Encyclopedia of Russian History

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Petrossian was born in Aleppo, Syria, and migrated

to Soviet Armenia with his family in 1946. Ter-

Petrossian graduated from Yerevan State Univer-

sity and received his doctorate in philology from

Leningrad University. Until 1988 he was an acad-

emic researcher in Yerevan.

In 1988 he joined and became a leader of the

Karabakh Committee that led the movement in

support of the rights of Armenians in Nagorno-

Karabakh—the Armenian-populated enclave in

Azerbaijan—and eventually in support of Arme-

nia’s independence. In 1989, having spent six

months in prison in Moscow, he was elected mem-

ber, and in 1990 president, of the Supreme Soviet

of the Armenian SSR. Having successfully managed

the peaceful transition of power from the Com-

munists, in 1991 he was elected president of Ar-

menia and reelected in 1996. He resigned in

February 1998 and currently lives as a private cit-

izen in Yerevan.

Ter-Petrossian has received honorary doctor-

ates from a number of academic institutions,

including the universities of Sorbonne and Stras-

bourg, in recognition of his scholarly research in

ancient and medieval philology and history, as well

as his contribution to modern Armenian statehood.

The dominant figure in Armenia’s history from

1988 to 1998, Ter-Petrossian initiated fundamen-

tal institutional, political, and economic reforms,

including a radical land privatization program. He

guided the drafting and adoption of a constitution

in 1995 that has proven effective in resolving ma-

jor political crises.

In foreign policy Ter-Petrossian advocated the

speedy integration of Armenia in international in-

stitutions and processes, and the normalization of

relations with all neighbors—including Turkey—as

the best guarantee for Armenia’s long-term secu-

rity and prosperity. In the process, Ter-Petrossian’s

pursuit of a special relationship with Russia led to

the 1997 comprehensive Treaty of Cooperation and

Friendship, which, among other provisions, for-

malized and regulated the presence of the Russian

military base in Armenia.

Ter-Petrossian led the Nagorno-Karabakh war

to a successful conclusion with a cease-fire agree-

ment in 1994. He also considered peace with Azer-

baijan a necessary precondition for the economic

and social development of Armenia. The absence

of a final solution to the status problem, which

he pursued aggressively, stymied political and

economic transformation; it also prevented the

normalization of relations with Azerbaijan and

Turkey.

Ter-Petrossian’s pragmatic policies invited the

opposition of extremist forces. After 1995, criti-

cisms of his administration, including charges of

corruption, abuse of power by some ministries, and

tampering with elections, increased. His acceptance

in 1997 of a compromise solution to the Karabakh

problem, opposed by some of his closest associates

in the executive branch, led to his resignation.

See also: ARMENIA AND ARMENIANS; AZERBAIJAN AND

AZERIS; NAGORNO-KARABAKH; NATIONALISM IN THE

SOVIET UNION; TURKEY, RELATIONS WITH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Curtis, Glenn E. (1994). Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Geor-

gia. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

Herzig, Edmond. (1998). The New Caucasus: Armenia,

Azerbaijan and Georgia. London: Royal Institute of

International Affairs.

Libaridian, Gerard J. (1999). The Challenge of Statehood:

Armenian Political Thinking Since Independence. Wa-

tertown, MA: Blue Crane Books.

ERARD

J. L

IBARIDIAN

TERRITORIAL-ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was

established on December 30, 1922, on the basis of

a union treaty that was subsequently incorporated

into the USSR constitution of January 31, 1924.

The new federal state consisted of a complicated hi-

erarchy of territorial-administrative units. This

hierarchy was subsequently modified by amend-

ment, by the adoption of new constitutions in 1936

and 1977, and by federal law. By the time Mikhail

S. Gorbachev became Soviet leader in 1985, the hi-

erarchy consisted of 15 Soviet socialist republics

(SSRs, or union republics), 20 autonomous Soviet

socialist republics (ASSRs), 8 autonomous oblasts

(AOs), and 10 autonomous districts (okruga), for a

total of 53 ethnically defined administrative units.

There were in addition 120 nonethnically defined

administrative units—the oblasts and 7 kraya. In

addition, Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg)

were designated federal cities with an administra-

tive status equal to that of the oblasts and kraya.

With the dissolution of the USSR in December

1991, the fifteen union republics became indepen-

dent states.

TERRITORIAL-ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS

1533

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

The Soviet successor state with by far the

greatest number of territorial-administrative units

within it was Russia (known in the Soviet period

as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic,

or RSFSR, and renamed the Russian Federation in

late 1991). Russia, which was also the only Soviet

successor state that was formally designated a

federation, included 31 ethnically defined admin-

istrative units—16 autonomous republics, 5 au-

tonomous oblasts, and 10 autonomous okruga—

which together covered approximately one-half of

the territory of the RSFSR. In addition, the Russian

Federation was made up of 49 oblasts, 6 kraya, and

the federal cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Transforming Russia into a genuine federation

with a well-designed and constitutionally protected

division of powers between the federal government

and the subjects of the federation has significantly

complicated Russia’s transition from Soviet social-

ism. In 1991, the 16 autonomous republics and

4 of the 5 autonomous oblasts were given the

status of republics. The remaining subjects of the

federation—the 49 oblasts, 7 kraya, the federal

cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, the Jewish

autonomous oblast, and the 10 autonomous

okruga—were in effect equalized under law and be-

came known as Russia’s regions. In April 1992, the

Russian legislature recognized the division of

Checheno-Ingushetia into separate Chechen and In-

gush republics, which brought the total number of

republics under Russian law to twenty-one. How-

ever, the refusal of Chechnya to accept its status

as a constituent unit of the federation, and Chech-

nya’s insistence on recognition as an independent

state, helped precipitate a war between Chechen in-

dependence supporters and the federal government

in 1994 and again in 1999.

