works! getpedia : get how stuff getpedia : get how stuff ... · bodybuilding nutrition nutritional...

Welcome To GetPedia.com The Online Information Resource Providing You the Most Unique Content and Genuine Articles in the most Widest range categories. Browse and discover Information in each and every category. There are currently more than 500,000 articles to browse for.

Business

Advertising Branding Business Management Business Ethics Careers, Jobs & Employment Customer Service Marketing Networking Network Marketing Pay-Per-Click Advertising Presentation Public Relations Sales Sales Management Sales Telemarketing Sales Training Small Business Strategic Planning Entrepreneur Negotiation Tips Team Building Top Quick Tips

Internet & Businesses Online

Affiliate Revenue Blogging, RSS & FeedsDomain Name E-Book E-commerce Email Marketing Ezine Marketing Ezine Publishing Forums & Boards Internet Marketing Online Auction Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Spam Blocking Streaming Audio & Online Music Traffic Building Video Streaming Web Design Web Development Web Hosting Web Site Promotion

Finance

Credit Currency Trading Debt Consolidation Debt Relief Loan Insurance Investing Mortgage Refinance Personal Finance Real Estate TaxesStocks & Mutual Fund Structured Settlements Leases & Leasing Wealth Building

Communications

Broadband Internet Mobile & Cell Phone VOIP Video Conferencing Satellite TV

Reference & Education

Book Reviews College & University Psychology Science Articles

Food & Drinks

Coffee Cooking TipsRecipes & Food and Drink Wine & Spirits

Home & Family

Crafts & Hobbies Elder Care Holiday Home Improvement Home Security Interior Design & Decorating Landscaping & Gardening Babies & Toddler Pets Parenting Pregnancy

News & Society

Dating Divorce Marriage & Wedding PoliticalRelationships ReligionSexuality

Computers & Technology

Computer Hardware Data Recovery & Computer Backup Game Internet Security Personal Technology Software

Arts & Entertainment

Casino & Gambling Humanities Humor & Entertainment Language Music & MP3 Philosophy Photography Poetry

Shopping & Product Reviews

Book Reviews Fashion & Style

Health & Fitness

Acne Aerobics & Cardio Alternative Medicine Beauty TipsDepression Diabetes Exercise & Fitness Fitness Equipment Hair Loss Medicine Meditation Muscle Building & Bodybuilding Nutrition Nutritional SupplementsWeight LossYoga

Recreation and Sport

Fishing Golf Martial Arts Motorcycle

Self Improvement & Motivation

Attraction Coaching Creativity Dealing with Grief & LossFinding HappinessGet Organized - Organization Leadership Motivation Inspirational Positive Attitude Tips Goal Setting Innovation Spirituality Stress ManagementSuccess Time Management

Writing & Speaking

Article Writing Book Marketing Copywriting Public Speaking Writing

Travel & Leisure

Aviation & Flying Cruising & Sailing Outdoors Vacation Rental

Cancer

Breast Cancer Mesothelioma & Asbestos Cancer

Copyright © 2006

GetPedia

GetPedia : Get How Stuff Works!GetPedia : Get How Stuff

Works!

http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=101http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=114http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=176http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=144http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=118http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=130http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=177http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=189http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=188http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=202http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=205http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=203http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=212http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=213http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=214http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=215http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=222http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=227http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=143http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=187http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=233http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=235http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=103http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=112http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=138http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=139http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=140http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=142http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=146http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=147http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=151http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=168http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=106http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=219http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=219http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=224http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=107http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=107http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=236http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=239http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=242http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=243http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=244http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=221http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=127http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=129http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=133http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=134http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=174http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=166http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=169http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=183http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=194http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=208http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=232http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=226http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=229http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=173http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=241http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=116http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=182http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=240http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=238http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=216http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=110http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=122http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=206http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=217http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=121http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=123http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=209http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=246http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=125http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=141http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=159http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=160http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=161http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=167http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=170http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=109http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=196http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=193http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=204http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=132http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=137http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=178http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=200http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=210http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=211http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=220http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=158http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=131http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=131http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=152http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=218http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=195http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=223http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=119http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=162http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=163http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=171http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=186http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=197http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=198http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=199http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=110http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=148http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=100http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=102http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=104http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=111http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=135http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=136http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=145http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=150http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=156http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=180http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=181http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=117http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=117http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=190http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=231http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=245http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=249http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=149http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=154http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=179http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=185http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=105http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=120http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=126http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=155http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=157http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=191http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=172http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=184http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=165http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=201http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=153http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=164http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=225http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=228http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=230http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=234http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=248http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=113http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=124http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=207http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=247http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=108http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=128http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=192http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=237http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=115http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=175http://www.getpedia.com/showarticles.php?cat=175

E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F

RUSSIAN HISTORY

ERH-half ttlpg 10,1.qx4 10/6/03 1:45 PM Page i

EDITOR IN CHIEF

James R. MillarGeorge Washington University

SENIOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Ann E. RobertsonGeorge Washington University

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Daniel H. KaiserGrinnell CollegeLouise McReynoldsUniversity of HawaiiDonald J. RaleighUniversity of North CarolinaNicholas V. RiasanovskyUniversity of California, BerkeleyRonald Grigor SunyUniversity of Chicago

ADVISORY BOARD

Marianna Tax CholdinUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignGregory L. FreezeBrandeis UniversityPaul R. GregoryUniversity of HoustonLindsey HughesUniversity College LondonPaul R. JosephsonColby CollegeJanet L. B. MartinUniversity of MiamiBruce W. MenningU.S. Army Command and Staff CollegeBoris N. MironovRussian Academy of ScienceReginald E. ZelnikUniversity of California, Berkeley

EDITORIAL BOARD

V O L U M E 3 : M - R

JAMES R. MILLAR, EDITOR IN CHIEF

E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F

RUSSIAN HISTORY

ERHv3-ttlpg 10,1.qx4 10/6/03 1:41 PM Page iii

© 2004 by Macmillan Reference USA. Macmillan Reference USA is an imprint of The Gale Group, Inc., a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.

Macmillan Reference USA™ and Thomson Learning™ are trademarks usedherein under license.

For more information, contactMacmillan Reference USA 300 Park Avenue South, 9th Floor New York, NY 10010 Or you can visit our Internet site at http://www.gale.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDNo part of this work covered by the copyrighthereon may be reproduced or used in anyform or by any means—graphic, electronic, ormechanical, including photocopying, record-ing, taping, Web distribution, or informationstorage retrieval systems—without the writtenpermission of the publisher.

For permission to use material from thisproduct, submit your request via Web athttp://www.gale-edit.com/permissions, or youmay download our Permissions Request formand submit your request by fax or mail to:

Permissions DepartmentThe Gale Group, Inc.27500 Drake Rd.Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535Permissions Hotline:248-699-8006 or 800-877-4253 ext. 8006Fax: 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058

While every effort has been made to ensurethe reliability of the information presented inthis publication, The Gale Group, Inc. doesnot guarantee the accuracy of the data con-tained herein. The Gale Group, Inc. accepts topayment for listing; and inclusion in the pub-lication of any organization, agency, institu-tion, publication, service, or individual doesnot imply endorsement of the editors or pub-lisher. Errors brought to the attention of thepublisher and verified to the satisfaction ofthe publisher will be corrected in future edi-tions.

Encyclopedia of Russian HistoryJames R. Millar

This title is also available as an e-book.ISBN 0-02-865907-4 (set)

Contact your Gale sales representative for ordering information.

Printed in the United States of America10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Encyclopedia of Russian history / James R. Millar, editor in chief.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-02-865693-8 (set hardcover) — ISBN 0-02-865694-6 (v. 1) —ISBN 0-02-865695-4 (v. 2) — ISBN 0-02-865696-2 (v. 3) — ISBN0-02-865697-0 (v. 4)

1. Russia—History—Encyclopedias. 2. SovietUnion—History—Encyclopedias. 3. Russia(Federation)—History—Encyclopedias. I. Millar, James R., 1936-

DK14.E53 2003947’.003—dc21 2003014389

MACARIUS See MAKARY, METROPOLITAN.

MACHINE TRACTOR STATIONS

The Machine Tractor Stations (MTS) were budget-financed state organizations established in rural ar-eas of the Soviet Union beginning in 1930. Intendedmainly as a mechanism to provide machinery andequipment (including repairs and maintenance) tothe kolkhozes (collective farms), they also exertedstate control over agriculture. Payment for the ser-vices of the Machine Tractor Stations was made inkind (product) by the farms. The emergence of theMTS was closely tied to the introduction of the col-lective farms and especially the continuing debateover organizational arrangements in the country-side, notably the appropriate scale or size of the col-lective farms. The original model of the MachineTractor Stations was based upon experimentalarrangements of the Shevchenko sovkhoz (statefarm) in Ukraine. The Machine Tractor Stationswere introduced rapidly. By the end of 1930 therewere approximately 150 Machine Tractor Stationscontrolling approximately 7,000 tractors. By 1933there were 2,900 stations controlling approxi-mately 123,000 tractors, roughly 50 percent of alltractors in agriculture, the remaining tractors be-longing to state farms. Overall, the growth of thetractor park was rapid, from some 27,000 units in1928 to 531,000 units in 1940.

