travelers who only followed the revolution out of personal interest. With this achieved, they would abandon the struggle.” But the Caucasians, including the Georgians, were sincere friends of their oppressed Iranian brothers and answered their call.

As for the Caucasian revolutionaries, the diarist says that in the course of two months (November-December 1908), 22 Caucasian fighters entered Iran. 16 were Georgian, 11 of these were Social Democrats. 5 were nonparty Social Democrat sympathizers. 6 were Russians (3 anarchists), 1 Jewish, 1 Tatar Social Democrat, and 1 a non-party German. They passed themselves off as Nobel’s clerks. Then came the Dashnaks. On December 28, 1908, the Dashnaks held a meeting with the Georgians with a Tatar translator (?) in the apartment of Khachaturiants. It included 30 people, 8 of whom were Dashnaks. They considered the current situation. They received a report about the situation in Rasht by the Rasht secret committee (identified as the Sattar Committee). The meeting formed a revolutionary organization leadership committee [koligia] or 4 Georgians, 1 Tatar (who translated), and 1 Dashnak. On December 29, 22 Caucasians met in Mo`ezz’s palace and urged each other on. Intensive preparations for the uprising. The day was spent making bombs and preparing arms. In one incident, the diarist reports that Karim Khan, one of the khans who led the march on Tehran, entered the room filled with explosives while smoking a cigarette, causing a major explosion and almost blowing the revolutionaries’ cover. The monograph then describes the actual uprising. The first part is covered adequately by Kasravi: the governor of Rasht had a Tabrizi constitutionalist, a sayyed (a detail omitted by Chipashvili, but mentioned in Fakhra’i) assassinated and was now concerned that the constitutionalists would exploit the `Ashura custom of freeing prisoners (another matter omitted by Chipashvili) to storm the prisons and launch an uprising. The constitutionalists kept the crowd from doing this, but took the opportunity to scope out the enemy’s defenses. After `Ashura, the governor let his guard down while the constitutionalists prepared for a coup. [Preparations for the uprising; the same story as told by Fakhra’i and Kasravi, but from the Georgians’ perspective.]

Starting January 12, the circle met every day. The most important meeting was on January 25 in Mo`ezz’s palace. Among them, Dashnaks, including Yeprim Khan, according to Sepahdar’s memoirs. The Dashnaks, according to the diarist, only joined the Iranian revolution after the autumn of 1908 when Tabriz drove out the Shah’s governor and the reactionary bands. Before that point, they held aloof from it in fear of the Shah’s troops destroying the Armenian population. When the revolution was being prepared in Rasht, the Dahnaks brought Yeprim towards the leadership of the revolution so the, if it should win, they could take advantage of it. In their opinion, if 63 of the best men are not prepared, it is pointless to even consider a struggle. The point was that the Caucasians, i.e. the 51 Georgians, could not muster 60 people. They then declared that they would not recognize any staff which did not include local people. They demanded the abolition of the current staff and the election of a new one of 9 men, 4 Iranians and 5 Dashnaks. They said that the Georgian group had to be subordinate to this staff and that the staff had to be apprised of everything. In the event of resistance, they threatened to pull out of the uprising and betray the uprising’s plans. The diarist exclaimed: They wait until the last minute and then spring this on us! The true revolutionaries saw this as a blow to the revolutionary cause and exposed the Dashnaks’ conduct. When the answer was read, it was applauded to the cries of “Yashasin Gurji!” Yeprim was forced to leave. This version is, according to Chipashvili, confirmed in Japaridze’s memoirs written ten years after the fact. This includes the particulars of the Dashnak demands. Indeed, he records that there was an actual scuffle and that Yeprim and his lieutenant Nerses were forced to flee, leaving their hats on the table. Japaridze says that his comrades got orders from Baku that they must maintain relations with the Dashnaks because they had well-armed fighters. By the way, the Georgians referred to the Dashnaks as “standard-bearers”, an evidently slightly derogatory term, possibly referring to the fact that they always went around with their Dashnak standards. 134

[Further preparations.] Both the diarist and Japaridze say the revolutionaries had no sleep, but prepared day and night for the rising. Some clean weapons, some prepare bullets, etc. On January 26, 8 a.m., the weapons were ready, and 29 fighters gathered. 120 Mauser bullets, 80-90 rifle bullets, 43 hand grenades. Mirza Mohammad Khan came and announced that the governor had gone to his pleasure garden, Bagh-e Modir, only 4 or 5 sentries remain. It is time. All realized what this meant. Drew lots, chose 7 to attack the governor. [The uprising.] One Russian (Aliosha), the rest, Georgians. There follows details of the fighting. When it was over, the people cried out zende bad Gorji. The people ran up to embrace them. Great and small, men and women, called out yashasin Gorji, kissed their hands and feet (which the diarist calls a Persian gesture). After 12 o’clock, it was over and the revolutionaries rested. The dead comrades and soldiers were buried. The Tabrizis buried the sentries. Two revolutionaries were killed and 8 wounded. 56 Cossacks were killed, up to 100 soldiers wounded. 150 surrendered alive. Governor and 2 other agents killed. The rest of the reactionaries took refuge in the Russian consulate. No other history has such detail. He compares his version with that of Kasravi, whom he faults for giving too much credit to the Gilani khans; the diarist makes them out to be guides who avoided the actual fighting.