See also: CHECHNYA AND CHECHENS; RUSSIAN FEDERA-

TION; UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Constitution of the Russian Federation: With Commentaries

and Interpretations by American and Russian Scholars,

eds. Vladimir V. Belyakov and Walter J. Raymond.

(1994). Lawrenceville, VA: Brunswick Publishing

Company, and Moscow: Russia’s Information

Agency-Novosti.

Gleason, Gregory. (1990). Federalism and Nationalism:

The Struggle for Republican Rights in the USSR. Boul-

der, CO: Westview Press.

Kaiser, Robert J. (1994). The Geography of Nationalism in

Russia and the USSR. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-

versity Press.

Lapidus, Gail W., and Walker, Edward W. (1995). “Na-

tionalism, Regionalism, and Federalism: Center-

Periphery Relations in Post-Communist Russia.” In

The New Russia: Troubled Transformation, ed. Gail W.

Lapidus. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Unger, Aryeh L. (1981). Constitutional Development in the

USSR: A Guide to the Soviet Constitutions. New York:

Pica Press.

DWARD

W. W

ALKER

TERRORISM

A half-century of Russian history was bloodstained

by revolutionary terrorism. Its first outburst was

the abortive April 1866 assassination attempt

against Tsar Alexander II by Dmitry Karakozov.

From then on, extremists of different ideological

persuasions, with varying degrees of success, re-

sorted to acts of terror as part of their struggle

against the contemporary sociopolitical order.

Terrorist activity had a particularly strong im-

pact on the country’s life during two distinct peri-

ods. The first was the so-called heroic period, between

1878 and 1881, when the Party of the People’s Will

(Narodnaya Volya)—the first modern terrorist orga-

nization in the world—dominated the radical camp.

Its campaign against the autocracy culminated in

the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881.

Alexander III’s government succeeded in disintegrat-

ing the People’s Will; yet, after a twenty-year period

of relative and deceptive calm, a new wave of ter-

rorism erupted during the reign of Russia’s last tsar,

Nicholas II (1894–1917). Its perpetrators were mem-

bers of various newly formed left-wing organiza-

tions, who implicated themselves in terrorist acts

even when their parties in theory rejected terrorism

as a suitable tactic. As radical activity reached its peak

during the 1905–1907 crisis, terrorism became an

all-pervasive phenomenon, affecting not only the

elite civil and military circles but every layer of

society. During the first decade of the twentieth cen-

tury, the terrorists were responsible for approxi-

mately 17,000 casualties throughout the empire.

Their attacks were indiscriminate, directed at a broad

category of alleged “watchdogs of the old regime”

and “oppressors of the poor.”

Although terrorism subsided by late 1907,

largely as a result of severe repressive measures em-

ployed by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, until the

collapse of the imperial order in 1917 it remained

TERRORISM

1534

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

a threatening weapon in the hands of extremists

seeking the demise of the tsarist regime.

See also: NICHOLAS II; PEOPLE’S WILL THE; RED TERROR;

ZHELYABOV, ANDREI IVANOVICH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Footman, David. (1968). Red Prelude: A Biography of

Zhelyabov. London: Barrie & Rockliff.

Geifman, Anna. (1993). Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Ter-

rorism in Russia, 1894–1917. Princeton, NJ: Prince-

ton University Press.

NNA

EIFMAN

THAW, THE

The Thaw describes the loosening of restrictions

over the arts when Nikita Khrushchev served as

general secretary of the Communist Party, after the

death of Josef Stalin in 1953 until the mid-1960s.

Although associated with the Secret Speech at the

Twentieth Congress in 1956 when Khrushchev de-

nounced some of Stalin’s dictatorial activities, the

name derives from Ilya Ehrenburg’s 1954 book The

Thaw. The novel hinted that Stalin’s death signaled

an end to the long winter of sacrifice and persecu-

tion, and that a new era for socialism was emerg-

ing in which individuals’ private lives were valued

as much as industrial productivity. Censorship eased,

but its intensity varied as party leaders struggled

to redefine the priorities of Soviet society.

During the Thaw, all artistic media offered new

themes and stylistic innovation that had been

banned under Stalin. Literary magazines, called

“thick” journals, published a wide array of new

works. Most notably, in 1961 Novy mir, edited by

Alexander, published Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s One

Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a portrayal of a

labor camp inmate’s efforts to survive and main-

tain his dignity over the course of one day. The-

ater also flourished, especially with the 1956

creation of the Sovremennik, a troupe of recent

graduates of the School of the Moscow Art Theater

led by Oleg Efremov. The company championed the

work of Viktor Rozov and young dramatists. Yuri

Lyubimov directed Shchukin Theater School stu-

dents in a watershed production of Bertolt Brecht’s

The Good Person of Sechuan and in 1964 assumed

the leadership of the Taganka Theater, which sub-

sequently premiered several controversial plays.

Theaters were increasingly able to stage synthetic

theater, a movement that uses lights, sets, and mu-

sic to evoke meaning rather than the rigid natu-

ralist approach of accurate historical detail.