The Machine Tractor Stations became the dom-inant mechanism for providing equipment to thekolkhozes. While the stations themselves providedstate support to kolkhozes, especially to those pro-ducing grain, the political departments of the MTS(the politotdely), established in 1933, became an im-portant means for exercising political control overthe collective farms. This control extended well be-yond the allocation and use of machinery andequipment, and specifically involved the develop-ment of production plans after the introduction of compulsory deliveries in 1933. The MTS was,therefore, an integral part of kolkhoz operations,and conflict often arose between the two organi-zations.

The Machine Tractor Stations were abolishedin 1958 during the Khrushchev era. However, theirabolition and short-term replacement with the Re-pair Tractor Stations (RTS) was in fact a part of amuch more significant process of continuing agri-cultural reorganization in the 1950s and thereafter.

M

883

In addition to changes within farms during the1950s, there was continuing emphasis on consol-idating farms, converting kolkhozes to sovkhozes,and changing the organizational arrangementsabove the level of the individual farms. In effect,state control came to be exercised through differ-ent organizations, for example, the Territorial Pro-duction Associations (TPAs). While the machineryand equipment were dispersed to individual farms,in effect the organizational changes in the agricul-tural sector during the post-Stalin era consistedlargely of agro-industrial integration. The changesintroduced during the 1950s were mainly reformsof Nikita Khrushchev, and they became a majorfactor in Khrushchev’s downfall in 1964.

See also: COLLECTIVE FARM; COLLECTIVIZATION OF AGRI-CULTURE

BIBLIOGRAPHYMiller, Robert F. (1970). One Hundred Thousand Tractors:

The MTS and the Development of Controls in Soviet Agri-culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ROBERT C. STUART

MAFIA CAPITALISM

Mafia capitalism is a term that emerged to describeRussia’s economic system in the 1990s. While theimplied parallel goes to the classic protection rack-ets of the Sicilian mafia, the actual Russian prac-tice was different. In order to reflect this, bothscholars and journalists have taken to describingthe Russian system of organized crime as “mafiya.”

There are obvious similarities between mafiaand mafiya, in the form of organized gangs im-posing tribute on businesses. This is the world ofextortion, hitmen, and violent reprisals againstthose who fail to pay up. In the case of mafiya,however, it mainly affects the small business sec-tor. Major actors will normally have affiliationswith private security providers that operate a“cleaner” business of charging fees for protectionagainst arson and violent assault.

To foreign businesses in particular, the latteroffers plausible deniability in claiming that nomoney is being paid to Russian organized crime.

M A F I A C A P I T A L I S M

884 E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F R U S S I A N H I S T O R Y

The first tractors coming off the assembly line at the tractor works in Stalingrad. © HULTON ARCHIVE

Money paid to private security providers, or to of-ficials “helping out” with customs or other tradi-tionally “difficult” parts of public administration,may also frequently be offset against lower pay-ments of taxes, customs, and other fees.

The real outcome is one where the Russian stateand thus the Russian population at large suffergreat damage. Not only is the government’s tradi-tional monopoly on violence both privatized anddecentralized into hands that are under no effectivecontrol by the authorities, but money destined tohave been paid to the Russian government ends upinstead in the coffers of security firms.

Moreover, businesses in Russia are subjected todemands for tribute not only from organized crimegangs, but also from a broad variety of represen-tatives of the official bureaucracy. This far exceedsthe corruption associated with mafia in many otherparts of the world, and explains in part why, inthe compilation of international indices on corrup-tion, Russia tends to rank amongst the worst cases.

Russian entrepreneurs will typically be sub-jected to several visits per month, maybe even perweek, by representatives of public bodies such asthe fire department or the health inspectorate, allof which will expect to receive a little on the side.

The burden on the small business sector in par-ticular should be measured not only in financialterms, as the tribute paid may be offset by taxavoidance. Far more serious is the implied tax onthe time of entrepreneurs, which often tends to bethe most precious asset of a small business. Thenumber of hours that are spent negotiating withthose demanding bribes will have to be taken fromproductive efforts.

The overall consequences of mafiya for theRussian economy are manifested in the stifling ofprivate initiative and degradation of the moral ba-sis of conducting business.

See also: CRONY CAPITALISM; ORGANIZED CRIME

BIBLIOGRAPHYCenter for Strategic and International Studies. (1997).

Russian Organized Crime. Washington, DC: Center forStrategic and International Studies.

Handelman, Stephen. (1995). Comrade Criminal. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

STEFAN HEDLUND

MAIN POLITICAL DIRECTORATE

Officials from the Communist Party of the SovietUnion (CPSU) monitored workers in key occupa-tions to ensure their adherence to party doctrineand loyalty to the CPSU and the Soviet Union.

In the Soviet army and navy, the CPSU main-tained a shadow system of command parallel withthe military chain of command. In the early daysof the USSR, Party commanders (politruks) ensuredthe political reliability of regular officers and sol-diers. As the Party became more secure in the po-litical allegiance of the military, party commandersbecame “deputies for political work” (zampolit).These officers were directly subordinated to the unitcommander, but they had access to higher partyofficials through a separate chain of command. Byand large, the zampolit dealt with matters such asmorale, discipline, living conditions, training, andpolitical indoctrination. Security issues such as po-litical reliability were the primary concern of theSpecial Section. The Main Political Directorate alsoscrutinized the content of military publications, in-cluding the official newspaper Krasnaya zvezda andmilitary publishing houses.

In the post-Soviet era, military discipline ishandled by the Main Directorate for IndoctrinationWork. Without the power of the Party behind thisinstitution, problems such as discipline, desertion,crime, and others have become increasingly moreserious.

See also: COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION; MIL-ITARY, SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET

BIBLIOGRAPHYHerspring, Dale R. (1990). The Soviet High Command,

1967–1989: Personalities and Politics. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Whiting, Kenneth R. (1978). The Development of the SovietArmed Forces, 1917–1977. Maxwell Air Force Base,AL: Air University Press.

ANN E. ROBERTSON

MAKAROV, STEPAN OSIPOVICH

(1849–1904), naval commander during Russo-Japanese War; prolific writer on naval affairs.

Vice Admiral Stepan Osipovich Makarov, com-mander of the Pacific Squadron of the Russian navy

M A K A R O V , S T E P A N O S I P O V I C H

885E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F R U S S I A N H I S T O R Y

during the Russo-Japanese War and the author ofmore than fifty works on naval tactics, technol-ogy, and oceanography, was born in Nikolaevskon the Bug River and graduated from naval schoolat Nikolaevsk on the Amur in 1865. While still inschool he was deployed with the Pacific Squadronin 1863, and after graduation he joined the BalticFleet. Serving on the staff of Vice Admiral A.A.Popov from 1871 to 1876, Makarov was involvedin naval engineering projects, including studies ofproblems related to damage control.

During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878,Makarov commanded the Grand Duke Konstantinand successfully conducted mine/torpedo warfareagainst Turkish units in the Black Sea, using steamlaunches armed with towed mines and self-propelled torpedoes. In 1878 he took part in theunsuccessful effort to construct a mine-artilleryposition to prevent the British Royal Navy fromentering the Turkish Straits and began the devel-opment of techniques for underway minelaying.He conducted a major study of the currents in theTurkish Straits during the late 1870s, commandedthe riverine flotilla that supported General MikhailSkobelev’s Akhal-Tekke Campaign in Central Asiain 1880-1881, commanded the corvette Vityaz ona round-the-world cruise from 1886 to 1889,served with the Baltic Fleet during the early 1890s,and was inspector of naval artillery from 1891 to1894. During the mid-1890s Makarov completedanother round-the-world cruise. In December 1897he published his essay “Discussions on Questionsof Naval Tactics.” Makarov wrote extensively onthe impact of technology on naval tactics and wasone of the foremost authorities on mine warfare atsea. During the late 1890s he directed the con-struction of the Baltic Fleet’s first icebreaker, theErmak. In 1899 he was appointed commander ofthe naval base at Kronstadt.

After the Japanese surprise attack in January1904, Makarov assumed command of the Russiansquadron at Port Arthur, immediately institutingmeasures to raise the morale of its crews. On April13 Makarov ordered a sortie to support Russian de-stroyers engaged with Japanese vessels. Shortly af-ter getting under way his flagship, the battleshipPetropavlovsk, struck a mine that detonated the for-ward magazine. Vice Admiral Makarov died alongwith most of the ship’s crew and the painter VasilyVereshchagin.

See also: ADMIRALTY; BALTIC FLEET; BLACK SEA FLEET;RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR; RUSSO-TURKISH WARS

BIBLIOGRAPHYMakarov, Stepan Osipovich. (1990). “Discussions of

Questions on Naval Tactics.” In Classics of Sea Power,ed. John B. Hattendorf. Annapolis, MD: Naval In-stitute Press.