The next issue was who was to lead the movement from there. The Gilanis invited Sepahdar to come to Rasht on the second day of therevolution there. As Japaridze wrote, the revolution lacked a local, experienced, and authoritative leadership. The Georgians lacked knowledge about the local military customs. So the Georgians reluctantly agreed with the Rasht Anjoman and the Sattar Committee to have Sepahdar in the leadership. The simple people who know Sepahdar began to look with distrust, according to the diarist, on the leadership. The Georgians describe a speech on this by the outstanding Gilani constitutionalist orator Kasma’i: “If he is being let in, it is because we and all Iran need him. If the neighbor comes to us, is it not we who are honored? If anyone acts against the people, it will be the Georgians who will pay him back. Let Mr. Sepahdar pass, who all the Georgians and we greet.” In his answer, Sepahdar’s representative hypocritically said, “Our great lord Sepahdar is a great khan and is himself the people’s friend and the people’s gift.” The 10,000 gathered outside greeted this with applause. Chapishvili then quotes Ivanov (p. 354), who claims the Georgian mojaheds had an important role in Rasht and Tabriz and that this undercut Sepahdar’s authority. For example, the decree that the military committee should give up its guns and arsenal remained on paper. [Sepahdar and the Georgians.] The feda’is were fully armed with what they had picked up after the coup. Sepahdar gave up control to this committee. On January 29, the buried Shalva Dolidze, a Georgian who died in the storming of the governor’s palace. The Iranians were very interested that the man who died was a Georgian. They lined up for miles to pay their respects. Kasma’i declared, “This man who died for Iranian freedom we little knew and had been so short a time here. We had considered the Georgians our enemy. But we now see that the lifeless body before us is that of the Georgian Shalva, son of Georgia. Although this many times been an enemy of our homeland, it has found enough friendship. Here is our Iran’s friendly people, the Georgians. From now on, let nothing separate us and friendship with the Georgians. A free Iran salutes Georgia’s Shalva.”

In the aftermath of the fighting, according to the diarist, the leadership of the Caucasian fighters (of which there were now up to 200 men, among them 40 Georgians) proposed Veliko Gurji (Batumeli) to be the chief. But he refused since he didn’t know the local language. This is how Yeprim came to the leadership. It was also then that the Bulgarian Panov came with some Baku toughs (qoch). Everyone, according to the diarist, had misgivings about him from the start. Meanwhile, the so-called leadership, or the “revolutionary” khans, “changed fronts” and started to plunder in the name of the anjoman and the revolutionaries. They had no interest in future struggles and dangers by what means they filled their pockets. One theme the diarist repeats at every occasion is how useless and cowardly the khans were. He depicts them as deserting the field of battle as soon as the shooting starts, if not before, in every single battle in which they had a presence.

It was then, on January 30, 1909, that the march on Tehran got under way. The first target was Qazvin. . The revolutionaries set off sent 24 (=11 Georgians, 8 Armenians, 5 Iranians) on the Qazvin road to Tehran with adequate arms, on horseback. The diarist says they crowd called out, “Long live the Georgians, long live the Armenians, long live the constitution” and sounds of jubilation filled the streets. The revolutionary fighters passed the Russian consulate and sang the Marseilles. The consul employees joined in from the parapet. On January 31, reached Rostamabad, a village of 500. They greeted them with red flags and cried out, “Long live the constitution.” “Long live the Georgians.” Before them was the local khan, who considered himself a constitutionalist. Four of the revolutionaries then reached Rudbar. The kadkhoda and the peasants gave them a warmhearted welcome. On February 6, the revolutionaries finished their job, when 60 peasants armed with guns were sent from Rasht accompanied by 12 Caucasians. This is the first of two cases in which the diarist reports any active movement on the part of the peasants during this march on Tehran. The second case occurred the next month as the revolutionaries were marching on Qazvin. The governor had stationed Kurdish troops along the Qazvin highway. On March 18, the governor’s son, Naser Khan gathered Kurdish clans and armed them. When he met with the Georgian representatives, he boasted and threatened, “I won’t give way to the atheist Georgians.” Whoever sets foot on this bridge will see….” A battle ensued in which the Kurdish levees refused to participate in fighting an army of newly-arrived Georgians and Armenians. The revolutionaries won and captured Naser Khan alive and decided to shoot him. They told the peasants about their lord’s execution and the peasants tearfully gave them gifts not to let either of their lords out alive. The diary conveys the enormous hatred the peasants had for their landlords. “We will no longer call you our Sun. Fought in your wars. You were always quick to deliver us into all forms of torment. Now we will execute one of you.” The revolutionaries inspired some young Kurds to volunteer to join in a fight to the finish against the reactionaries. On the other hand, in another case, during the march from Qazvin to Tehran, the revolutionaries gathered up to 200 guns from the peasants which had been distributed by the Shah’s forces to resist the revolutionaries. There is no mention made of the revolutionaries distributing land to the peasants, much less of peasants rising up and seizing their khans’ estates. Again, during the march on Qazvin, the revolutionaries gathered up to 200 guns here and there from the peasants, which had been distributed by the Shah’s forces to resist the revolutionaries. News of the Bakhtiaris. More on the British and Russian negotiations. 126