Amateur student troupes, both traditional dramatic

and sketch comedy, thrived. A new generation of

poets emerged, including those whose works were

later staged as poetic theater by Lyubimov. One of

those poets, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, penned “Babi

Yar” (1961), which commemorated the Nazi

slaughter of Jews and alluded to ongoing Soviet

anti-Semitism. The poem became the basis of

Dmitri Shostakovich’s Thirteenth Symphony, which

premiered in late 1962 and was sharply criticized

in the press. A new musical genre, with perform-

ers known as bards, performed private concerts of

their guitar poetry. Films also appeared that fo-

cused on the difficulties of private lives, often with

respect to the enormous losses of World War II:

Mikhail Kalatozov’s Cranes are Flying (1957), Georgi

Chukhrai’s Ballad of a Soldier (1958), and Andrei

Tarkovsky’s Ivan’s Childhood (1961).

There were definite limits to the party’s toler-

ation of this expression. Boris Pasternak’s novel Dr.

Zhivago was published in Italy in 1957 after it was

banned at home. Awarded the Nobel Prize for Lit-

erature in 1958, Pasternak declined the aware af-

ter he was attacked in the press and expelled from

the Writers’ Union. In 1964 poet Joseph Brodsky

was charged with parasitism, spent over two years

in an Arctic labor camp, and later emigrated. When

young painters and sculptors, including Ernst

Neizvestny, showed their abstract works at the

Manezh exhibition hall in late 1962, Khrushchev

and other leaders expressed their acute dislike.

On various occasions, Pasternak, Shostakovich,

Neizvestny, Yevtushenko, and others apologized

for works that were deemed unacceptable.

In spite of the expanded opportunities, the ab-

sence of freedom of expression and other civil lib-

erties led some intellectuals, labeled “dissidents” by

the Party, to more direct opposition to the status

quo. Beginning in this era, they circulated essays,

memoirs of labor camps, and literature in manu-

script form, known as samizdat, rather than sub-

mit their work to censors. They smuggled other

works, referred to as tamizdat, abroad for publica-

tion. Although this group of intellectuals was small

in number, it included scientist Andrei Sakharov,

who called for an end to nuclear testing in the late

1950s and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1968.

When it became clear that the Thaw had been tem-

porary, these individuals grew increasingly active

THAW, THE

1535

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

and were persecuted and sometimes imprisoned by

the KGB.

Scholars disagree on the end date of the Thaw.

Some argue that it was 1964, when Khrushchev

was ousted. Others maintain that the 1966 trial of

dissidents Andrey Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel marks

its end. A third interpretation suggests 1968, when

Soviet-led troops invaded Czechoslovakia, where

the Thaw threatened the hegemony of its Com-

munist Party.

See also: COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION;

EHRENBERG, ILYA GRIGOROVICH; KHRUSHCHEV,

NIKITA SERGEYEVICH; TAGANKA; THEATER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexeyeva, Ludmilla, and Goldberg, Paul. (1993). The

Thaw Generation: Coming of Age in the Post-Stalin Era.

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Brown, Deming. (1978). Soviet Russian Literature since

Stalin. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Priscilla, and Leopold Labedz, eds. (1965).

Khrushchev and the Arts: The Politics of Soviet Culture,

1962–1964. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rothberg, Abraham. (1972). The Heirs of Stalin: Dissidence

and the Soviet Regime, 1953–1970. Ithaca, NY: Cor-

nell University Press.

Spechler, Dina R. (1982). Permitted Dissent in the USSR:

Novy mir and the Soviet Regime. New York: Praeger

Publishers.

Taubman, William. (2003). Khrushchev: The Man and His

Era. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Woll, Josephine. (2000). Reel Images: Soviet Cinema and

the Thaw. London: I. B. Tauris and Company.

USAN

OSTANZO

THEATER

Although modern theater in Russia was imported

from Europe in the seventeenth century, earlier tra-

ditions demonstrate the importance of spectacle in

Russian lives. Russians participated in numerous

rituals associated with life transitions, such as mar-

riages, births, and deaths, as well as seasonal agri-

cultural rites. These rituals had both pre-Christian

and Christian origins. From the eleventh until the

mid-eighteenth century, both elite and peasant

Russians were most often entertained by sko-

romokhi, musicians whose singing, dancing, pup-

petry, acrobatics, and animal acts included bawdy

material that was reviled by the Russian Orthodox

Church. Western-style theater arrived in Russia in

the mid-seventeenth century when Tsar Alexei and

his court enjoyed numerous foreign performers in

various genres, and the first court theater operated

from 1672 to 1676.

Theater expanded as westernization accelerated

in the eighteenth century. In addition to court the-

ater, public theaters flourished in many cities in the

first half of the century. The Kunst-Fuerst theater,

considered the first public theater, staged transla-

tions using German actors from 1702 to 1706. Ed-

ucational institutions established school theaters,

the most influential of which operated in the Land

Forces Cadet School. Its productions in the early

1750s included the works of Alexander Sumarokov

(1718–1777), who also translated and directed

plays in the style of classicism, the dominant trend

in Europe at that time. Fyodor Volkov (1729–1763)

organized a theater in Yaroslavl and moved his

troupe to St. Petersburg in 1752. In 1756 Tsarina

Elizabeth incorporated Volkov’s troupe into the

Russian State Theater (the future Alexandrinsky

Theater). Sumarokov directed this first state-sub-

sidized theater, and Volkov played the leads. Dra-

matic works of the era included comedies, chivalry

tales, biblical adaptations, and plays that glorified

the monarchy and Russian Empire. Monarchs typ-

ically believed that theater should serve a didactic

function, an assumption that continued well into

the twentieth century.

