истории) was first published only posthumously as a part of a compilation titled
Ethnosphere: the history of people and the history of nature (Этносфера: история людей
и история природы) (1993). Furthermore, both Young Guard (Молодая гвардия) and
another nationalist journal, Our contemporary (Наш современник), refused to publish
other articles by Gumilev that focused on the Khazars during the 1970s (Bassin, 2016:
188).
Mark Bassin concludes that Gumilev’s contributions were rejected due to their anti-
Semitic nature, which was found to be too radical (Bassin, 2016: 188). His controversial
revision of Khazar history has been sharply criticized by Viktor Shnirelman (Shnirelman,
2012a: 515) and other contemporary researchers (Rossman, 2002: 34). Although some
experts claim that Gumilev’s alleged anti-Semitism is simply a misinterpretation of his
ideas, the negative depictions of Jews in his works are difficult to miss (Saraev, 2012:
933). However, Bassin’s argument is somewhat paradoxical since Gumilev’s negative
portrayal of Jews perfectly matches one of the main ideas that unified the individual
nationalist factions in Russia. As noted by Vladimir Shlapentokh in the early 1990s:
“For many Russophiles, particularly ‘patriots’, hatred of the Jews has become
the most important element of their credo, a sort of shibboleth that allows
them to recognize one another. This hatred is, for them, a most significant
social phenomenon in which they are deeply involved at an emotional level,
and which could probably push them to do things against their personal
interests. During the 1970s Jews, their activities, and their innumerable abject
flaws were by all accounts the main topic of private communication among
these Russophiles, who also tried to raise the Jewish issue at all public
gatherings, either directly or indirectly” (Shlapnetokh, 1990: 221).
An additional description of Gumilev’s relationship with the Russian nationalists was
formulated by Brudny. However, Brudny sees Gumilev as being associated with the
nationalists mainly since the 1980s and, accordingly, focuses on Gumilev’s writings on
other topics, which were published to mark the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo
(Brudny, 1998: 186). Nevertheless, Brudny’s detailed analysis of Soviet inclusive politics
is particularly useful for shedding light on Gumilev’s position in the 1970s. At the time
Gumilev finished his study, the attitude of the Soviet regime to the activities of the
Russian nationalists underwent a major change (Brudny, 1998: 114). The growing
nationalist opposition to Brezhnev’s policies was met with a sharp rebuke from the regime
and the nationalists received several clear warnings during the second half of the 1970s.
Our contemporary (Наш современник) and several other nationalistic periodicals were
particularly criticized for their publications.
The push against the Russian nationalists was escalated by Yuri Andropov, who
succeeded Brezhnev in November 1982 and remained in the office of the General
Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party until his death in February 1984. In April 1981,
he initiated the persecution of Sergei Semanov, a prominent member of the Russian club;
Gumilev was personally acquainted with him (Beljakov, 2012: 582). However,
Andropov’s ambitions plans were never fulfilled, and the repression of Russian
nationalists only deepened their dissatisfaction with official Soviet politics (Brudny, 1998: