Author: Nia Kuchava

The 1900s were a crucial period for the Caucasus, as it was during this time that the region experienced significant political and ideological shifts. Protest movements emerged, and the Caucasian countries, which were part of the Russian Empire, began to reimagine and redefine their identities. Georgia was no exception to these changes. One of the most pressing issues for nationalism during this period was the understanding of heritage, place, and territory, and how these elements shaped the construction of national identity. It is fascinating to explore how Georgian thought responded to these transformations and the ideas that arose in the context of protest. Kutaisi was one of the most important centers for these developments.

Valuable insights into this era can be found in the book Fire and Sword in the Caucasus by Italian journalist and diplomat Luigi Villari. Villari’s work is particularly noteworthy because, as Charles King—a professor at Georgetown University’s School of International Affairs and author of one of the most important books on Caucasus regional studies—points out, the representation of the Caucasus in Western academia and thought has largely been shaped by the Russian Empire’s perspective. However, Villari’s account is different. His firsthand observations, gathered during his travels, provide a direct view of the region, free from the influence of the colonizer.

In his book, Villari offers important details about the protest movements in Kutaisi, as well as anthropological insights into the daily life, architecture, and domestic spaces of the city at the time. This article explores the political shifts and ideological struggles that were prominent in Kutaisi, as described by Villari.

Luigi Villari visited Kutaisi in 1905, a time when political tensions in the city were reaching their peak. The historical context was challenging. The Russian Empire’s policy of Russification was strict and uncompromising. The Russian bureaucracy suppressed any form of autonomy and even the slightest expressions of nationalism. Russian civil servants refused to use the Georgian language, making Russian the dominant language in public policy and administration. Against this backdrop of tension, Kutaisi entered the 1900s.

The early 1900s also saw the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, a conflict that had a significant impact on the political mood within the Russian Empire’s colonies, including the Caucasus. As Villari notes, Russia’s defeat in this war forced the empire to reconsider its foreign policy and international image. This series of failures sparked discussions about freedom, self-determination, and autonomy among the people living under imperial rule. These ideas were especially relevant in Kutaisi, where, compared to Tbilisi, the constraints of Russian bureaucracy and language were less pronounced.

During this period, social democracy gained traction, and what began as an economic movement gradually grew into a significant social force. According to Villari, the governor of the Caucasus, Golitsyn, was particularly hostile to nationalism. The ideological clash between nationalists and socialists marked an important shift in Georgian thought. People began to reimagine their identities, their demands for the future, and their understanding of the past. Interestingly, in Kutaisi, the conflict between nationalism and socialism was less significant than the broader narratives about independence. A notable portion of political thought was influenced by the socialist federalists, whose agenda prioritized nationalist concerns over class conflicts.

It was against this backdrop of self-discovery and ideological struggle that Villari arrived in Kutaisi. He observed public discussions and debates about the revolution taking place in gathering spots and gardens. People openly expressed their beliefs and ideas, and the friction between different viewpoints fueled a collective desire for change. Villari recounts an interesting incident that highlights the revolutionary mood: during a theater performance, the audience sang La Marseillaise, a clear indication of the protest movement’s influence on public life in Kutaisi.

Although Villari could not fully grasp the content of the speeches and orators he encountered, he was certain about the growing protest sentiment and the new attitudes emerging in Kutaisi under the constraints of the Russian bureaucracy.

In conclusion, at the beginning of the 20th century, political demands and protests were key drivers of public life in Kutaisi. These developments were reflected in the unique characteristics of the city’s social life at the time.