It was with this march that the Feodor Panov affair began. Chipashvili begins by noting that Soviet historiography, in the person of Ivanov, who called him an unprincipled adventurer, although he notes that Iranian historians such as Kasravi and Salamollah Javid called him a courageous and experienced Social Democrat. Before coming to Russia and Iran, he was a Macedonian chetnik. According to Ivanov, he betrayed his chetnik comrades and went over to the Austrian and Prussian powers and passed their plans and documents to them, according to J. Hone, Persia in Revolution. He then went to Russia. The Russian gazettes sent him to Iran as a correspondent, where he filed falsified news dispatches which, among other things, made him out to be a hero. In particular, Panov had lied about himself in an article in Novoe Slovo that the Russian consul had thrown him out of Tehran for denouncing Mohammad `Ali Shah and used Ruskoe Slovo to promote other lies about himself. In Tehran, he gained Russian consul Hartwig’s trust. But after the June 1908 coup, he was exiled from Tehran. He was well versed in Iranian affairs and was accepted into the Military Committee, soon controlling its leadership. He started by making “baseless and senseless” allegations about the Rasht revolutionaries who’d gone to Rudbar. He split the Military Committee, challenging Sepahdar’s authority, although the substance of the disagreements are not clear in either Ivanov or the Iranian historians. It is here that the diary sheds some light. First, the diarist asks who Panov is. Panov fought in the Russo-Japanese war as an officer in Manchuria and became acquainted with the use of explosives. The Iranians said this intellectual-adventurer is a liberator and, thanks to the qoch in Baku, he got into the leading staff. The more experienced Georgian and Armenian watched him with concern from afar. As soon as Panov got on the Committee, he began to act for himself. He neither recognized the Rasht anjoman nor the rest of the Revolutionary Committee, nor any other revolutionary formation. He saw the 20,000 tumans, extracted by the constitutionalists from Talish’s reactionary governor, the weapons and what had been acquired, as his personal property. Had a bodyguard of Baku qoch. With stolen money, began buying up idle Baku kids who called themselves revolutionaries. After Rasht was taken, they came in armed to the teeth, passing their time in boasting. Panov yelled, “Those who are Georgian .” The rest of the qoch mocked the Georgians. But the staff’s Georgian leadership knew well what was going on and denounced Panov’s provocation and took measures to clip his wings and, with strong backing from the Iranians, he was exiled not only from Rasht, but from Iran. This threat caused them to think and make the anjoman question their trust in the Georgians. Then, according to the diary, on February 20, two representatives of the Rudbar fighters returned to Rasht. On that day, the Georgian, Armenian, and other Caucasian fighters were invited. The Baku qoch were not invited. The question was, were they to expel the qoches from Rasht as well as Panov? This threatened a split which would weaken the revolutionaries. So they decided that his being exiled was a good idea. On February 22, the Georgians called for a meeting. An expanded meeting was held. Present were the Gilanis, the Tabrizis, the Armenians, and some of Panov’s Baku qoches. “The meeting has to try Panov; if guilty, he must be exiled from Iran.” Panov refused to attend the meeting himself and no one could convince him to come. The chair elected was the Azerbaijani chauvinist Mirza `Abdollah. There followed a tumultuous discussion. Panov’s supporters called him Iran’s savior. On the other hand was the Georgian leader of the Military Committee, Veliko of Batum. The Iranians didn’t trust Panov and united to demand his expulsion from Iran. The meeting called for his exile from Rasht and cheered, “Long live the constitution.” But Panov didn’t recognize this decision and appealed for the Rasht Anjoman’s support. The Baku qoches intimidated the Anjoman. It gradually fell on the Georgians to take a firm position on Panov’s presence. They decided they’d better drive him out themselves. Just then, over the border came an emissary from the Baku Social Democrat Committee, Rahimzade, “who obviously didn’t know the facts of the case,” according to the diarist. An expanded committee decided that Panov’s exile was unrealizable (February 22). He took it as a joke and had no intention of going. Might cause a split among the revolutionaries. So that Panov could have enough force to answer his rival, he demanding the he be armed as much as the Georgians and have half the weapons, e.g., bomb-making material (which had been made by the Georgians in Rasht). Otherwise, he would take them by force and boldly prove how with a few qoches, he could the city. He tried to make a coup against the Georgians and yelled about how they were trying to kill him. The Georgians were on alert this whole time to retaliate against Panov. Panov mocked the Georgian accent. The Baku Committee sent Rahimzade and Rasulzade; these took Panov’s side and belittled the Georgians’ role in the fighting. “I know more about Panov,” he declared. “His machine is more important than bombs.” The diarist comments that no one had yet seen his “machine” in action. The diarist records the following reply, given in revolutionary passion: “We did not come to Iran as Georgians, but as internationalists and revolutionaries. But you, Panov, who have seen us and know us well…, we no longer need you. And so we wish you, Saviour Panov, farewell.” After Panov left Rasht, the Anjoman and the Military Committee cooperated relatively better. But every now and then, troubles with the fellow-travelers, i.e., the khans who use the revolution as an opportunity to plunder and loot. The Georgians first raised voices against this disorder.

