DĀNEŠ (Doniš), AḤMAD MAḴDŪM b. Mīr b. Yūsof ḤANAFĪ ṢEDDĪQĪ BOḴĀRĪ (1242-1314/1827-97), known as Aḥmad Kallā and Mohandes (lit., “engineer”), a historian and progressive Tajik writer of Bukhara. The son of the imam of a small mosque in Bukhara, he proved more interested in stories told in the street than in koranic studies (Islamova, p. 50). Nevertheless, he studied in a madrasa (religious school), where he also taught himself history, literature, astronomy, geometry, medicine, calligraphy, and music; his artistic gifts caught the attention of the court architect, whose protégé he became (Epifanova, pp. 9-10). In about 1850 he entered the service of the amir Naṣr-Allāh (1242-77/1827-60) as a painter and calligrapher; he subsequently became a court astronomer and served as liaison between the amir and the ʿolamāʾ (yasāvol-e ʿolamāʾ ) of Bukhara.
Although as a freethinker he was unpopular at the courts of Naṣr-Allāh Khan and his successor, Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Khan (1277-1302/1860-85; Radzhabov, 1957, p. 155), the amirs wished to make use of his talents while keeping him at a distance from the court. He was thus sent three times to St. Petersburg as secretary of Bukharan embassies, in November 1857, October 1869, and January 1874 (Dāneš, 1960a; idem, 1960b). These journeys convinced him of the backwardness of Bukhara and the need for reforms (Istoriya, p. 259). In 1297-98/1879-80 he abandoned the court, disgusted by what he perceived as immorality in ruling circles.
Nevertheless, in his treatise Resāla dar naẓm-e tamaddon wa taʿāwon, part of his major work, Nawāder al-waqāyeʿ, which was composed in 1292-1300/1875-82, he tried to persuade Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Khan of the need for reforms (Radzhabov, 1976; Mirzoev, 1953). These reforms included reorganization of the treasury, fixing of wages, and formulation of ethical standards for civil servants. Dāneš argued that the four pillars of government are the army, the subjects, gold, and water and that the five elementary requirements of the state are a strong and righteous ruler, honest civil servants, competent physicians, an educated population, and sufficient water (Dāneš, 1989, passim). His proposal that science and technology be included in the madrasa curriculum led to his denunciation as an infidel in religious circles (Radzhabov, 1957, p. 367). He also favored the teaching of Russian (Avezboeva, p. 13). He was particularly interested in irrigation, and, after negotiating with the Russian authorities, he tried in vain to persuade the amir to accept “infidel” Russian conditions for building irrigation works for Bukharan agriculture (Mirzoev, 1964). Dāneš’s treatise, however, displeased Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Khan, who in 1302/ 1885 dispatched him as a religious judge to the remote provinces of Ḵuzar and Nahrpay; he returned to Bukhara a few months later, after the amir’s death. The rest of his life he devoted entirely to writing (Scarcia, p. 88).
One of Dāneš’s most important books is a history known by various titles: Risola (Resāla), Toriḵča (Tārīḵča), and Tarjimai holi amironi Buḵori šārif az Amir Daniyol to ʿasr-i Amir ʿAbdalahad (Tarjoma-ye ḥāl-e amīrān-e Boḵārā-ye šarīf az Amīr Dānīāl tā ʿaṣr-e Amīr ʿAbd-al-Aḥad), written in 1312-15/1895-97. It had to be circulated in secret, for in it Dāneš denounced the institutions of Bukhara and the corruption of the regime (Braginskiĭ, p. 95; Epifanova, pp. 13-22; Nadzhafova, passim; Radzhabov, 1961, p. 88). It is a major historical source for this period, containing a description of Dāneš’s journeys to St. Petersburg, an account of the wars between Bukhara and Russia, and Dāneš’s negative views of tsarist colonial policy in Central Asia.
Dāneš appears to have promoted the custom of the literary salon in Bukhara, bringing together such poets and musicians as ʿAbd-al-Qāder Ḵᵛāja Savdo (Sawdāʾ; 1238-90/1823-73), Šams-al-Dīn Maḵdūm, known as Šohin (Šāhīn; 1275-94/1859-94), Moḥammad-Ṣeddīq Ḥayrat; 1295-1320/1878-1902), Qārī Mollā Karāmat-Allāh Tanbūrī Boḵārāʾī Delkaš (d. 1320/1902), and he thus exercised a decisive influence on later Bukharan reformers (Bečka, 1968, pp. 525-26) like Ṣadr-al-Dīn ʿAynī (1295-1373/1878-1954) and Tāš-Ḵᵛāja ʿAṣīrī (1380-1434/1864-1916). His career, evolving from court functionary to opposition critic and historian, illustrates the broader cultural changes that were occurring in 19th-century Central Asia.