These trends continued during the reign of

Catherine II in the second half of the eighteenth

century. She built the Hermitage Theater in the Win-

ter Palace. After the creation of the Imperial The-

atrical School in 1779, Russian-born professional

actors increasingly appeared on stage. Beginning in

1783 the Administration of Theaters oversaw and

censored public theatrical activity. In addition to

court theaters, St. Petersburg (and Moscow early

in the next century) boasted heavily subsidized im-

perial theaters. Many provincial cities also main-

tained popular public (narodnye) theaters that

reached a broad audience with a diverse repertoire.

Count Peter Sheremetev and other wealthy nobles

also operated private serfs’ theaters, which did not

come under state supervision. Playwright Denis

Ivanovich Fonvizin (1745–1792) is credited as the

founder of authentically Russian drama, best ex-

emplified by his comedy The Minor (1781). Classi-

cism eventually gave way to sentimentalism, a

style that emphasized emotion over reason.

THEATER

1536

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

Under Nicholas I, who reigned from 1825 to

1855, the Imperial Theater Administration devel-

oped an extensive series of rules and regulations for

all aspects of theatrical activity. In spite of severe

censorship, several outstanding dramas were writ-

ten in an increasingly realist style. Alexander Gri-

boedov (1794–1829) completed Woe from Wit

(1824), an examination of the alienation of young

disillusioned army officers who were scorned by a

corrupt and superficial Russian elite after the

Napoleonic wars. Other major Russian writers of

this era wrote plays along with other genres.

Alexander Pushkin (1799–1837) penned dramatic

scenes, most notably his tragedy Boris Godunov

(1825), in verse form. Nikolai Gogol (1809–1852)

wrote The Government Inspector (1836), his most ac-

claimed work that satirizes corrupt officials and the

supercilious elite of a Russian provincial town who

mistake a stranger for a government inspector.

Ivan Turgenev (1818–1883), also a well-respected

novelist, wrote several plays, including A Month in

the Country (1849–1850), that depict the everyday

life of the elite.

As plays achieved greater realism, the role of

actors in the theatrical process changed. They too

attempted to portray characters with greater nat-

uralism, and as a result relied more on the author’s

original intention and less on their own embellish-

ment of roles. This evolution occurred in influential

theater schools affiliated with the Alexandrinsky

Theater in St. Petersburg and the Maly Theater in

Moscow. The latter trained Mikhail Shchepkin

(1788–1863), who is considered one of the great-

est Russian actors. In the later part of the nine-

teenth century, new stars further developed the

naturalist approach. The ranks increasingly in-

cluded actresses, such as Maria Yermolova

(1853–1928), Glikeria Fedotova (1846–1925), and

Maria Savina (1854–1915). Their popularity was

enhanced by the repertory system, whereby a the-

ater with a permanent company alternated many

productions, rather than the single, long-running

play with contractual performers.

Alexander Ostrovsky (1823–1886) dominated

playwriting in the 1860s and 1870s. His innova-

tive depiction of all levels of society in his dramas

was called “national realism” and often contrasted

cruel, self-serving individuals with their simple, de-

cent victims. He wrote almost fifty plays, includ-

ing his most acclaimed, The Forest (1870). Another

prominent playwright, Alexander Sukhovo-

Kobylin (1813–1906), followed the tradition of

Gogol’s satirical commentaries in Krechinsky’s Wed-

ding (1854), The Case (1861), and The Death of

Tarelkin (1869). Later in the century, Leo Tolstoy

(1828–1910), better known for his novels, wrote

plays and adapted many of his didactic short sto-

ries for theater.

Popular and provincial theaters complemented

developments in the nineteenth century. Circuses,

Petrushka puppet shows, and fairground theaters

(balagany) amused spectators. Provincial theaters

offered a wide variety of genres in an effort to ap-

peal to a wide audience. In the latter part of the

century after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861

and their increasing migration to urban areas, the

people’s theater movement emphasized theatrical

performance as a means to enlighten the masses.

Beginning in 1882, private commercial theaters,

such as the Korsh, were allowed in the capital cities

and elsewhere, but censorship continued to hinder

problematic plays. Amateur troupes provided added

opportunities for performances.

The undisputed turning point in Russian the-

ater occurred when Konstantin Stanislavsky

(1863–1938), an amateur actor and director, and

Vladimir Nemirovich Danchenko (1858–1943), a

playwright who also taught at the Philharmonic

Drama School, joined forces and created the Moscow

(Popular) Art Theater in 1898. In productions that

reflected trends in Europe at the time, an overall con-

ception of the director united all parts of a produc-

tion: script, actors, movement, costumes, sets, and

lights. They also tried to create the impression that

audiences were observing real people with psycho-

logical depth in realistic circumstances by incorpo-

rating historically accurate costumes, sets, and

props. These hallmarks of naturalism were most

successful in productions of Anton Chekhov’s

(1860–1904) plays, but the theater also staged

works by Maxim Gorky (1868–1936), Henrik Ibsen

(1828–1906), Gerhart Hauptmann (1862–1946),

and many others in its long history. The theater fos-

tered many outstanding performers, including Ivan

Moskvitin (1874–1956), Olga Knipper (1868–1959),

and Mikhail Chekhov (1891–1955). In a series of

studios, Stanislavsky experimented with actors’

training and developed his “system,” also known as

the Method, which has had a profound impact on

theater and film in the West.