The diary, and with it, the monograph, follows the march on Tehran and provides very fresh accounts of the military engagements between the constitutionalists and the government troops. The author takes every opportunity to lambaste the khans’ forces. Thus, in the battle of Qazvin, which presents, according to Chipashvili, the only detailed account of this crucial battle for the restoration of the constitution, he says that which Caucasians were fighting in Qazvin, the constitutionalist khan Montazer od-Dawle’s 200 troops were in Pachinar puffing on their water pipes. If the revolutionaries were defeated, it would be no loss to them. When he saw the revolutionaries were winning, they led their toops into Qazvin yelling, “Yashasin Montazer od-Dawle.” As soon as they came in, they began to oppress the people by, for instance, extorting money from them.

With the victory in Qazvin, Sepahdar begins appointing governors. The diarist expresses skepticism about Sepahdar’s appointments, but they make the “revolutionary” khans happy. He exerts pressure to get the Caucasians and the local feda’is to disband; he wanted nothing to do with the Caucasian fighters now in Iran and excluded them from his future plans, and send them home. But as the fighting continued, Gilan’s leading khans saw they were unable to do without the Georgian bomb-throwers, so they telegrammed Rasht and recalled them. They set out as before, to the cry of “Yashasin Gorji”. Georgians and Qarabaghis, who had recently formed close ties, established themselves in Qazvin. The diarist asks: Why are three Georgians so badly needed by 2000 troops? Georgian firmness in battle famous all over Iran. They go to the front in combat and only they know how to use bombs.

Fast forward to after the seizure of Tehran. The Georgians are clearly disappointed with the outcome of the revolution. The Bakhtiari and Gilani khans agreee to keep the Cossack brigade intact, replacing the Russian with local officers to be vetted by Liakhov. Liakhov asks the “revolutionary khans” about keeping the Cossacks armed. Sepahdar and Sardar As`ad praise their courage and say yes. In conclusion, the author writes, “So ended the Iranian revolution (if it can be called a revolution). It chose its own fate. The ministers need servants and so they prepared to open the people’s parliament.”

A second monograph by Chipashvili was tavrizi 1908-09 tslebis ajanqeba da kartuli presa (The 1908-09 Tabriz Revolution and the Georgian Press), written in 1979.

The author identifies the anjomans as “organs of revolutionary self-rule [which], approximately, played the same role as the soviets played in the Russian revolution.”

The Tabriz revolution was the brightest pages in Iran’s bourgeois-democratic revolution, indeed, in all of Iranian history. Georgians who shed their blood and even gave their lives for it.

Many sources on the Iranian revolution, particularly on Tabriz, both by Iranian and foreign authors. Depicted in the Iranian and foreign press. This includes the Georgian press in general and the revolutionary press in particular. Most of them had their own correspondents there. Many of these directly participated in the revolutionary events there. Therefore, their articles are important primary source materials and clarify for us many things that still remain obscure.

Among other things, the Social Democrat press depicted the socio-economic and political life of Iran at the time.

[8] The G. press analyzed Iran’s social organization. At “an extremely low level.” Dominated by crude, even barbaric feudal relations. “Ruled by the great feudal landlords, tribal chiefs, khans and beys, and Muslim clergy.” The peasant majority. Forced to work as share croppers. Even the formally free peasant, khoshneshins, were fastened to the land by economic pressures. [9] Forced to do other work for the khans besides farming, e.g., construction, road repair, building bridges, irrigation, etc. The peasant was unable to marry without the feudal’s mobasher’s permission. The feudal had the right of the first night. He was allowed to physically punish and even kill him. A letter from Tabriz by a correspondent for ali [The Flame]: “All of Iran is the estate of the beys, the khans, and the clergy. All the work on the land is done by peasants, who own only a parcel of land on which they can build a hut…. The peasants who live on the khan’s land are obliged to serve his family…. If the peasant has a beautiful daughter or if the bey wants this woman, he must give her to him. A peasant who does not fulfill any of the bey’s demands is immediately dishonored. His rights are given over to the clergy or the sayyids. Withone word, he is turned over to the executioner.”

Struggles over water described in chveni azri. Rights to water, cleaning the canals. Due to shortages of water, this is always on the peasant’s mind.

[10] Out of ten rubles of the peasant’s income, seven go to the khan and the khazine. The peasant must also supply part of the khan’s irregulars and had to provide for himself while in the khan’s army. The wars between the khans led to ruin. The defeated khan would go to the Ottomans and get Kurdish troops to take revenge on the victor. Wreaked havoc on the agriculture of the area.

[11] The Georgian press paid particular attention to the plight of women. Due to Islamic dogma. The woman is the nation’s mother and upraiser. Islam as an obstacle to social development. Imprisoned the women under the chador. If the mother is a slave, the children will grow up like slaves. They keep her imprisoned within the walls, treating a living being like a thing, forbidding her to walk freely in the filed. [12] Enslaving women implies enslaving Iran.

Trade not protected by the feudal government. Tribes attacked the cities. Deep moats and high walls described. The central government can do nothing. “After robbing the villages, its insatiable appetite not being satisfied, they begin with the cities which have just revived, or what they call cities. The khans begin by robbing the merchants. Al Iranian cities put up their legendary walls with their five or six gates.

[13] Transportation: camels, not trains. Imperialist domination: local capital cannot compete with foreign capital. Capitalist penetration began in the second half of the last century. Cabal of foreign creditors. The domination of the bazaar by European goods. The banks are all in European hands.

[14] Something about the bourgeoisie. (?) The higher levels of the Shi`ite clergy being with the Shah’s opposition puts some limits on him. “The clergy proves the need for freedom from the Koran.” Something about the peasants (?) and the bourgeoisie (?). The bourgeois revolution had many reasons in Iran, it only needed a push. [15]. The push was the 1905 Russian revolution. chveni azri: The revolution was a light for Asia. The Iranians, by firm struggle, could get a constitution and a parliament. But when reaction won in Russia, the Shah regained his composure. Using the Tsar’s tactics, Liakhov destroyed parliament, blood was shed, the best of the people’s children were tortured. Something about the bourgeoisie and the feudals. (?) chveni azri: up to now, the clergy and the sayyeds, the merchants and the khans, the workers and the peasants all fought together. No longer. The constitutionalists have come apart. “Yesterday, they fought in one barricde under one banner.Now they are in different camps.” It was then that the Tabriz uprising occurred.

[16] On Sattar Khan.

Much material on the noble, humanistic Sattar Khan. Much discussed in the contemporary press. “The Iranian Garibaldi”, “The Iranian Pugachev.” Sometimes, especially in the bourgeois press, Sattar Khan was dismissed, gossiped about. Note by Ivanov. Biographies of him in Ruskaie Vedemost and Vestnik Baku. The correspondent for Ruskaie Vedemost spread the story about his activity in the Caucasus. 11/16/08: Worked for many years like other Iranians in Caucasian industrial centers. As a simple worker in Yerevan railway construction and as a master in a brick factory, worked five years in Baku oil fields, [17] where he joined the Hemmat Bolshevik organization. The same, more or less, in Moskovski Ezhenedelniki. But Vestnik Baku’s correspondent, P. Petrovich, written later in 12/18 and 20/08, disagrees. Says that sattar Khan had not learned revolution in baku, but from the Dashnaks in Salmas. Ivanov says there is not enough information to decide this matter. This agnostic view is disputed by Anton Kelenjeridze in Gurjebi (1975), who agrees with the Russian journalists who claim that Sattar Khan had worked in the Caucasus. In the interim, however, we have books by Amirkhizi, Safa’i, Taherzade Behzad, Malekzade Mehdi (sic), Salamollah Javid, etc. [18] There is, in these works, no sign of Sattar Khan’s career in the Caucasus in general and in Baku in particular. The contemporaneous and eye-witness Ahmad Kasravi has nothing on this. Kasravi “describes only that before the Iranian revolution, Sattar actively resisted the Shah’s government and led partisan bands. Once he was forced to hide from the pursuing government forces and resumed his life as a horse dealer. (Tarikh-e Mashruteye Iran, II:28) Observers do say that Sattar Khan respected the Caucasian volunteers, including the Georgian internationalists. Chipashvili suspects that, even though he didn’t go to the Caucasus, he was acquainted with the movement there and had ties with it. He criticized Kelenjeridze for saying that Sattar Khan led the revolution in Rasht and Gilan. (Sergo Orjninakidze—Zhurnalist, Russian edition (1969), p. 12) and that Sattar Khan led the march on Tehran from Gilan. [19] It was well known that during the revolution in Gilan, Sattar Khan was in Tabriz and had not presence there.

Practically all the Georgian press wrote about Sattar Khan. His biography, his military deeds, photes of him, underlined his martial prowess, his personel authority, discipline, revolutionary humanism, and nobility. Also: he had never gone to school and could read and write with difficulty. Chveni kvali published an extensive biography of him in 10-11/08. The author was Atrped. Chipashvili notes that thee is nothing in this biography of his ever having been in the Caucasus. [20] ali’s Georgian correspondent (“Gurji”) alone mentioned anything about this. Has many facts not found elsewhere, and so we produce some of the material below. By 1908, Sattar Khan was 35 years old. From the lower classes. First, he worked with his family. His older brother was in a peasant partisan movement (in Chipashvili’s words). He was arrested. Mozaffar od-Din Shah____________. (?) On the Shah’s orders, Sattar Khan was to be at his brother’s beheading. (?) Had a big impact on Sattar Khan. He, too, joined the peasant partisans and fought the Shah’s supporters, the feudal khans. His brother’s execution suddenly opened the boy’s eyes. Hate the Shah and the existing regime. He was captured and brought before the Shah, who ordered him fastened to a cannon. Sattar Khan didn’t bat an eye (twitch his eyebrow). He fearlessly met his death sentence. [21] Sattar Khan said:______________(?) The Shah was most astonished and ordered him released.____________ (?) Sattar Khan rejoined the partisans and fought for justice. He ran an arm of runaway peasants. He made the beys’ blood run cold. His partisans fought along the Tabriz-Julfa road. Got medicine (?) from over the Russian border from a soldier named Ivan. Etc. The Shah was forced to tell Sattar Khan that if he stopped fighting, he would grant freedom. Sattar quit and worked as a village mobasher. Got closer to the peasant’s miserable condition this way (!!!). But he couldn’t stand the life of an administrator. [22] Sattar Khan was not educated, but understood theidea of freedom. When Rahim Khan and Soja`-e Nezam (sic—throughout the monograph, he calls Shoja`, “Soja`”) __________(?) Sattar Khan took up the revolutionary lifeagain. The old wounds opened their mouths and his hatred for the existing regime, etc. “A mauser in one hand, red flag in the other, his imposing physique, beautiful black amber eyes.” Tore down the white flags and put up red ones. [23] This story, which is clearly a mixture of fact and fantasy, is found persuasive by Chipashvili. “It is impossible not to be persuaded” by it. Baqer Khan, like Sattar Khan, was from the lower classes. A stone mason. Wastrue to the cause.