JACOB W. KIPP

MAKARY, METROPOLITAN

(c. 1482–1563), also known as Macarius; arch-bishop of Novgorod (1526–1542); metropolitan ofMoscow and all Rus (1542–1563); prominent reli-gious and political figure of the sixteenth century.

Makary’s parentage is not known, and noth-ing is known about him before he was tonsured atthe Pafnuty-Borovsk Monastery at the end of thefifteenth century. In February 1523, MetropolitanDaniel appointed Makary archimandrite of theLuzhetsk Monastery near Mozhaisk. He becamearchbishop of Novgorod and Pskov on March 4,1526, the first archbishop to be appointed to thatcity since 1508. This appointment may have comeabout, at least in part, as a result of Makary’s sup-port of the divorce of Grand Prince Basil III fromhis wife Solomonia in 1525 and the subsequentmarriage of the grand prince to Elena Glinskaya.As archbishop, Makary undertook reorganizationof the monasteries and promoted missionary ac-tivity to the Karelo-Finnic population in the north-ern reaches of his jurisdiction. He also undertook anumber of building and restoration projects, in-cluding the direction of the unsuccessful construc-tion of the first water mill on the Volkhov River.The greater complexity of Novgorodian church ar-chitecture in the 1530s, such as tri-apse construc-tions and five-cupola designs, has been attributedto Makary’s intervention. Makary also undertooka number of literary and mathematical activities,including updating the Novgorod Chronicle, com-piling a menology, which became the prototype ofthe Great Menology, and calculating the date ofEaster through the year 2072. In 1531 he partici-pated in the council that tried the monks Maximthe Greek, Isaak Sobaka, and Vassian Patrikeyev forholding heretical views.

Makary replaced Ioasaf (Joseph) as metropoli-tan of Moscow and all Rus on March 16, 1542,and took over responsibility for the education andupbringing of the young Ivan IV. He continued asa close adviser of the tsar until the end of his ownlife. In 1547 Makary presided over the coronation

M A K A R Y , M E T R O P O L I T A N


of Ivan as tsar (January), the marriage of Ivan toAnastasia (February), and (with Ivan) a churchcouncil (January–February) that canonized a num-ber of Rus saints. Makary was badly injured in theMoscow fire in June of that year when he was be-ing lowered from the Kremlin wall to escape theflames. Nonetheless, he continued to remain activein religious and political affairs while he recovered.In February 1549, along with Ivan, he presided overanother church council that canonized more Russaints. In June 1550, Makary and Ivan presidedover the assembly that compiled the Sudebnik of1550, the first major revision of the law code since 1497. During January and February 1551,Makary presided with Ivan over the Stoglav (Hun-dred-Chapter) church council, which codified theregulations of the Church similar to the way gov-ernment laws had been codified the previous yearin the Sudebnik. Also in 1551, Makary releasedMaxim the Greek from imprisonment and allowedhim to move to the Trinity–St. Sergius Monasteryin Zagorsk but would not allow him to return toGreece.

While Ivan IV was away on the campaignagainst Kazan from June through October 1552,Makary, along with Ivan’s wife Anastasia andbrother Yuri, was left in charge of running the civilaffairs of the Muscovite state. By 1553, his firstlarge literary compilation project as metropolitan,the Great Menology, was completed. Makary alsopresided over several significant heresy trials, in-cluding those of the archimandrite of the ChudovMonastery Isaak Sobaka (1549), the military servi-tor Matvei Bashkin, the hegumen of the Trinity–St.Sergius Monastery Artemy (1553–1554), and themonk Feodosy Kosoi (1554–1555). Also in 1555,Makary established the archiepiscopal see of Kazan.In addition, Makary directed the introduction of anew style of icon painting, which combined polit-ical and ideological concepts with religious themes.This new style was manifested in the wall and ceil-ing paintings of the Golden Palace in the Kremlin.The state secretary Ivan Viskovaty criticized anumber of the new icons for violating the estab-lished standards of Eastern Christian icon painting.As a result, Viskovaty was brought to trial beforea Church council in 1553 presided over by Makary.Viskovaty’s views were condemned, but he escapedpunishment and maintained his position by re-canting. During the remainder of his tenure in of-fice, Makary concentrated on a number ofconstruction projects, including the Cathedral ofthe Intercession of the Virgin on the Moat(1555–1561), popularly known as Basil the Blessed

after one of its chapels, as well as two major liter-ary compilations, the Book of Degrees and the Illu-minated Compilation.

As an ideologist, Makary is credited with for-mulating the Church-based justification for theMuscovite conquest of Kazan as well as solidify-ing into a formula the Church’s anti-Tatar dia-tribes. The close relationship between the Churchand the State that he fostered was in accord withEastern Church political theory and received visi-ble articulation in the style of icon painting hehelped to introduce. Several important letters andspeeches are attributed to Makary, although hecannot be considered a major literary figure. Thereexist several letters of his from the time he wasarchbishop of Novgorod and Pskov. In his speechat the coronation of Ivan IV in 1547, Makary, inhis role as metropolitan, reminded the new tsar ofhis duty to protect the Church. His Reply (Otvet)to Tsar Ivan IV was written around 1550 shortlybefore the Stoglav Church Council. In it, Makarycites a number of precedents concerning the in-alienability of Church and monastic lands, includ-ing the Donation of Constantine, the Rule ofVladimir, and the false charter (yarlyk) to Metro-politan Peter.

He ends the Reply with a plea to the tsar notto take away the “immovable properties” belong-ing to the Uspensky (Assumption) Cathedral, theseat of the metropolitan. In his speech after the con-quest of Kazan, Makary depicted victory as the re-sult of a long-term religious crusade and therebyarticulated the Church-based justification for Mus-covy’s claim to Kazan.

Perhaps Makary’s most remarkable achieve-ment was the Great Menology (Velikie minei-chety),which consisted of twelve volumes, one for eachmonth, and which comprised a total of approxi-mately 13,500 large-format folios. The GreatMenology included full texts of almost all Church-related writings then known in Russia, includingsaints’ lives, sermons, letters, council decisions,translations, condemnations of heretics, and soforth, all arranged in categories of daily readings.Makary had competed a shorter version of thismenology while he was archbishop of Novgorod,and the resources of the Muscovite Church allowedhim to expand it to comprehensive proportions.

During his tenure as metropolitan, two othermajor compendious works were begun that werecompleted only after his death. One was the Bookof Degrees (Stepennaya kniga), a complete rewriting

M A K A R Y , M E T R O P O L I T A N


of the Rus chronicles to provide a direct justifica-tion for the ascendancy of the Muscovite ruling dynasty from Vladimir I. The other was the Illu-minated Compilation (Litsevoi svod), based on the Ruschronicles. Twelve volumes were projected, ofwhich eleven volumes are extant with more thanten thousand miniatures.

Makary died on December 31, 1563. He wasburied the next day in the Uspensky Cathedral inthe Moscow Kremlin. Despite apparent attemptsimmediately after his death and in the seventeenthcentury to raise him to miracle worker (chu-dotvorets) status, Makary was not canonized until1988.

See also: BOOK OF DEGREES; IVAN IV; KAZAN; METRO-POLITAN; MUSCOVY; SUDEBNIK OF 1550; TRINITY-ST.

SERGIUS MONASTERY

BIBLIOGRAPHYC�i evskij, Dmitrij. (1960). History of Russian Literature:

From the Eleventh Century to the End of the Baroque.’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.

Miller, David B. (1967). “The Literary Activities of Met-ropolitan Macarius: A Study of Muscovite PoliticalIdeology in the Time of Ivan IV.” Ph.D. diss., Co-lumbia University, New York.

Pelenski, Jaroslaw. (1974). Russia and Kazan: Conquestand Imperial Ideology (1438–1560s). The Hague,Netherlands: Mouton.

DONALD OSTROWSKI

MAKHNO, NESTOR IVANOVICH

(1889–1934), leader of an insurgent peasant armyin the civil war and hero of the libertarian Left.

Born in Ukraine of peasant stock in Hulyai-Pole,Yekaterinoslav guberniya, Nestor Makhno (néMikhnenko) became an anarchist during the 1905Revolution. Makhno’s father had died when he wasan infant, so he worked as a shepherd from the ageof seven and as a metalworker in his teens, attend-ing school only briefly. In 1910, following his ar-rest two years earlier for killing a police officer,Makhno was condemned to death, but the sentencewas commuted to life imprisonment because of hisyouth. Freed in 1917 from a Moscow prison, wherehe had befriended the anarchist Peter Arshinov,Makhno returned to Hulyai-Pole to chair its sovietand organize revolutionary communes. In 1918, he

established a peasant army in southeastern Ukraineand during the Civil War proved himself to be abrilliant and innovative (if unorthodox) comman-der. Makhno’s forces battled the Central Powers,Ukrainian nationalists, the Whites, and the Reds (al-though he also periodically collaborated with thelatter). Makhno’s Revolutionary Insurgent Armyplayed a decisive role in defeating the Whites inSouth Russia in 1919 and 1920, utilizing techniquesof partisan and guerilla warfare to dramatic effect.The Makhnovists also oversaw an enduringly in-fluential anarchist revolution (the Makhnovshchina)in southern Ukraine, summoning non-party con-gresses of workers and peasants and exhorting themto organize and govern themselves. In 1920, hav-ing refused to integrate his forces with the RedArmy and hostile to Bolshevik authoritarianism,Makhno became an outlaw on Soviet territory. InAugust 1921, Red forces pursued him into Roma-nia. After suffering imprisonment there and inPoland and Danzig, Makhno settled in Paris in 1924.In 1926, he helped create Arshinov’s OrganizationalPlatform of Libertarian Communists, but brokewith his former mentor when Arshinov came toterms with Moscow. Thereafter, Makhno devotedhimself to writing. In 1934, in poverty and isola-tion, he died of the tuberculosis he had originallycontracted in tsarist prisons, but his name andachievements are revered by anarchists the worldover. He is buried in Père La Chaise Cemetery, Paris.