The era of 1898 to 1929 was the richest period

for Russian theater. Stanislavsky’s pupil, Vsevolod

Meyerhold (1874–1940), rejected naturalism and

strove to maximize the theatrical elements of

performances, an approach that did not always

enamor him to the public or to performers

THEATER

1537

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

such as Vera Kommissarzhevskaya (1864–1910),

a great actress of the day. Evgeny Vakhtangov’s

(1883–1922) brief career culminated in his Princess

Turandot (1922), an example of his style of

fantastic realism, which bridged Vsevolod Meyer-

hold’s abstractions and Stanislavsky’s naturalism.

At the Kamerny Theater, Alexander Tairov

(1885–1950) created an atmosphere for the ex-

pression of the deepest emotions of performers

through movement rather than naturalistic acting.

While writing plays and theatrical theory, Nikolai

Evreinov (1879–1953) directed at Kommissar-

zhevskaya’s theater and his own Crooked Mirror,

an example of popular small theaters at that time.

Symbolism, a neoromantic movement that arose

in reaction to realism and emphasized aesthetics

and the spiritual, influenced some of the era’s im-

portant playwrights, including Leonid Andreyev

(1871–1919), Fyodor Sologub (1863–1927), and

Alexander Blok (1880–1921).

Following the Russian Revolution in October

1917, theater experienced an outpouring of inno-

vation. Theaters were divided into two groups: for-

mer important theaters became academic theaters

with substantial subsidies and considerable free-

dom, while smaller theaters received less support

with greater controls. In 1923 the government es-

tablished Glavrepertkom, the organization respon-

sible for censorship over theaters. Meyerhold

developed his theory of movement known as bio-

mechanics. Increasingly influenced by cubism and

constructivism, he and other directors of the day

often turned to abstract artists, such as Lyubov

Popova (1889–1924) for set designs. The Jewish

Habima Theater and the Moscow State Yiddish The-

ater also flourished. Important playwrights

including Vladimir Mayakovsky (1893–1930),

Mikhail Bulgakov (1891–1940), Nikolai Erdman

(1901–1970), and Sergei Tretyakov (1892–1939)

offered critiques of the young Soviet society.

Popular participation in theater exploded at this

time. Proletkult, an organization that called for a

new culture by and for workers, supported such

activities as TRAM (Theaters for Working Youth),

whose actors worked in chosen professions by day

and rehearsed and performed during their free time.

Other amateur troupes formed in army units, fac-

tories, and local clubs. Their performances some-

times involved courtroom scenarios, known as

agit-trials, with audiences as juries to debate cur-

rent issues. Traveling companies of “living news-

papers” and “blue blouses” performed a series of

short skits of news and other issues to illiterate au-

diences. Amateurs and professionals worked to-

gether to realize “mass spectacles” that recreated

major historical events, such as The Storming of the

Winter Palace (1920), which involved five hundred

musicians, eight thousand performers, and over

one hundred thousand spectators.

As Communist Party controls tightened in the

1930s, theater and all arts were expected to follow

the guidelines of socialist realism, which called for

upholding Communist Party policies in an easily

understandable realist style. This highly didactic

formula presented “positive heroes” for the public

to emulate, and plays always pointed toward an

optimistic socialist future. Experimentation in text

and technique ended. In this environment play-

wrights such as Nikolai Pogodin (1900–1962),

Alexander Afinogenov (1904–1941), Vsevolod

Vishnevsky (1900–1951), and Alexei Arbuzov

(1908–1986) managed to create meaningful dra-

mas in spite of the limitations. A new generation

of directors also attempted to offer interesting but

safe productions: Nikolai Okhlopkov (1900–1967),

Yuri Zavadsky (1894–1977), and Nikolai Akimov

(1901–1968). Others suffered. Accused of “formal-

ism,” a euphemism for nonconformity, Meyerhold

was executed in 1940. Playwrights Tretyakov and

Vladimir Kirshon (1902–1938) met a similar fate.

Tairov struggled to stage permissible plays. TRAM

theaters came under state control as professional

Komsomol theaters.

Although many professional troupes per-

formed for frontline troops and new plays sup-

ported the war effort during World War II from

1941 to 1945, strict controls were reestablished af-

ter the war until Josef Stalin’s death in 1953.

Tairov was removed as director of his Kamerny

Theater in 1949. As part of the rootless cos-

mopolitan campaign predominantly against Jews,

Solomon Mikhoels (1890–1948), a famous actor

and head of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee,

was killed. Dramatists were expected to adopt the

no-conflict theory that corresponded to the sup-

posedly new level of socialist achievement in the

Soviet Union: no longer was society divided into

bad opponents of the system and good supporters.

Now socialism and drama reflected struggles be-

tween the good and the better. Without meaning-

ful conflict, the quality of drama declined. Theater

attendance fell, and the party renounced the the-

ory in 1952.