Manuscripts of Dāneš’s writings, some in his own hand, are to be found in Dushanbe, St. Petersburg, and especially in the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Tashkent. In addition to the works already mentioned, they include his works Nomus ul-aʿzam (Nāmūs al-aʿẓam), Munozir al-kavokib (Manāẓer al-kawākeb; 1288/1870), al-Risola dar aʿmol ul-kura (al-Resāla dar aʿmāl al-kora; 1287/1878-79) and Maʿayor al-taʿdin (Meʿyār al-taʿdayyon; 1311/1893-94) on the controversy between Sunnite and Shiʿite Muslims (1311/1893; Mirzoev, 1951, pp. 29, 67-74; Nadzhafova, p. 15; Epifanova, pp. 9, 12; Bertel’s, pp. 9-36).
Dāneš also wrote poetry, mostly ḡazals, qaṣīdas, and robāʿīs, some of which are preserved in his prose works and various taḏkeras (Istoriya, p. 259; Epifanova, p. 11; for critical views see Nadzhafova, p. 14). He wrote in a clear and simple style, including realistic and satirical images drawn from the popular oral tradition, which represented a sharp break with the florid style of Bīdel, which had predominated in Transoxania (Muminov, 1957, p. 108).
K. Aini, “Vstrechi Ahmada Donisha s P. I. Pashino” (Meetings of Aḥmad Dāneš with P. I. Pashino), Narody Azii i Afriki (The peoples of Asia and Africa) 6, 1963, pp. 143-46.
Ṣ. Aynī, Namunai adabiyoti tojik (Namūna-ye adabīyāt-e tājīk), Moscow, 1926, pp. 287-301.
Idem, Buḵoro inqilobi tariḵi üčün materiallar (Materials on the history of the revolution of Bukhara), Moscow, 1926.
Idem, Yoddoštho (Yāddāšthā), pts. 3-7, Stalinabad [Dushanbe], 1955.
R. Avezboeva, “Ahmadi Doniš dar borai ḵarakteri progressivīi madaniyati rus” (Ahmad-e Dāneš dar bāra-ye ḵarakter-e progressīvī-e madanīyat-e rūs), Madaniyati Tojikiston (Madanīyat-e Tājīkestān) 1, 1957, pp. 13-14.
J. Bečka, “Soviet Studies on Ahmad Donish,” Archív Orientální 31, 1963, pp. 483-87.
Idem, “Tadjik Literature from the 16th Century to the Present,” in Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 529-32.
E. E. Bertel’s, “Rukopisi proizvedeniĭ Akhmada Kalle” (Manuscripts of the works of Aḥmad Kallā), Trudy Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoĭ SSR (Publications of the Academy of Sciences of the Tajik S.S.R.) 3, 1936, pp. 9-28.
I. S. Braginskiĭ, “Unsurhoi e jodiyoti badeīi ḵalq dar osori kattīi qadim wa asrimiyonagīi tojik” (Onsorhā-ye ayādīyāt-e badīʿ-e ḵalq dar āṯār-e kaṭṭī-e qadīm wa ʿaṣr-e mīānagī-e tājīk), Šarqi surḵ (Šarq-e sorḵ) 3, 1955, pp. 81-105.
A. Dāneš, Asarhoi muntaḵab (Āṯārhā-ye montaḵab), ed. R. Hodizada, Stalinabad, 1959.
Idem, Puteshestvie iz Bukhary v Peterburg (A journey from Bukhara to St. Petersburg), Stalinabad, 1960a.
Idem, Risola-ye muhtasare az toriḵi saltanati ḵonadoni mangitiya . . . (Resāla-ye moḵtaṣar-ī az tariḵ-e salṭanatī-e ḵānadān-e Mangītīya . . . ), ed. A. Mirzoev, Stalinabad, 1960b.