See also: ANARCHISM; CIVIL WAR OF 1917–1922

BIBLIOGRAPHYArshinov, Peter. (1974). History of the Makhnovist Move-

ment. Detroit: Black & Red.

JONATHAN D. SMELE

MALENKOV, GEORGYMAXIMILYANOVICH

(1902–1988), prominent Soviet party official.

Georgy Maximilyanovich Malenkov was bornin Orenburg on January 13, 1902. In 1919 hejoined the Red Army, where he worked in the po-litical administration at various levels during theRussian civil war. In April 1920, he became a mem-ber of the Bolshevik Party, and during the follow-ing month he married Valentina AlexeyevnaGolubtsova, a worker in the Central Committee(CC) apparatus.

M A K H N O , N E S T O R I V A N O V I C H


Malenkov’s career during the 1920s was typ-ical of many during that period. He was a ruthlessparty official without any clear political views. Hestudied at the Moscow Higher Technical Institutebetween 1921 and 1925, during which time he wasa member of a commission investigating “Trot-skyism” among fellow students. In 1925 he becamea technical secretary of the Organizational Bureauof the Central Committee.

During the early 1930s he worked in theMoscow party committee as the head of the sec-tion for mass agitation, conducting a purge of op-position members. Between 1934 and 1939 he ranthe party organization for the Central Committeeand reviewed party documents in preparation forthe Great Purge beginning in 1936. Malenkov tookan active role in various aspects of this purge, su-pervising particularly harsh actions in Belarus andArmenia in 1937.

In 1937 Malenkov was appointed a deputy ofthe Supreme Soviet of the USSR (he was promotedto the Presidium in 1938), and in this same yearbecame the deputy to Nikolai Yezhov, head of theNKVD. By 1939 Malenkov was also a member ofthe party Central Committee (CC), and shortly hebecame the head of the administration of partycadres and a CC secretary.

Before the outbreak of the war with Germany,Malenkov became a candidate member of the Polit-buro. During the war, he supplied planes to the RedAir Force, and he appears to have undertaken histasks efficiently. Josef Stalin relied on Malenkov in-creasingly after 1943. In that year Malenkovheaded a committee of the Soviet government forthe restoration of farms in liberated areas, and af-ter mid-May 1944, he was the deputy chairmanof the Council of Ministers of the USSR (secondonly to Stalin himself). From March 18, 1946,Malenkov was a member of the ruling Politburo.

During the ascendancy of Andrei Zhdanov af-ter the war, Malenkov’s career briefly declined. Af-ter the exposure of a scandal in the aviationindustry, he lost both his deputy chairmanship ofthe government and his role as CC secretary con-trolling party personnel, in March and May 1946,respectively. Thanks to the intervention of LavrentyBeria, however, he was able to recover both posi-tions by August. In 1948 he took over the positionof ideological secretary of the CC and was also givenresponsibility for Soviet agriculture, at that timethe most backward sector of the Soviet economy.

During the late Stalin period, Malenkov onceagain played a leading role in new purges, includ-ing the Leningrad Affair and the exposure of the“Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee.” The aging leaderentrusted him to present the main report at theNineteenth Party Congress (the first party congressin thirteen years). With Stalin’s death on March 5,1953, Malenkov became the chairman of the Coun-cil of Ministers (prime minister) and the main partysecretary. On March 14, however, the latter posi-tion was given to Khrushchev.

Malenkov joined with Khrushchev to overcomea putsch by Beria in 1953, but then a power strug-gle between the two leaders developed. Malenkoveventually had to make a public confession re-garding his failure to revive Soviet agriculture. By

M A L E N K O V , G E O R G Y M A X I M I L Y A N O V I C H


Georgy Malenkov, Soviet prime minister, 1953–1955. COURTESY

OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

February 1955, he was demoted to a deputy chair-man of the government and given responsibilityover Soviet electric power stations. Malenkov andformer old-guard Stalinists Lazar Kaganovich and Vyacheslav Molotov resented Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization speech at the Twentieth Party Congress of February 1956. In 1957 the three en-gineered a majority vote within the Presidium forKhrushchev’s removal. Khrushchev, however, wasable to reverse the vote in a CC plenum, which sawthe defeat of the so-called Antiparty Group. OnJune 29, Malenkov lost his positions in the Presid-ium and the Central Committee.

Though he was still relatively young, Malen-kov’s career was effectively over. He became the director of a hydroelectric power station in Ust-Kamengorsk, and subsequently of a thermal powerstation in Ekibastuz. In 1961, the Ekibastuz cityparty committee expelled him from membership,and Malenkov retired on a pension until his deathin Moscow on January 14, 1988. He is remem-bered mainly as a loyal and unprincipled Stalinistwith few notable achievements outside of partypolitics.

See also: ANTI-PARTY GROUP; KHRUSHCHEV, NIKITASERGEYEVICH; LENINGRAD AFFAIR; PURGES, THE

GREAT; STALIN, JOSEF VISSARIONOVICH

BIBLIOGRAPHYEbon, Martin. (1953). Malenkov: A Biographical Study of

Stalin’s Successor. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Radzinsky, Edward. (1996). Stalin: The First In-Depth Bi-ography Based on Explosive New Documents fromMoscow’s Secret Archives. New York: Doubleday.

DAVID R. MARPLES

MALEVICH, KAZIMIR SEVERINOVICH

(1878–1935), founder of the Suprematist school ofabstract painting.

Kazimir Severinovich Malevich was initially afollower of Impressionism. He was influenced byPablo Picasso and Cubism and became a memberof the Jack of Diamonds group, whose memberswere the leading exponents of avant-garde art inpre–World War I Russia. According to the Supre-matists, each economic mode of production gener-ated not only a ruling class but also an officialartistic style supported by that dominant social

class. Deviations from that official style were theproducts of subordinate classes. All art, prior to therule of the proletariat, therefore, manifested the ide-ology of some class. But the revolution would bringabout the destruction not merely of the bourgeoisie,but of all classes as such. Consequently, the art ofthe proletarian revolution must be the expressionof not merely another style but of absolute, eter-nal, “supreme” values.

Constructivism was brought into Soviet avant-guard architecture primarily by Vladimir Tatlinand Malevich. Malevich’s “Arkhitektonica,” Tatlin’sMonument to the Third International (the “TatlinTower”), and El Lissitsky’s “Prouns” shaped in largemeasure the conceptualizations of the modernistarchitects as they sought a means to combinepainting, sculpture, and architecture. Tatlin’s stresson utilitarianism was challenged by Malevich’sSuprematism, which decried the emphasis of tech-nology in art and argued that artists must searchfor “supreme” artistic values that would transformthe ideology of the people. Malevich thus contrastedthe work of engineers, whose creations exhibitedsimple transitory values, with aesthetic creativity,which he proclaimed produced supreme values.Malevich warned: “If socialism relies on the infal-libility of science and technology, a great disap-pointment is in store for it because it is not grantedto scientists to foresee the ‘course of events’ and tocreate enduring values” (Malevich, p. 36). His“White on White” carried Suprematist theories totheir logical conclusion. With the turn againstmodern art under Josef Stalin, Malevich lost influ-ence and died in poverty and oblivion.

See also: ARCHITECTURE; CONSTRUCTIVISM; FUTURISM.

BIBLIOGRAPHYMalevich, Kazimir. (1959) The Non-Objective World, tr.

Howard Dearstyne. Chicago: P. Theobald.

Milner, John. (1996). Kazimir Malevich and the Art ofGeometry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

HUGH D. HUDSON JR.

MALTA SUMMIT

A summit meeting of U.S. President George W. Bushand Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev took place onDecember 2–3, 1989, on warships of the two coun-tries anchored at Malta in the Mediterranean. The

M A L E V I C H , K A Z I M I R S E V E R I N O V I C H


meeting, the first between the two leaders, followedthe collapse of communist bloc governments in EastGermany, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czecho-slovakia (Romania would follow three weeks later).Soviet acceptance of this dramatic change, withoutintervention or even opposition, dramatically under-scored the new outlook in Moscow.

President Bush, who had been reserved and cau-tious in his assessment of change in the SovietUnion during most of 1989, now sought to extendencouragement to Gorbachev. Most important wasthe establishment of a confident relationship anddialogue between the two leaders. No treaties oragreements were signed, but Bush did indicate anumber of changes in U.S. economic policy towardthe Soviet Union to reflect the new developing re-lationship. Malta thus marked a step in a processof accelerating change.

Two weeks after the Malta summit, Soviet For-eign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze paid an un-precedented courtesy visit to North Atlantic TreatyOrganization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels.Clearly the Cold War was coming to an end. In-deed, at Malta, Gorbachev declared that “the worldis leaving one epoch, the ‘Cold War,’ and enteringa new one.”

Some historians have described the Malta Sum-mit as the last summit of the Cold War; othershave seen it as the first summit of the new era. Inany case, it occurred at a time of rapid transitionand reflected the first time when prospects for fu-ture cooperation outweighed continuing competi-tion, although elements of both remained.

See also: COLD WAR; UNITED STATES, RELATIONS WITH

BIBLIOGRAPHYBeschloss, Michael R., and Talbott, Strobe. (1993). At the

Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the ColdWar. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Garthoff, Raymond L. (1994). The Great Transition: Amer-ican-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

RAYMOND L. GARTHOFF

MANDELSHTAM, NADEZHDAYAKOVLEVNA

(1899–1980), memoirist and preserver of her hus-band Osip Mandelshtam’s poetic legacy.

Nadezhda Yakovlevna Mandelshtam (née Khaz-ina) is known primarily for her two books detail-ing life with her husband, the Modernist poet OsipMandelshtam, and the years following his death inStalin’s purges. She grew up in Kiev in a tight-knit,intellectually gifted family, fondly recalled in threebiographical sketches. With the onset of revolutionand civil war, she enjoyed a bohemian existence asa painter in the artist Alexandra Ekster’s studio.

In 1922 Nadezhda married Mandelshtam, andthe two moved to Moscow and then to Leningradin 1924. In 1925 her friendship with the poet AnnaAkhmatova began. Osip Mandelshtam was arrestedin Moscow in 1934 after writing a poem that de-nounced Josef Stalin. Nadezhda accompanied himinto exile in Voronezh until 1937 and in 1938 waspresent when he was arrested and sent to the gu-lag where he died. She escaped arrest the same year.

For the next two decades, Nadezhda Man-delshtam survived by teaching English and movedfrequently to avoid official attention. In 1951 shecompleted a dissertation in linguistics. She also be-gan working on her husband’s rehabilitation andresearching his life and fate. Many of his poemssurvived because she committed them to memory.Her first book of memoirs, Vospominaniia (NewYork, 1970, translated as Hope Against Hope, 1970),was devoted to her final years with Osip Man-delshtam and to a broader indictment of the Stal-inist system that had condemned him. The book,which circulated in the Soviet Union in samizdat,attracted attention and praise from Soviet andWestern readers. Her second book, Vtoraia kniga(Paris, 1972, translated as Hope Abandoned, 1974),offended some Russian readers with its opinionateddescriptions of various literary figures. Treatmentsof Nadezhda Mandelshtam’s work have noted hersuccess in achieving a strong and vibrant literaryvoice of her own even as she transmitted the cul-tural legacy of a previous generation.

See also: AKHMATOVA, ANNA ANDREYEVNA; GULAG;MANDELSHTAM, OSIP EMILIEVICH; PURGES, THE GREAT;

SAMIZDAT

BIBLIOGRAPHYBrodsky, Joseph. (1986). “Nadezhda Mandelstam

(1899–1980): An Obituary.” In Less Than One: Se-lected Essays. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.

Holmgren, Beth. (1993). Women’s Works in Stalin’s Time.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

M A N D E L S H T A M , N A D E Z H D A Y A K O V L E V N A


Proffer, Carl R. (1987). The Widows of Russia and OtherWritings. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis.

JUDITH E. KALB

MANDELSHTAM, OSIP EMILIEVICH

(1891–1938), Modernist poet and political martyr.

One of Russia’s greatest twentieth-century po-ets, Osip Mandelshtam died en route to the gulagafter writing a poem critical of Josef V. Stalin. Bornto a cultured Jewish family in Warsaw, Man-delshtam spent his childhood in St. Petersburg,traveled in Europe, and, in 1909, began to frequentthe literary salon of the Symbolist poet VyacheslavIvanov. In 1911, while enrolled at St. PetersburgUniversity, he joined the Guild of Poets headed byNikolai Gumilev and Sergei Gorodetsky and sub-sequently became a leading figure in a new poeticschool called Acmeism. His collections Kamen (Stone,1913), Tristia (1922), and Stikhotvoreniia (Poems,1928) show a poet steeped in world culture and fo-cused on themes such as language and time, con-cepts also addressed in his prose works. In 1922Mandelshtam married Nadezhda Khazina, wholater wrote memoirs of their life together.

Mandelshtam recognized that the Bolsheviktakeover in 1917 threatened the cultural values heheld dear, and in his poetry and essays of the 1920she attempted to define the relationship of the poetto the age. Literary prose such as Shum vremeni (TheNoise of Time, 1925) and Egipetskaia marka (TheEgyptian Stamp, 1928) included autobiographicalthemes. By the late 1920s, Mandelshtam’s lack ofadherence to Soviet norms led to increasing diffi-culties in getting published. A trip to the Caucasusand Armenia in 1930 provided new inspiration forcreativity. But in 1934, after writing a poem crit-ical of Stalin, Mandelshtam was arrested inMoscow and sent to Voronezh for a three-year ex-ile. During this period he wrote Voronezhskie tetradi(Voronezh Notebooks), preserved by his wife. In May1938, Mandelshtam was arrested once again, sen-tenced to a Siberian labor camp, and considered anon-person by the Soviet government. He died thesame year. In 1956 his rehabilitation began, and inthe 1970s a collection of his poetry was publishedin the Soviet Union.

See also: GULAG; MANDELSHTAM, NADEZHDA YAKOV-LEVNA; PURGES, THE GREAT

BIBLIOGRAPHYBrown, Clarence. (1973). Mandelstam. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Cavanagh, Clare. (1995). Osip Mandelstam and the Mod-ernist Creation of Tradition. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Freidin, Gregory. (1987). A Coat of Many Colors: OsipMandelstam and His Mythologies of Self-Presentation.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Shentalinskii, Vitalii. (1996). Arrested Voices: Resurrectingthe Disappeared Writers of the Soviet Regime. NewYork: Free Press.

JUDITH E. KALB

MANIFESTO OF 1763

Signed by Empress Catherine II, this lengthy, de-tailed document that invited foreign settlers to Rus-sia, was published in St. Petersburg by the Senateon August 5,1763. The official English version ap-pears in Bartlett, Human Capital (1979). It evolvedfrom several circumstances. In October 1762 thenewly crowned empress ordered the Senate to en-courage foreign settlement (except Jews) as a meansto reinforce “the well–being of Our Empire.” In re-sponse, a short manifesto of mid–December 1762was translated into “all foreign languages” andprinted in many foreign newspapers. Both mani-festoes crystallized Russian government thinkingabout immigration in general by considering spe-cific cases and problems amid European popula-tionist discourse over many decades.

Catherine II championed “populationism” evenbefore she gained the throne, probably from read-ing German cameralist works that postulated in-creasing population as an index of state power andprestige. Also, Peter the Great had formulated ina famous decree of 1702 the policy of recruitingskilled Europeans, and Catherine endorsed thePetrine precedent. The notion that Russia was un-derpopulated went back several centuries, an is-sue that had become acute with the empire’s recentexpansion, and the Romanov dynasty’s rapid Eu-ropeanization. Cessation of the European phasesof the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) also sug-gested that the German lands might harbor a reser-voir of capable individuals and families eager tosettle Russia’s huge empty, potentially rich spaces.

The impatient empress felt pressured to demon-strate her governing abilities by pursuing peacefulpolicies that her immediate predecessors had barely

M A N D E L S H T A M , O S I P E M I L I E V I C H


begun. Moreover, she was determined to repair theeconomic–financial ravages of the war that had justended. It was one thing to declare a new policy,however, and something else to institute it. Inpreparing the two manifestoes of 1762–1763 theSenate discovered many partial precedents and sev-eral concrete impediments to welcoming masses of immigrants. More than six months elapsed be-tween the issuance of the two manifestoes, duringwhich time governments were consulted and insti-tutions formulated to care for the anticipated new-comers. It was decided that the manifesto shouldlist the specific lands available for settlement andnot exclude any groups. Drawing on foreign prece-dent and the suggestion of Senator Peter Panin, themanifesto of 1763 established a special governmentoffice with jurisdiction over new settlers, theChancery of Guardianship of Foreigners. The firsthead, Count Grigory Orlov, Catherine’s common–law husband and leader of her seizure of the throne,personified the office’s high status. The new Russ-ian immigration policy offered generous materialincentives, promised freedom of religion and ex-emption from military recruitment, and guaran-teed exemption from enserfment and freedom toleave. These provisions governed immigration pol-icy until at least 1804 and for many decades there-after. The manifesto of 1763 did not specificallyexclude Jews, although Elizabeth’s regime bannedthem as “Killers of Christ,” for Catherine highly re-garded their entrepreneurship and unofficially en-couraged their entry into New Russia (Ukraine) in1764.