Details about the organization of the fedais. The forces are to be divided into platoons of 50. Choose leaders. (?) [27] They are the envy of their better-trained adversaries. Sattar Khan chose passwords for them, very secret. Then he returned to Amirkhiz to inspect the barricades. The enemy couldn’t penetrate their ranks. Network of couriers. There is a series of military dispatches from, for example, ali. These are of the sort familiar to readers of, say, Kasravi, although they include occasional curious details. For example, we read that when Sattar Khan’s men captured some enemy troops, his men wanted to execute them,but he said, “These are poor people like us, It would not be valiant to kill them. Capture their weapons…, [28] send them to their villages. They were brought here by force.” By way of contrast, ali reports that when Sattar Khan saw that Rahim Khan’s son was planning on attacking him, he went to the roof and shot him in the teeth, killing him and spreading grief into the enemy camp. (Sattar Khan the prodigious marksman, again. Shoots an Iranian Cossack off his horse from a distance of two versts. Sattar Khan saw an Iranian Cossack, got off his horse, ran up to the roof, and shot him. Etc. [34])The Georgian press considered this event a sign of the fedais’ humanism and high level of class consciousness. (no examples of this)

[29] The Georgian press reports Tabriz’s call for help from Caucasian Social Democrats, to send fighters. First, amirani (July 10 (23), 1908): “Caucasian Revolutionaries in Tabriz”. Quotes from Golos Moskova: 50 Caucasian revolutionaries in Tabriz. In a subsequent issue: Some Caucasians came to help Sattar Khan as reinforcements in July 24-25 (August 6-7). (Chipashvili compares this with Kasravi, vol. 2, p. 200

Especially mentions Chito (Chito Cherchvadze from Gori. Born 1881. Cites Kelendjeridze, Gurjebi, 1975, pp. 75-76.) as having played a major role. Was killed. Cites Kasravi’s depiction of the funeral. ali had a reporter on the scene. How Chito died: The reactionaries attacked Amirkhiz and broke through walls. At that critical moment came Chito. Two bombs in his hand. Threw one at the reactionaries. Blew up and drove them back. Went to throw the other at the retreating reactionaries, but it blew up in his hand. Severely wounded. The revolutionaries tried to save him. In vain. Died 20 days later. The streets of Tabriz were filled for his funeral. 200 armed revolutionaries and two___________. Martial music. Wreaths on the hero’s coffin. Various political parties representatives. Red flags, 100 cavalry, 100 infantry, led by K. Hosain. Singers sang the Marseilles in French, Armenian, and Russian. Funeral march sung. 15,000 men and women followed. Different ethnics: German, British, Greek, Armenian, and Tatars. Armenians and Tatars said: Up to today, we were enemies, today we are united, hand in hand. A mullah said in Arabic (!): Chito came from the Caucasus to fight with us. He didn’t care about anything except to help the exploited people who are today fighting the Shah. Chito did not choose only one religion. For him, Tatar and Georgian were one. This is just how we should act towards everyone, towards all faiths. Chito was unforgettable to us. Then, an Armenian orator said, We, Armenians, Tatars, who considered each other enemies [39], have been united by today’s great revolution. This cause (?) has tragically deprived us of cde. Chito, whose name is for now on unforgettable to us. He was buried in Tabriz’s Armenian cemetery on the outskirts of Khojovang Allay.

With the constitutionalist consolidation of their hold on all of Tabriz,

[48] Hospital opens, November 28, 1908. Sattar Khan and Baqer Khan at the celebration. Ejlal ol-Molk spoke: The hospital shows the difference between us and the reactionaries. Our country is continuing to develop culturally. Shake the old Iran to its roots. A new life. Its arsenal is the hospital. Second speaker: Before, the Shah’s government’s interests were the opposite of those of the people. His rule was strengthened by the people’s misery. But now, the people know their friends and their enemies. (Reported by ali. The “speeches” strike me as concocted by the reporter.) ali: The hospital is the first step towards European civilization. Initiated by the Georgians and the Armenians, who are the higher cultural element. Seven wards, 25 beds. Foresee expansion. Gathered 3000 rubles.—footnote)

[49] The international meeting in Tabriz. Initiated by the Iranian Social Democrat Workers Organization. Headed by `Ali Mosyu. Included Hajji Mirza `Ali-Naqi Ganje’i, Hajji Mohammad Bela (?), and K. Hosain Feshangchi. Caucasians worked with them. (cites Ivanov) Had a hand in Sattar Khan’s victory. Article on it in ali: “Letter from Iran—A Great Meeting in Tabriz.” [50] “11/21/08 was an historic day, on that day, the flag of internationalism was raised in Iran.” Called by Social Democrat Workers Organization, longtime formed in Tabriz and which united the workers of Tabriz under its banner.To discuss the burning issues facing the city. Proclamation circulated in two languages, Azerbaijani and Armenian. Held in the Maidan-e Mashq. The people impatiently awaited Sattar Khan. Went in front of the revolutionary red flag. The people cheered, “Long live!” He briefly greeted the people. A second banner appeared, the banner of international democracy. The Marseillaise was sung. When the Social Democrat banner approached the people, they said, “yashasin social demokrasi.”_______________(?) A speech on Social Democrat’s active participation in the freedom struggle. [51] Supports revolutionary democracy, and so fights reaction to the end. ____________(?) The first orator, Iran’s Social Democrat Organization representative. His eloquent speech interested the audience. He first spoke on Iran’s economicnd political situation. Many examples. The khans and the landlords who own entire villages and cities. The vast majority, the working people, own practically nothing. The ruling class has political power. So the people must unite and struggle regardless of nationality to establish people’s power. The people yelled, “yashasin mashrute, yashasin social demokrasi.” Such a government would be based on popular election. The government frightens the people with their bashibazuks and cannons and destroyed the Majlis, killing the people’s best sons. _____________(?) The Shah doesn’t act in the people’s interests, so his government is not a people’s government. “No, no, it is pure despotism,” said the crowd. Need to develop trade and industry, roads, railways, posts, telegraphs, etc. Destroy the old ________(?) and revive culture. Then addresses Sattar Khan. “A simple peasant’s son [!] understands (?) the existing regime and, from childhood on, etc., etc. [52] And so, the revolution has the best leader. He then pointed to Baqer Khan, the second leader. A stone mason. The third, K. Hosain. The leaders will be those in touch with the lower class’s feelings. His speech made an indescribably impression on the people. Next, a sayyed of Tabriz spoke. One of the city’s best orators. Must spread the revolution throughout Iran. The peasants of all Iran must unite to overcome the Shah’s and the landlords’ exploitation. Have been too long submissive. Have so far put up with every humiliation. But today, their patience has reached its limit. In Azerbaijan, the peasants have everywhere risen against despotism. The day is not far when the Shah’s government will be gone forever and the people will install the order they desire. Next, a Social Democrat youth. Pointed out the youth are forced to a reduced education. The Shah’s government wants the people to stay in the dark and be ignorant, the better to rule them. [53] Then a lower mullah. Chipashvili notes that the lower mullahs live in conditions not much different from those of the common people. And so they played an active role in the revolution in Tabriz. Answered the higher clergy who argued that the constitution is against the Koran. Quoted excerpts from the Koran proving otherwise. One of the orators tried to inspire the people to join the Social Democrat’s Iranin section. “The Iranians will not forget the Social Democrats, the defenders of all the oppressed peoples.” Six speakers in all. 20,000 (!) in Tabriz participated. A manifest delivered: The Shah’s government has trampled on the people’s rights, brought fire and sword to the Majlis, _____________(?), shot down the people’s best children—the duly elected deputies. Remember those who rot in his dungeons. Everyone knows (?) that the Shah’s despotic government, on his coronation, was engaged in old-fashioned robbery and plunder…. We openly declare that the Shah’s government is only in name. (?) We declare today our fierce struggle, our distrust and discontent. We demand the restoration of the Majlis [54] and a real popular constitution. Until then, a revolutionary provisional government based on the universal, equal, and private vote. Also demand freedom of political expression. The meeting ended with “Long live the revolution!” Chipashvili on the significance of the first emergence of the tiny Tabriz proletarian’s party. Its significant role in the revolution. Its high ideological and political level. The resolution provided an analysis of Iran’s situation and proposed a revolutionary-democratic government. Also called for committees [krebi] which would be elected, tec. Shows how leanred from the Russian party. The Iranian Social Democrats are still not adequately studies and analyzed. The Georgian press is a source for this material. Needs further study.

The progress of the expeditions against Shoja`-e Nezam’s sone. Fifty join by the time it reached______. 60 well-armed joined later. Peasants stopped (?) when they heard they were coming, gathered “contributions” which they voluntarily offered the Anjoman and the revolutionaries. The reaction sent its own people to the village to disrupt the collection of “contributions”. The revolutionaries sent 30 in response, and drove them out. Rezaqoli Khan goes over to the revolutionaries. Four hour battle. Georgian volunteers. Outnumbered many times by the enemy. “The entire village grieved, the gray-beards wept and expressed their sorry when they learned the revolutionaries were defeated and that Soji-e Nezam (sic) was going to occupy the whole village. Suddenly came Faraj Aqa and Mirzaqoli Khan’s cavalry. When SN’s son saw the revolutionaries, he turned and began to retreat, when his horse could no longer ______________. [All this is still from ali.] The revolutionaries encouraged the villagers to take up clubs and attack the retreated foe. The enemy scattered, some to Marand, some to Khoi. The liberation of Marand, Salmas, Khoi, Maku. The revolutionaries restored plundered goods to the peasants. The Georgian press printed lots of other interesting material so far not reflected in the historical literature. Other liberations reported.