The period following Stalin’s death is consid-

ered the Thaw in Soviet society and culture. In the

theatrical realm Glavrepertkom was abolished, and

THEATER

1538

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

the Ministry of Culture assumed responsibility for

censorship. Although socialist realism continued,

theaters increasingly staged productions with non-

realist sets and pessimistic or ambiguous endings.

Productions also began to breach the “fourth wall”

by incorporating the audience in the action. Two

important theaters emerged: the newly created

Sovremennik under the leadership of Oleg Efremov

(1927–2000) and the Taganka led by Yuri Lyubi-

mov (b. 1917), whose group of recent theater school

graduates performed Bertolt Brecht’s Good Person of

Sechuan and revived the moribund troupe. Its later

productions included adaptations of Yuri Trifonov’s

(1925–1981) prose works and recent poetry by An-

drey Voznesensky (b. 1933) and Yevgeny Yev-

tushenko (b. 1933). The Sovremennik emphasized

new playwrights such as Viktor Rozov (b. 1913)

and Vasily Aksenov (b. 1932). At the same time,

talented directors Anatoly Efros (1925–1987) and

Georgy Tovstonogov (1915–1989) took the helm at

reputable theaters. Arbuzov and young dramatists,

such as Alexander Vampilov (1937–1972), Alexan-

der Volodin (b. 1919), and Eduard Radzinsky (b.

1936), explored the dilemmas of everyday life.

Many recent foreign dramatists were published in

translation. Student theaters thrived.

After Nikita Khrushchev’s fall from power in

1964, a more conservative approach to the arts

ensued, but innovation continued. Although impor-

tant directors continued to work, Efros and Lyubi-

mov repeatedly had their productions banned or

censured by the press. While socialist realism repre-

sented official policy, synthetic theater, which em-

phasized the use of music and lighting to augment

the emotions and messages of a production, allowed

greater flexibility in staging. By the early 1980s

most professional theaters in Leningrad and Moscow

created “second stages” that allowed for further ex-

perimentation. In this venue promising directors,

such as Lev Dodin (b. 1944), Kama Ginkas (b. 1941),

and Peter Fomenko (b. 1932), could stage new

works, and young actors gained valuable experience

because important roles on the main stage were re-

served for senior performers. On the Taganka’s small

stage, Anatoly Vasilev (b. 1942) staged Viktor

Slavkin’s Cerceau, considered one of the most inno-

vative productions of the 1980s. Ludmilla Petru-

shevskaya’s (b. 1938) plays, whose language has

been described as “tape recorder” for its ability to

copy natural speech, were first performed by ama-

teurs. Both playwrights addressed the elusive nature

of a meaningful life in modern Soviet society. Am-

ateur stages provided rich alternatives for both pro-

fessional and amateur directors as well as spectators

who were seeking new approaches to theater.

The final decade of the Soviet era began with

severe censorship, but the twentieth century ended

with almost complete freedom. In 1982 Yuri An-

dropov became General Secretary of the party, and

initiated a strict anti-Western policy that adversely

affected theatrical repertoires. Under his successor,

Konstantin Chernenko, Yuri Lyubimov was forced

into exile in 1984. Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost

policy reversed this trend, and by 1989 theaters op-

erated without political censorship. Theaters at-

tempted to operate under self-financing, which

removed governmental subsidies. Lenin Komsomol

Theater director Mark Zakharov (b. 1933) led the

effort to establish independence for troupes. The

number of theaters mushroomed when the gov-

ernment allowed the formation of theaters with-

out official supervision. However, the success of

some troupes depended on those earlier conflicts

with the state, and Lyubimov’s return to the

Taganka in 1989 could not revive its former glory.

The Moscow Art Theater split into two companies:

Chekhov MAT, led by Oleg Efremov, who had led

the combined troupe since 1970; and Gorky MAT,

led by Tatyana Doronina (b. 1933). In the 1990s

Vasilev and Fomenko formed their own troupes to

accommodate their unorthodox approaches to re-

hearsals and performances. Like many troupes des-

perate for funds, Dodin’s theater toured abroad

extensively and was awarded the Europe Theater

prize in 2000. However, most troupes, including

former amateur companies, discovered the near

impossibility of surviving without some govern-

ment subsidy and sought to receive some support

while retaining repertory freedom. Since the end of

the Soviet Union in 1991, Russian theater has op-

erated under an economic censor, as in the West.

See also: ANDREYEV, LEONID NIKOLAYEVICH; BOLSHOI

THEATER; CHEKHOV, ANTON PAVLOVICH; GOGOL,

NIKOLAI VASILYEVICH; GORKY, MAXIM; GRIBOEDOV,

ALEXANDER SERGEYEVICH; MEYERKHOLD, VSEVOLOD

YEMILIEVICH; PUSHKIN, ALEXANDER SERGEYEVICH;

SHCHEPKIN, MIKHAIL SEMEONOVICH; SUMAROKOV,

ALEXANDER PETROVICH; TAGANKA; THAW, THE; TOL-

STOY, LEO NIKOLAYEVICH; TURGENEV, IVAN SERGEYE-

VICH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Braun, E. (1995). Meyerhold: A Revolution in Theatre. Iowa

City: University of Iowa Press.

THEATER

1539

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

Gorchakov, Nikolai A. (1957). The Theater in Soviet Rus-

sia, tr. Edgar Lehrman. New York: Columbia Uni-

versity Press.