European immigrants responded eagerly to themanifesto, some twenty thousand arriving duringCatherine’s reign. Germans settling along the Volgawere the largest group, especially the Herrnhut(Moravian Brethren) settlement at Sarepta nearSaratov and Mennonite settlements in southernUkraine. Because of the empire’s largely agrarianeconomy, most settlers were farmers. The expenseof the program was large, however, so its cost–effectiveness is debatable. A century later manyVolga Germans resettled in the United States, somestill decrying Catherine’s allegedly broken promises.

See also: CATHERINE II; JEWS; ORLOV, GRIGORY GRIG-ORIEVICH; PALE OF SETTLEMENT

BIBLIOGRAPHYBartlett, Roger P. (1979). Human Capital: The Settlement

of Foreigners in Russia 1762-1804. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Khodarkovsky, Michael. (2002). Russia’s Steppe Frontier:The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800. Bloom-ington: Indiana University Press.

JOHN T. ALEXANDER

MANSI

The 8,500 Mansi (1989 census), formerly calledVoguls, live predominantly in the Hanti-Mansi Au-tonomous Region (Okrug), in the swampy basin ofthe Ob river. Their language belongs to the Ugricbranch of the Finno-Ugric family. It has little mu-tual intelligibility with the related Hanti language,farther northeast, and essentially none with Mag-yar (Hungarian). Most Mansi have Asian features.One of the most distinctive features of Mansi (andHanti) culture is an elaborate bear funeral cere-mony, honoring the slain beast.

The Mansi historical homeland straddled themiddle Urals, southwest of their present locationon the Konda River. They offered spirited resistanceto Russian encroachment during the 1400s, high-lighted by prince Asyka’s counterattack in 1455.The Russians destroyed the last major Mansi prin-cipality, Konda, in 1591. Within one generation,Moscow ignored whatever capitulation treaties hadbeen signed. As settlers poured into the best Mansiagricultural lands, the Mansi were soon reduced toa small hunting and fishing population. By 1750most were forced to accept the outer trappings ofGreek Orthodoxy, while practicing animism in se-cret. Russian traders reduced people unfamiliarwith the notion of money and prices to loan slav-ery that lasted for generations.

When the Ostiako-Vogul National Okrug Dis-trict—the present Hanti-Mansi AutonomousOblast—was created in 1930, the indigenous pop-ulation was already down to 19 percent of the to-tal population. By 1989, the population haddropped to 1.4 percent, due first to a massive in-flux of deportees and then to free labor, after dis-covery of oil during the 1950s. The curse of Arcticoil impacted the natives, who were crudely dispos-sessed, as well as the fragile ecosystem. Gas torch-ing and oil spills became routine.

Post-Soviet liberalization enabled the Hanti andMansi to organize Spasenie Ugry (Salvation of Yu-gria, the land of Ugrians) that gave voice to in-digenous and ecological concerns. Thirty-sevenpercent of the Mansi population (and few young

M A N S I


people) spoke Mansi in the early 1990s. A weeklynewspaper, Luima Serikos, had a circulation of 240in 1995. Novels on Mansi topics by Yuvan Sestalov(b. 1937) have many readers in Russia.

See also: FINNS AND KARELIANS; NATIONALITIES POLICIES,SOVIET; NATIONALITIES POLICIES, TSARIST; NORTHERN

PEOPLES

BIBLIOGRAPHYForsyth, James. (1992). A History of the Peoples of Siberia:

Russia’s North Asian Colony, 1581–1990. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Taagepera, Rein. (1999). The Finno-Ugric Republics and theRussian State. London: Hurst.

REIN TAAGEPERA

MARI EL AND THE MARI

The Mari, or Cheremis, are an indigenous people ofthe European Russian interior; their language andthat of the Mordvins compose the Volgaic branchof the Finno-Ugric language family.

As subjects of the Volga Bolgars and KazanTatars, medieval Mari tribes experienced culturaland linguistic influences mainly from their Turkicneighbors. Later on, Slavic contacts became promi-nent, and the Russian language became the princi-pal source of lexical and syntactic borrowing. Theearly twentieth-century initiatives to create a sin-gle literary language did not come to fruition. Con-sequently, there are two written standards of Mari:Hill and Meadow. The speakers of various western,or Hill Mari, dialects constitute hardly more than10 percent of the Mari as a whole.

In the basin of the Middle Volga, the medievalMari distribution area stretched from the Volga-Oka confluence to the mouth of the Kazanka River.Under Tatar rule, the Mari were active participantsin Kazan’s war efforts. Apparently due to their loy-alty and peripheral location, Mari tribal communi-ties were granted home rule. However, the finalstruggle between the Kazan Khanate and Moscowbrought an intraethnic cleavage: the Hill Mari sidedwith the Russians, whereas the Meadow Mari re-mained with the Tatars until the fall of Kazan in1552.

The submission to Moscow was painful: Thesecond half of the sixteenth century saw a series of

uprisings, known as the Cheremis Wars, whichdecimated the Meadow Mari in particular. TheRussian invasions triggered population movementsthat also reshaped the Mari settlement area: a partof the Meadow Mari migrated to the Bashkir landsand towards the Urals. For about two hundredyears, the resettlement was sustained by landseizures, fugitive peasant migrations, and Chris-tianization policies. The outcome of all this was theformation of the Eastern Mari. In terms of religion,these Mari have largely kept their traditional “pa-ganism,” whereas their Middle Volga coethnics aremostly Orthodox, or in a synchretic way combineanimism with Christianity.

The Mari ethnic awakening took its first stepswith the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions. In 1920 theBolsheviks established the Mari autonomousprovince. It was elevated to the status of an au-tonomous republic in 1936—the year of the Stal-inist purges of the entire ethnic intelligentsia. Since1992, the republic has been known as the Repub-lic of Mari El.

At the time of the 1989 census, 324,000 Mariout of a total of 671,000 were residents of theirtitular republic. There the Mari constituted 43.2percent of the inhabitants, whereas Russians madeup 47.5 percent. Outside Mari El, the largest Maripopulations were found in Bashkortostan (106,000)as well as in Kirov and Sverdlovsk provinces(44,000 and 31,000 respectively). Indicative of lin-guistic assimilation, 17 percent of the Mari con-sidered Russian their native language during the1994 microcensus.

In 2000 Mari El was a home for 759,000 peo-ple. Within Russia, it is an agricultural region, poorin natural resources and heavily dependent on fed-eral subsides. Within the republic’s political elite,the Mari have mainly performed secondary roles,and this situation has deteriorated further since themid-1990s. Because Russians outnumber the Mari,and because the Mari still lag behind in terms ofurbanity, education, and ethnic consciousness,Russians dominate the republic’s political life.

See also: FINNS AND KARELIANS; NATIONALITIES POLICIES,SOVIET; NATIONALITIES POLICIES, TSARIST.

BIBLIOGRAPHYFryer, Paul, and Lallukka, Seppo. (2002). “The Eastern

Mari.” .

Lallukka, Seppo. (1990). The East Finnic Minorities in theSoviet Union: An Appraisal of the Erosive Trends. (An-

M A R I E L A N D T H E M A R I


nales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B, vol.252). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Taagepera, Rein. (1999). The Finno-Ugric Republics and theRussian State. London: Hurst.

SEPPO LALLUKKA

MARKET SOCIALISM

The economic doctrine of market socialism holdsthat central planners can make active and efficientuse of “the market” as a mechanism for imple-menting socially desired goals, which are developedand elaborated through central planning of eco-nomic activity. Focusing on the elimination of pri-vate property and wealth, and on the centraldetermination and control of all investment and de-velopment decisions, it posits that the planned de-termination and adjustment of producers’ and assetprices could allow markets to implement the de-sired allocations in a decentralized manner withoutsacrificing central or social control over outcomesor incomes. Thus egalitarian social outcomes anddynamic economic growth can be achieved simul-taneously, without the disruptions and sufferingimposed by poorly coordinated private investmentdecisions resulting in a wasteful business cycle.

The idea of market socialism arose from the re-alization that classical socialism, involving the col-lective provision and distribution of goods andservices in natural form, without the social con-trivances of property, markets, and prices, was notfeasible, since rational collective control of eco-nomic activity requires calculations that cannotrely consistently on “natural unit” variables suchas energy or labor amounts. It also became clearthat the existing computing capabilities were inad-equate for deriving a consistent economic plan froma general equilibrium problem. This led, in the So-cialist Calculation Debate of the 1930s, to the sug-gestion (most notably by Oskar Lange) that aSocialist regime, assuming ownership of all meansof production, could use markets to find relevantconsumers’ prices and valuations while maintain-ing social and state control over production, incomedetermination, investment, and economic develop-ment. Managers would be instructed to minimizecosts, while the planning board would adjust pro-ducers’ prices to eliminate disequilibria in the mar-kets for final goods. Thus, at a socialist marketequilibrium, the classical marginal conditions ofstatic efficiency would be maintained, while the

State would ensure equitable distribution of in-comes through its allocation of the surplus (profit)from efficient production and investment in so-cially desirable planned development.

Another version of market socialism arose as aresult of the reform experiences in east-central Eu-rope, particularly the labor-managed economicsystem of Yugoslavia that developed followingMarshal Tito’s break with Josef Stalin in 1950. This gave rise to a large body of literature on the “Illyrian Firm” with decentralized, democraticcontrol of production by workers’ collectives in amarket economy subject to substantial macroeco-nomic planning and income redistribution throughtaxation and subsidies. The economic reforms inHungary (1968), Poland (1981), China after 1978,and Gorbachev’s Russia (1987–1991) involvedvarying degrees of decentralization of State Social-ism and its administrative command economy,providing partial approximations to the classicalmarket socialist model of Oskar Lange. This expe-rience highlighted the difficulties of planning forand controlling decentralized markets, and revealedthe failure of market socialism to provide incen-tives for managers to follow the rules necessary foreconomic efficiency. Faced with these circum-stances, proponents of market socialism moved be-yond state ownership and control of property tovarious forms of economic democracy and collec-tive property, accepting the necessity of real mar-kets and market prices but maintaining the classicalsocialist rejection of fully private productive prop-erty. The early debates on market socialism are bestseen in Friedrich A. von Hayek (1935), while thecurrent state of the debate is presented in PranabBardhan and John E. Roemer (1993).

See also: PERESTROIKA; PLANNERS’ PREFERENCE; SOCIAL-ISM; STATE ORDERS

BIBLIOGRAPHYBardhan, Pranab, and Roemer, John E., eds. (1993). Mar-

ket Socialism: The Current Debate. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Granick, David. (1975). Enterprise Guidance in Eastern Eu-rope: A Comparison of Four Socialist Economies. Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von, ed. (1935). Collectivist EconomicPlanning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Social-ism. London: Routledge.

Kornai, János. (1992). The Socialist System: The PoliticalEconomy of Communism. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

M A R K E T S O C I A L I S M


Lange, Oskar, and Taylor, Fred M. (1948). On the Eco-nomic Theory of Socialism. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

RICHARD ERICSON

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE

As elsewhere in Europe, marriage and family life inRussia have varied across time and by social group,reflecting the complex interplay of competingideals, changing patterns of social and economic or-ganization, differing forms of political organizationand levels of state intrusiveness, and the effects ofcataclysmic events. If in the long run the outcomeof this interplay of forces has been a family struc-ture and dynamic that conform essentially withthose found in modern European societies, the de-velopment of marriage and the family in Russianevertheless has followed a distinctive path. Thisdevelopment can be divided into three broad peri-ods: the centuries preceding the formation of theRussian Empire during the early eighteenth cen-tury, the imperial period (1698–1917), and the pe-riod following the Bolshevik Revolution andestablishment of the Soviet state in October 1917.While the pace of development and change variedsignificantly between different social groups dur-ing each of these periods, each period nonethelesswas characterized by a distinctive combination of forces that shaped marital and family life andfamily structures. In Russia’s successive empires,moreover, important differences also often existedbetween the many ethno-cultural and religiousgroups included in these empires. The discussionthat follows therefore concerns principally theSlavic Christian population.

PRE-IMPERIAL RUSSIA

Although only limited sources are available for thereconstruction of marital and family life in me-dieval Russia, especially for nonelite social groups,there appears to have been broad continuity in thestructure and functioning of the family through-out the medieval and early modern periods. Fam-ily structures and interpersonal relations withinmarriage and the family were strongly shaped bythe forms of social organization and patterns ofeconomic activity evolved to secure survival in aharsh natural as well as political environment.Hence, constituting the primary unit of productionand reproduction, and providing the main source

of welfare, personal status, and identity, familiesin most instances were multigenerational andstructured hierarchically, with authority and eco-nomic and familial roles distributed within thefamily on the basis of gender and seniority. Whilescholars disagree over whether already by 1600 thenuclear family had begun to displace the multi-generational family among the urban population,this development did not affect the patriarchalcharacter or the social and economic functions ofeither marriage or the family. Reflecting and rein-forcing these structures and functions, the mar-riage of children was arranged by senior familymembers, with the economic, social, and politicalinterests of the family taking precedence over indi-vidual preference. Land and other significant assets,too, generally were considered to belong to the fam-ily as a whole, with males enjoying preferentialtreatment in inheritance. Marriage appears to havebeen universal among all social groups, with chil-dren marrying at a young age, and for marriedwomen, childbirth was frequent.

After the conversion of Grand Prince Vladimirof Kievan Rus to Christianity in 988, normativerules governing marriage and the family also wereshaped and enforced by the Orthodox Church, al-though the effective influence of the Church spreadslowly from urban to rural areas. Granted exten-sive jurisdiction over marital and family mattersfirst by Kievan and then by Muscovite grandprinces, the Church used its authority to establishmarriage as a religious institution and to attemptto bring marital and family life into conformitywith its doctrines and canons. For example, theChurch sought—with varying degrees of success—to limit the formation of marriages through re-strictions based on consanguinity and age, torestrict marital dissolution to the instances definedby canon law, to limit the possibility of remarriage,and to confine sexual activity to relations betweenspouses within marriage for the purpose of pro-creation. At the same time, through its teachings,canonical rules, and ecclesiastical activities, theChurch reinforced the patriarchal order withinmarriage and the family, thereby providing a reli-gious sanction for established social structures andpractices. Hence the extent to which the Churchtransformed or merely reinforced existing ideals ofand relationships within marriage and the familyremains disputed.

Although patriarchal attitudes and structuresand a gendered division of labor also prevailedwithin elite households, the role of family and lin-

M A R R I A G E A N D F A M I L Y L I F E


eage in determining relative status within and between elite groups, access to beneficial appoint-ments and the material rewards that followed fromthem, and the prospects for forming advantageousmarriage alliances between families imparted dis-tinctive characteristics to elite family life, especiallyafter the late fifteenth century. The practice amongthe Muscovite elite of secluding women in separatequarters (the terem), for example, which reached itsgreatest intensity during the seventeenth century,appears to have been due largely to the desire toprotect family honor and ensure the marriage util-ity of daughters in a context in which the elite wasgrowing in size and complexity. Seclusion itself,however, considerably increased the politically im-portant role of married women in arranging andmaintaining family alliances. Similarly, the devel-opment of a system of service tenements in land tosupport the expansion especially of military servi-tors after the late fifteenth century led initially toa deterioration in the property and inheritancerights of elite women. Yet such women also oftenhad principal responsibility for managing the es-tates and other affairs of husbands who frequentlywere away on military campaigns or carrying outother service assignments. Hence within the Mus-covite elite, and quite likely among other socialgroups in pre-Petrine Russia as well, the normativeideal and legal rules supporting the patriarchalfamily often concealed a more complex reality. Thisideal nonetheless provided a powerful metaphorthat helped to legitimize and integrate the familial,social, and political orders.

IMPERIAL RUSSIA

The history of marriage and the family during theimperial period was marked both by a complex pat-tern of continuity and change and by sharp diver-sity between social groups, as the exposure ofdifferent groups to the forces of change varied sig-nificantly. Nonetheless, by the early twentieth cen-tury the long-term trend across the social spectrumwas toward smaller families, the displacement ofthe multigenerational family by the nuclear fam-ily, a higher age at the time of first marriage forboth men and women, declining birth rates, an in-creased incidence of marital dissolution, and, in ur-ban areas, a decline in the frequency of marriage.Within the family, the structure of patriarchal au-thority was eroding and the ideal itself was underattack.

The groups that were exposed earliest and mostintensively to the combination of forces lying

behind these trends were the nobility, state offi-cialdom, the clergy, and a newly emergent intelli-gentsia and largely urban bourgeoisie. During theeighteenth century, for example, the nobility rep-resented the main target and then chief ally of thestate in its efforts to inculcate European culturalforms and modes of behavior and to promote for-mal education and literacy. Among the effects ofsuch efforts was a new public role for women andthe dissemination of ideals of marriage, family, andthe self that eventually came to challenge the pa-triarchal ideal. By helping to produce by the firsthalf of the nineteenth century a more profession-alized, predominantly landless, and largely urbancivil officialdom, as well as a chiefly urban culturalintelligentsia and professional bourgeoisie, changesin the terms of state service and the expansion ofsecondary and higher education both provided a re-ceptive audience for new ideals of marriage and thefamily and eroded dependency on the extendedfamily. By expanding the occupational opportuni-ties not only for men but also for women outsidethe home, the development of trade, industry, pub-lishing, and the professions had similar effects.Most of these new employment opportunities wereconcentrated in Russia’s rapidly growing cities,where material and physical as well as cultural con-ditions worked to alter the family’s role, structures,and demographic characteristics. For this reason,the marital and demographic behavior and familystructures of urban workers also exhibited earlychange.