There is not much information in the histories about the siege of Tabriz, which opened the third stage of the fighting there, but the Georgian press carries some interesting material. A diary of events, “sparsetis ambebi” appeared January 23-March 22, 1909. Another diary, “Iran’s latest fighting and related news,” April 1-May 1, 1909. One thing which will interest the reader is that Sattar Khan and Baqer Khan used cavalry against the enemy; usually one things of them as being crouched behind barricades and shooting from ambuscades. They also used artillery, and the Georgian accounts record artillery duels which lasted for a day at a time.

Also: reports of spy activities.

From a letter discovered in Samad’s camp, discovery of an Armenian spy. A school teacher. Letter: “The city is in great difficulty. We are surrounded on all sides. [This is all from chveni azri.] Prices are high. G-d willing, you will take Tabriz and we will be able to arrest all the guilty: This Bunt which ___________, the Georgians from the Caucasus…. We are all content with the Shah’s government. It is all the Georgians’ doing.” The SDs announced a boycott of the author of the letter and proposed his arrest and getting him fired. [73] Another spy arrested. Under cover of dealing in flour, he was really running guns to Rahim Khan.

SDs hold a meeting. Advertised three days prior in Azeri and Armenian. At Maidan-e Mashq. First come Caucasian and local SDs. A big banner saying “Long Live Freedom.” “Workers of the World Unite.” Sang the Marseillaise. [75] Caucasian SDs spoke in Tatar, Georgians in Russian, translated into Tatar. A Georgian criticized the government’s activities and_________. The meeting lasted five hours. The music and the Marseillaise echoed in the streets.

With the arrival of 350 Russian troops, this stage of the fighting ended. According to the Georgian press, Snarsky’s men acted as if Tabriz was a conquered city. [81] According to chveni azri, the reactionaries have been emboldened. The Russians demanded that the Anjoman exile the Caucasians. The Georgians’ send-off: Cries of “yashasin Gorji, khosh geldi kardash.” Martial music. The Marseillaise in Georgian. Hero’s poem “iksov-ikvesebuda”. Officials make speeches praising the Georgians. The governor, the________, the chief of police, etc. “Your deeds will go down in history.(?) Bless their (?) country, their parents who have born you. The result of your giving sacrifice has been received and future generations will praise you.” Embraced each other and with a sigh from the heart, went their way tearfully. The women wept and wept bitterly and prayed to G-d. Such a moving scene, it cannot be written how different faiths and different people’s felt.

The same author wrote a Russian article which essentially covers the same material, focusing on his argument with Kelenjeridze.

He also wrote an article, “ahmad kasravi iranis 1905-1911 tslebis revolutsiashi kartveli internatsionalistebis monatsileobis shesakheb” (Ahmad Kasravi on the Participation of Georgian Internationalists in the 1905-1911 Iranian Revolution [akhghoelmosevqhshri krebuli [Oriental Studies], 1983, pp. 212-221, published by the Soviet Georgian Academy of Science, G. V. Tsereteli Oriental Institute, in Tbilisi.]), published in 1983. The article is essentially a compendium of references “the historian-democrat” Kasravi makes to the Georgian role in the revolution. He notes that Kasravi mentions the role played by Iranians who had been infected with socialist ideas during their sojourn in the Caucasus.

Chipashvili’s translations into Georgian suffer from lapses to, in one case, outright distortion. Thus, when Kasravi lists the Iranian cities in which the Social Democrats had branches, he gratuitously adds Rasht and Mashhad to Kasravi’s list. He translates chaboki, which means aptness or agility, as vazhkatsobi, which means javanmardegi. More seriously, he has a (p. 774). It should be mentioned, since Chipashvili doesn’t, that much of this material is recycled from the 1920’s historian Pavlovich and the British Blue Book, a fact which somewhat mitigates Kasravi’s contribution to our knowledge of the Georgian presence in the constitutional revolution. But one must agree with him that Kasravi does present some interesting material on the subject which is otherwise not available.

Three other works:

Nogzar Ter-Oganovi wrote a translation (1993) of the passage from Yahya Dawlatabadi’s sojourn in Georgia, preceded by an introduction.
Lele Bendianishvili wrote an essay on “The 1905-1911 Iranian Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution and the Georgian Democratic Press.” (1989) The author’s knowledge of the events in Iran is not particularly great; she uses not Persian-language references, for example. And she only examines two Georgian newspapers
Finally, there is a 1971 article by V. Plastun in Russian on the “Georgian Revolutionaries and the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911.” It relies heavily on Persian language sources and in any case has little original research. It is mainly interesting for its discussion on the Georgian Menshevik Tria which begins the article; this includes some archival material on his career.