Idem, Nodir vokealar (Nawāder al-waqāyeʿ) Tashkent, 1964; ed. R. Hodizoda as Navodir-ul-vakoe II, Dushanbe, 1989.
L. M. Epifanova, Rukopisnye istochniki Instituta Vostokovedeniya Akademii Nauk Uzbekskoĭ SSR po istorii Sredneĭ Azii perioda prisoedineniya k Rossii (Bukhara) (Manuscript sources in the Institute of Oriental Studies, Akademiya Nauk of the Uzbek S.S.R., on the history of Central Asia in the period of the annexation to Russia [Bukhara]), Tashkent, 1965.
B. Gafurov, Istoriya tadzhikskogo naroda (History of the Tajik people) I, Moscow, 1952.
K. Hitchins, “Modern Tajik Literature,” in Persian Literature, pp. 454-75.
R. Hodizoda, Ahmadi Doniš, Dushanbe, 1976.
L. A. Islamova, “Ob èlementakh narodnosti v tvorchestve Akhmada Donisha” (On elements of nationalism in the works of Aḥmad Dāneš), Obshchestvennye nauki v Uzbekistane (The social sciences in Uzbekistan) 11, 1963.
Istoriya tadzhikskogo naroda (History of the Tajik people) I, Dushanbe, 1967. A. Mirzoev, “Yak fakti muhimmi taʾsiri madaniyati rus dar nimai duyyumi asri XIX va šarti asosiyi omuḵtani merosi adabī-ilmīi Aḥmadi Dāneš” (Yak fakt-e moḥemm-e taʾsīr-e madanīyat-e rūs dar nīma-ye dovvom-e ʿaṣr-e 19 wa šart-e asāsī-e āmūḵtan-e mīrāṯ-e adabī-ʿelmī-e Aḥmad Dāneš), Trudy Tadzhikskogo Filiala Akademii Nauk SSSR (Works of the Tajik branch of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.) 29, 1951, pp. 67-74.
Idem, “Pervaya redaktsiya "Navodir ul-vakoe" i vremya ee sostavleniya” (The first edition of Nawāder al-waqāyeʿ and the date of its composition), in Sbornik stateĭ po istorii i filologii narodov Sredneĭ Azii (A collection of essays on the history and philology of the people of Central Asia), Trudy Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoĭ SSR (Works of the Academy of Sciences of the Tajik S.S.R.) 17, 1953.
Idem, “Akhmad Donish o probleme vody dlya Bukhary” (Aḥmad Dāneš on the problem of water for Bukhara), Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta Narodov Azii (Brief communications of the Institute of Asian peoples) 65, 1964, pp. 112-16.
I. Muminov, Filosofskie vzglyady Mirzy Bedilya (The philosophical views of Mīrzā Bīdel), Tashkent, 1957.
I. A. Nadzhafova, Traktat Akhmada Donisha, Istoriya Mangitskoĭ dinastii (The tract of Aḥmad Dāneš. The history of the Mangït dynasty), Dushanbe, 1967.
Z. Radzhabov, Iz istorii obshchestvennopoliticheskoĭ mysli tadzhikskogo naroda vo vtoroĭ polovine XIX i nachale XX v. (From the history of the sociopolitical thought of the Tajik people in the second half of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century), Stalinabad, 1957.
Idem, Vydayushchiĭsya prosvetitel’ tadzhikskogo naroda Akhmad Donish (The outstanding enlightener of the Tajik people, Aḥmad Dāneš), Dushanbe, 1961.
Idem, Maʿorefparvar Ahmad Doniš (Maʿāref-parvar Aḥmad Dāneš), Dushanbe, 1964.
Idem, O “Politicheskom traktate” Akhmada Donisha (On the “political tract” of Aḥmad Dāneš), Dushanbe, 1976.
G. Scarcia, “Note su alcuni motivi della cultura tagica e su Ahmad Donish,” AIUON 11, 1961, pp. 63-103.
S. Uluḡzoda, Ahmadi Doniš, Stalinabad, 1946.
A. Yunusov, Ahmadi Doniš, Dushanbe, 1960.
M. Zand, “Ahmadi Doniš,” Adabiyoti kitobīi darsi sinfi IX (Adabīyāt-e ketābī-e dars-e ṣenf-e 9), Stalinabad, 1956, pp. 174-211.
Originally Published: December 15, 1993
Last Updated: November 14, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. VI, Fasc. 6, pp. 647-649