At least until after the late 1850s, by contrast,marriage and family life among the peasantry,poorer urban groups, and the merchantry dis-played greater continuity with the past. This con-tinuity resulted in large part from the strength ofcustom and the continued economic, social, andwelfare roles of the multigenerational, patriarchalfamily among these social groups and, at leastamong the peasantry, from the operation of com-munal institutions and the coincident interests offamily patriarchs (who dominated village assem-blies), noble landowners, and the state in preserv-ing existing family structures. Facilitated by theabolition of serfdom in 1861, however, familystructures and demographic behavior even amongthe peasantry began slowly to change, especiallyoutside of the more heavily agricultural centralblack earth region. In particular, the increased fre-quency of household division occurring after theemancipation contributed to a noticeable reductionin family size and a decline in the incidence of themultigenerational family by the last third of the



century, although most families still passedthrough a cycle of growth and division that in-cluded a multigenerational stage. While marriageremained nearly universal, the age at first marriagealso rose for both men and women, with the re-sult that birth rates declined somewhat. Thegrowth of income from local and regional wage la-bor, trade, and craft production and the rapid ex-pansion of migratory labor contributed to all thesetrends, while also helping to weaken patriarchalstructures of authority within the family, a processgiven further impetus by the exposure of peasantsto urban culture through migratory labor, mili-tary service, and rising literacy. Although mostpeasant migrants to cities, especially males, re-tained ties with their native village and household,and consequently continued to be influenced bypeasant culture, a significant number became per-manent urban residents, adopting different familyforms and cultural attitudes as a result. With therapid growth of Russian cities and the transfor-mation of the urban environment that took placeafter the late 1850s, family forms and demographic

behavior among the poorer urban social groups andthe merchantry also began to change in ways sim-ilar to other urban groups.

Normative ideals of marriage and the familylikewise exhibited significant diversification andchange during the imperial period, a process thataccelerated after the late 1850s. If closer integra-tion into European culture exposed Russians to awider and shifting variety of ideals of marriage, thefamily, and sexual behavior, the development of aculture of literacy, journalism and a publishing in-dustry, and an ethos of civic activism and profes-sionalism based on faith in the rational use ofspecialized expertise broadened claims to the au-thority to define such ideals. These developmentsculminated in an intense public debate over reformof family law—and of the family and societythrough law—after the late 1850s. Very broadly,emphasizing a companionate ideal of marriage, theneed to balance individual rights with collective re-sponsibilities and limited authority within mar-riage and the family, and the necessity of adaptingstate law and religious doctrines to changing social



A young couple exchanges their marriage vows during an Orthodox ceremony in Chelyabinsk. © PETER TURNLEY/CORBIS

and historical conditions, advocates of reform fa-vored the facilitation of marital dissolution, equal-ity between spouses in marriage, greater rights forchildren born out of wedlock, the recasting of in-heritance rights based on sexual equality and thenuclear family, and the decriminalization of vari-ous sexual practices as well as of abortion. Manyof these principles in fact were embodied in draftcivil and criminal codes prepared by governmentreform commissions between 1883 and 1906, nei-ther of which was adopted, and proposals to ex-pand the grounds for divorce made by a series ofcommittees formed within the Orthodox Churchbetween 1906 and 1916 proved similarly unsuc-cessful. Socialist activists adopted an even moreradical position on the reconstitution of marriageand the family, in some cases advocating the so-cialization of the latter. Opponents of reform, bycontrast, stressed the social utility, naturalness, anddivine basis of strong patriarchal authority withinmarriage and the family, the congruence of thisfamily structure with Russian cultural traditions,and the role of the family in upholding the auto-cratic social and political orders. Although signifi-cant reforms affecting illegitimate children,inheritance rights, and marital separation were en-acted in 1902, 1912, and 1914, respectively, deepdivisions within and between the state, the Ortho-dox Church, and society ensured that reform ofmarriage and the family remained a contentious is-sue until the very end of the autocracy, and be-yond.

SOVIET RUSSIA

With respect to marriage and the family, the long-term effect of the Soviet attempt to create a mod-ern socialist society was to accelerate trends alreadypresent in the early twentieth century. Hence, bythe end of the Soviet period, among all social groupsfamily size had declined sharply and the nuclearfamily had become nearly universal, the birth ratehad dropped significantly, marriage no longer wasuniversal, and the incidence of marital dissolutionhad risen substantially. But if by the 1980s thestructure and demographic characteristics of theRussian family had come essentially to resemblethose found in contemporary European societies,the process of development was shaped by the dis-tinctive political and economic structures and poli-cies of Soviet-style socialism.

Soviet policies with respect to marriage and thefamily were shaped initially by a combination ofradical ideological beliefs and political considera-

tions. Hence, in a series of decrees and other en-actments promulgated between October 1917 and1920, the new Soviet government introduced for-mal sexual equality in marriage, established divorceon demand, secularized marriage, drastically cur-tailed inheritance and recast inheritance rights onthe basis of sexual equality and the nuclear fam-ily, and legalized abortion. The party-state leader-ship also proclaimed the long-term goal of thesocialization of the family through the develop-ment of an extensive network of social services andcommunal dining. These measures in part reflectedan ideological commitment to both the liberationof women and the creation of a socialist society.But they also were motivated by the political goalsof attracting the support of women for the newregime and of undermining the sources of opposi-tion to it believed to lie in patriarchal family struc-tures and attitudes and in marriage as a religiousinstitution. In practice, however, the policies addedto the problems of family instability, homelessness,and child abandonment caused mainly by the harshand disruptive effects of several years of war, rev-olution, civil war, and famine. For this reason,while welcomed by radical activists and some partsof the population, Soviet policies with respect tomarriage and the family also provoked consider-able opposition, especially among women and thepeasantry, who for overlapping but also somewhatdifferent reasons saw in these policies a threat totheir security and self-identity during a period ofsevere dislocation. In important respects, Sovietpropaganda and policies in fact reinforced the self-image that partly underlay the opposition ofwomen to its policies by stressing the ideal and du-ties of motherhood. Yet the direction of Soviet poli-cies remained consistent through the 1920s, albeitnot without controversy and dissent even withinthe party, with these policies being embodied in thefamily codes of 1922 and 1926.

The severe social disruptions, strain on re-sources, and deterioration of already limited socialservices caused by the collectivization of agricul-ture, the rapid development of industry, the aboli-tion of private trade, and the reconstruction of theeconomy between the late 1920s and the outbreakof war in 1941, however, led to a fundamental shiftin Soviet policies with respect to marriage and thefamily. With its priorities now being economicgrowth and social stabilization, the Soviet state ide-alized the socialist family (which in essence closelyresembled the family ideal of prerevolutionary lib-eral and feminist reformers), which was proclaimedto be part of the essential foundation of a socialist



society. A series of laws and new codes enacted be-tween 1936 and 1944 therefore attempted both tostrengthen marriage and the family and to en-courage women to give birth more frequently: Di-vorce was severely restricted, children born out ofwedlock were deprived of any rights with respectto their father, thus reestablishing illegitimacy ofbirth, abortion was outlawed, and a schedule of re-wards for mothers who bore additional childrenwas established. Although the goals of women’sliberation and sexual equality remained official pol-icy, they were redefined to accommodate a marriedwoman’s dual burden of employment outside thehome and primary responsibility for domesticwork. Economic necessity in fact compelled mostwomen to enter the workforce, regardless of theirmarital status, with only the wives of the party-state elite being able to choose not to do so. Despitethe changes in normative ideals and the law, how-ever, the effects of Soviet social and economic poli-cies in general and of the difficult materialconditions resulting from them were a further re-duction in average family size and decline in the

birth rate and the disruption especially of peasanthouseholds, as family members were arrested, mi-grated to cities in massive numbers, or died as aresult of persecution or famine. The huge lossessustained by the Soviet population during WorldWar II gave further impetus to these trends and,by creating a significant imbalance between menand women in the marriage-age population, con-siderably reduced the rate of marriage and compli-cated the formation of families for several decadesafter the war.

The relaxation of political controls on the dis-cussion of public policy by relevant specialists af-ter the death of Josef Stalin in 1953 contributed toanother shift in Soviet policies toward marriage andthe family during the mid-1960s. Divorce again be-came more accessible, fathers could be required toprovide financial support for their children bornout of wedlock, and abortion was re-legalized and,given the scarcity of reliable alternatives, quicklybecame the most common form of birth controlpracticed by Russian women. Partly as a result ofthese measures, the divorce rate within the Rus-



Following Soviet tradition, a wedding party walks to Red Square to have pictures taken. © PETER TURNLEY/CORBIS

sian population rose steadily after the mid-1960s,with more than 40 percent of all marriages endingin divorce by the 1980s, and the birth rate contin-ued to decline. But these trends also gained