Karlinsky, Simon. (1985). Russian Drama from its Begin-

nings to the Age of Pushkin. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Leach, Robert, and Borovsky, Viktor, eds. (1999). A His-

tory of the Russian Theatre. Cambridge and New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Mally, Lynn. (2000). Revolutionary Acts: Amateur Theater

and the Soviet State 1917–1938. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Segel, Harold B. (1993). Twentieth-Century Russian Drama

from Gorky to the Present, updated ed. Baltimore: The

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Slonim, Mark. (1962). Russian Theater from the Empire to

the Soviets. New York: Collier Books.

Smeliansky, Anatoly. (1999). The Russian Theatre after

Stalin, tr. Patrick Miles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Warner, Elizabeth. (1977). The Russian Folk Theatre. The

Hague: Mouton.

Worrall, Nick. (1989). Modernism to Realism on the Soviet

Stage: Tairov-Vakhtangov-Okhlopkov. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

USAN

OSTANZO

THEOPHANES THE GREEK

(c. 1340–1410), renowned artist and philosopher.

Theophanes the Greek began his career as an

artist in the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. He

worked in the media of fresco, egg tempera for

panel painting (icons), and tempera for book illus-

tration. In the 1380s he immigrated to Russia, first

of all to Novgorod. An important source for his life

is a letter written by Hieromonk Ephiphanius to

Cyril around 1415. He states that Theophanes was

an artist, a sage, and a philosopher. The stone

churches he decorated with frescoes include several

in Constantinople, Chalcedon, Galata, and Caffa.

Altogether, he painted frescoes in over forty

churches. In Russia his most important surviving

frescoes are to be found in the Church of the Sav-

ior of the Transfiguration, Novgorod (1378). He

worked swiftly without the use of pattern books.

Nor did he mind spectators. As his fame spread, he

was invited to Moscow in the 1390s. Among other

projects in the 1390s, he painted a panorama fresco

of Moscow (nonextant) in the stone palace of Prince

Vladimir Andreevich. The most important surviv-

ing projects in Moscow are the main icons (1405)

for the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral,

Cathedral Square, and the Moscow Kremlin. Here

he was assisted by the Elder Prokhor of Gorodets

and Andrei Rublev, according to the Troica Chron-

icle. Another separate icon attributed to him is the

Bogomater Donskaya (Virgin of the Don) and on

the back, the Dormition of the Virgin, 1380s

(Tretyakov Gallery). A very expressive early fif-

teenth-century Transfiguration of Christ icon

(Tretyakov Gallery) has been attributed to Theo-

phanes as well. His figures tended to be very tall

and severe, with dark faces and long, thin arms.

Mystical elements in his paintings are believed to

reflect the influence of Hesychasm. Theophanes

was truly one of the greatest of the early Russian

icon painters.

See also: DIONISY; ICONS; RUBLEV, ANDREI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cheremeteff, Maria. (1990). “The Transformation of the

Russian Sanctuary Barrier and the Role of Theo-

phanes the Greek.” In The Millennium: Christianity

and Russia, A.D. 988–1988, ed. Albert Leong. Crest-

wood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

A. D

EAN

ENZIE

THICK JOURNALS

For more than two hundred years, Russian and So-

viet “thick” journals (tolstye zhurnaly)—a term al-

luding to their usually 200-plus pages per issue

—played the role of social and cultural trendset-

ters. Traditionally, prose works and poetry were

first published in such journals and only later as

books. Published among the literary works were

nonfiction articles and essays on a large variety of

topics. Literary reputations were fostered mainly

through thick journals. Some, such as the twenti-

eth century’s Novyi mir, were considered more pres-

tigious than others.

Edited by Gerhard Friedrich Mueller of the St. Pe-

tersburg Academy of Sciences, the first independent

Russian journal was Ezhemesiachnye sochineniya, k

pol’ze i uveseleniyu sluzhashchie (Monthly Writings

Serving Purpose and Enjoyment; 1755–1797). In-

spired by the principles of the European Enlighten-

ment, it was followed by an ever-increasing number

of similar undertakings on different subjects, includ-

THEOPHANES THE GREEK

1540

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

ing literature. Nikolai Karamzin’s Moskovskii Zhurnal

(Moscow Journal; 1791–1792) already could count

Russia’s leading authors among its contributors.

The early nineteenth century saw another in-

crease in the number of thick journals, most of which

were short-lived. However, some boasted sizable cir-

culations; the prestigious Vestnik Evropy (Messenger of

Europe) had about 1,200 subscribers; Biblioteka dlia

chteniya (Library for Reading) had 4,000; and Otech-

estvennye zapiski (Notes of the Fatherland) had close to

4,000. Despite strictly enforced censorship, the lead-

ing thick journals managed to develop a recognizable

aesthetic and ideological profile. For example, Sovre-

mennik (The Contemporary; 1836–1866), founded by

Alexander Pushkin, catered to the liberal public,

whereas Russkaia beseda (Russian Conversation;

1856–1860) targeted Slavophile readers.

In the aftermath of the 1861 Reforms that in-

cluded some censorship relief, hundreds of new

thick journals emerged, providing a multifaceted

forum for Russian public discourse. Most influen-

tial were Russkii vestnik (Russian Messenger), in

which Ivan Turgenev, Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor

Dostoyevsky published major works, and Russkaia

mysl’ (Russian Thought; 1880–1900), to which

Vladimir Korolenko, Dimitri Mamin-Sibiriak,

Nikolai Leskov, and Anton Chekhov contributed.

