Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 12 No. 10 (2025)
International Multidisciplinary Journal for Research & Development

Articles

ANALYTICAL INTERPRETATION OF ALISHER NAVOI’S LEGACY IN 19TH–20TH CENTURY RUSSIAN ORIENTALISM: SOURCES, METHODS, AND SCHOLARLY APPROACHES

Published 2025-10-24

  • Ungalova Guldasta Amiriddin kizi

Ungalova Guldasta Amiriddin kizi
x

Abstract

This article examines the analytical interpretation of Alisher Navoi’s literary legacy in 19th–20th century Russian Orientalism, focusing on the sources, methods, and scholarly approaches. It highlights how Russian orientalists have engaged in philological analysis of Navoi’s works, historical evaluation of his life and legacy, and philosophical-theoretical interpretations of his significance. The development of “Navoi studies” is traced chronologically, from initial inquiries in the late 19th century through the institutionalization and peak of research during the Soviet period in the mid-20th century.

Keywords

Alisher Navoi, Russian Orientalism, Navoi’s legacy, philological analysis, historical evaluation, theoretical interpretation, 19th–20th centuries, Navoi studies.

PDF

References

  1. Halilova G. I. O‘zbek klassik adabiyoti Rossiya sharqshunosligida XX asrda (Uzbek Classical Literature in Russian Oriental Studies in the 20th Century). – Tashkent: “EFFECT-D” nashriyoti, 2020. – 219 p. (See p. 104–112 on the peak of Navoi studies in XX c. and p. 106 on its fruitfulness in that period).
  2. Halilova G. I. “O neizdannoy state E. E. Bertelsa po izucheniyu tvorchestva Alishera Navoi (na osnove arkhivnykh dannykh IVR RAN)” [On an Unpublished Article by E. E. Bertels on the Study of Alisher Navoi’s Work (based on archival data of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts)]. – Materialy V Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. “Problemy i perspektivy razvitiya obrazovaniya” (Perm, 2014). – P. 16–17. (Contains Bertels’s 1939 assessment of prior Navoi studies, Bartold’s contribution, and Jubilee plans) [2, c.16-17].
  3. Nikitskiĭ M. A. Mir Alisher Nizomiddin Navoi: kak gosudarstvennyĭ deyatel’ i poet (Magistr Dissertation). – Kazan, 1856. – (Original in Russian, cited via Halilova [1] as illuminating key aspects of Navoi’s work).
  4. Alisher Navoi. Polnoe sobraniye sochinenii v 10 tomakh (Complete Works of Alisher Navoi in 10 volumes). – Tashkent: Fan, 1968–1972. – Vol. X (1970) includes Russian translations of “Muhokamat ul-lug‘atayn” and “Mahbub ul-qulub” with scholarly commentary [2, c.17].
  5. Ungalova G. “E. E. Bertels – issledovatel’ tvorchestva Navoi” [E. E. Bertels as a Researcher of Navoi’s Work]. – Mezhdunarodnyĭ zhurnal Alishera Navoi, 2022, Tom 2, № 1. – (Analyzes Bertels’s article “Navoi and Eastern Literature” and gives an overview of Russian Navoi studies in XX c.; see abstract & references) [46, c.50-58].
  6. Semyonov A. A. “Vzaimootnosheniya Alishera Navoi i sultana Khuseyn-Mirzy” [Relations of Alisher Navoi and Sultan Husayn-Mirza]. – In: Issledovaniya po istorii kultury narodov Vostoka: Sbornik v chest’ akad. I. A. Orbeli. – Moscow–Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR, 1960. – S. 238–249. (Detailed historical study of Navoi’s political and personal relationship with Husayn Bayqara) [31, c.25-29].
  7. Karimov G. “Tvorchestvo Alishera Navoi kak vershina uzbekskoy klassicheskoy literatury” [The Creativity of Alisher Navoi as the Pinnacle of Uzbek Classical Literature]. – Doctoral dissertation, Tashkent, 1982. – (Cited conceptually regarding Navoi’s progressive ideas and influence.)
  8. Zhirmunsky V. M. “Alisher Navoi i problema Renessansa v literaturakh Vostoka” [Alisher Navoi and the Problem of the Renaissance in Eastern Literatures]. – In: Literatura epokhi Vozrozhdeniya i problemy vsemirnoy literatury. – Moscow–Leningrad, 1947. – (Zhirmunsky compares Navoi’s era to the European Renaissance; see excerpt in [24]).
  9. Zhirmunsky V. M. Sravnitel’noe literaturovedenie. Vostok i Zapad. – Leningrad: Nauka, 1979. – 494 p. (Selected works; includes comparative studies of Eastern and Western literatures; Navoi’s role is discussed on p. 311–313, drawing parallels to Du Bellay and Renaissance humanism).
  10. Konrad N. I. Zapad i Vostok. Stat’i. – Moscow: Nauka, 1972. – 368 p. (A collection of essays by N. Konrad; in an essay on world culture he refers to Navoi as “an achievement of world culture,” emphasizing universal value). [Cited via consulate source: Konrad’s view on Navoi, 1960s].
  11. Bertels E. E. “Navoi i ‘Attar” [Navoi and Attar]. – In: Bertels E. E. Izbrannye trudy. T. IV: Navoi i Djami. – Moscow: Nauka, 1965. – S. 417–431. (Bertels’s analysis of Navoi’s poem Lison ut-tayr vis-à-vis Attar’s work; demonstrates Navoi’s originality and humanism. See p. 418–420 for the key passage asserting Navoi’s mastery and big-hearted humanism) [41, c.102-110].
  12. Bertels E. E. Sufizm i sufiyskaya literatura [Sufism and Sufi Literature]. – Moscow: Nauka, 1965. – 526 p. (Includes discussion of Navoi’s incorporation of Sufi themes and the humanistic aspects of his poetry, e.g., Navoi’s treatment of Attar’s ideas, p. 272–276).
  13. Bartold V. V. “Mir Alisher i politicheskaya zhizn’” [Mir Alisher and Political Life]. – In: Alisher Navoi: Sbornik stateĭ k 500-letiyu (ed. E. E. Bertels). – Moscow–Leningrad: Izdat. AN SSSR, 1948. – S. 3–34. (Originally written 1928; foundational biographical study of Navoi’s life. Bartold compiles historical data, though he avoids literary analysis; see his conclusion on p. 33 that he leaves Navoi’s poetry to literature experts) [18, c.79-84].
  14. Volin L. A. “Opisanie rukopisey proizvedeniy Navoi” [Description of Manuscripts of Navoi’s Works]. – In: Alisher Navoi. – Moscow–Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1946. – S. 87–130. (Detailed catalogue of Navoi manuscripts in Soviet collections, prepared 1940, pub. 1946; provided critical material for textological work).
  15. Berezin I. N. Turkestanskiy sbornik: Khrestomatiya tyurkskoy literatury [Turkestan Anthology: Chrestomathy of Turkic Literature]. – Kazan, 1857. – (Included excerpts of Navoi’s works; an early attempt to present Turkic literary texts academically; referenced by Halilova [1] as prof. I. Berezin’s 1957 work – likely a confusion with this earlier work.)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.