By the end of the nineteenth century, illustrated

weekly journals outnumbered the thick monthlies.

Then the 1917 Bolshevik coup destroyed this plu-

ralistic journalistic scene in less than a year. The

New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s reconsti-

tuted some variety, but all within a framework of

loyalty to the Soviet regime. Thus Krasnaya nov’

(Red New Soil; 1921–1942) in the 1920s was the

forum of the less politicized poputchiki (fellow-

travelers), whereas Kuznitsa (The Smithy; 1920–

1922) belonged to militant proletarian writers.

No other period of Russian history increased—

or inflated—the importance of thick journals more

than Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika, which caused

a veritable explosion in circulation, with several

journals printing more than a million copies each

month. Glasnost transformed decades-old, dog-

matic publications into thought-provoking, open

intellectual forums. In hindsight, the formation and

formulation of diverse viewpoints would have been

impossible without journals such as Novy mir (New

World; 1925–), Druzhba narodov (People’s Friend-

ship; 1939–), and Znamia (Banner; 1931) on the lib-

eral side, and Nash sovremennik (Our Contemporary;

1964–) and Molodaia gvardiia (Young Guard; 1922–)

on the conservative.

However, with the meltdown of the Soviet sys-

tem, thick journals rapidly lost their significance.

Despite the press law of August 1, 1990, which

formally abolished censorship and gave these jour-

nals economic and legal independence, few of them

survived commercial pressure, competition against

electronic media, and overall cultural disintegra-

tion.

See also: GLASNOST; INTELLIGENTSIA; JOURNALISM; NEW

ECONOMIC POLICY; PERESTROIKA; THIN JOURNALS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Frankel, Edith Rogovin. (1981). Novy mir: A Case Study

in the Politics of Literature, 1952–1958. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ruud, Charles. (1982). Fighting Words: Imperial Censor-

ship and the Russian Press, 1804–1906. Toronto: Uni-

versity of Toronto Press.

ETER

OLLBERG

THIN JOURNALS

Whereas “thick” journals circulated among the in-

telligentsia and established a critical forum for po-

litical discussion among Russia’s elites, “thin”

journals were marketed toward those developing a

civic consciousness and awareness of the outside

world in post–Great Reform society. Combining the

journalistic tradition of specialized, entertaining

journals such as the humorous Oskolki (Splinters)

or Teatr i zhizn’ (The Theater and Life) for theater-

goers with informative and educational features,

thin journals helped to give the reading public a

broad worldview.

The most successful of these journals was A.

F. Marx’s Niva (The Cornfield), founded in 1870.

Though Marx was aiming for a family audience,

he quickly tapped into the expanding provincial au-

dience, especially schoolteachers and those whom

they educated, Russia’s burgeoning middle classes.

Offering Russia’s literary classics as supplements,

Niva enjoyed a circulation of 200,000 by the turn

of the twentieth century. Readers who could not

afford even its modest price could still find this and

other thin journals in their village libraries.

Eventually, Niva faced competition from other

journals that adapted its formula of combining di-

THIN JOURNALS

1541

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

dactic and entertaining features. A. A. Kaspari’s

Rodina (The Motherland), for example, founded

in 1879, appealed specifically to members of the

lower classes who desired self-improvement. Two

preeminent newspaper publishers also entered the

thin journal market, S. M. Propper and I. D. Sytin,

both of whom lowered prices and increased the

news component. Propper’s Ogonek (The Flame),

founded in 1908, ultimately became the most widely

circulated of these journals, reaching 700,000 sub-

scribers by 1914. Sytin purchased Vokrug sveta

(Around the World) in 1891, and though circulation

never topped 50,000, the journal offered a vision

of life beyond Russia’s borders. Both of these jour-

nals continued publication into the Soviet era, with

modified editorial content.

Thin journals stimulated the voracious Russian

reading appetite, which the subsequent Soviet gov-

ernment fed with its own variety of thin journals,

from the satirical Krokodil (The Crocodile) to the in-

formational Za Rubezhem (Abroad). Despite censor-

ship, the tradition of thin journals helped many

Russians develop interest and glean information

about the world.

See also: GLASNOST; INTELLIGENTSIA; JOURNALISM; NEW

ECONOMIC POLICY; PERESTROIKA; THICK JOURNALS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brooks, Jeffrey. (1985). When Russia Learned to Read: Lit-

eracy and Popular Literature, 1861–1917. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lovell, Stephen. (2000). The Russian Reading Revolution:

Print Culture in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Eras. Lon-

don: Macmillan.

OUISE

EYNOLDS

THIRD PARTY PROGRAM See KHRUSHCHEV,

NIKITA SERGEYEVICH.

THIRD ROME

Third Rome refers to the doctrine that Russia or,

specifically, Moscow succeeded Rome and Byzan-

tium Rome as the ultimate center of true Chris-

tianity and of the Roman Empire. This is the most

generally misunderstood and abused of the several

expressions of Russia’s new place in the world re-

sulting from domestic and international events of

the 1430s and 1520s. The monk Filofei of the

Pskov-Eliazarov monastery formulated it in one or

two epistles, written between 1523 and 1526,

which were then reworked during the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries.

Neither epistle survives in its original form or

a manuscript assuredly from Filofei’s time. The

first, probably written in 1523 to 1524 to the state-

secretary administrator of Pskov, Mikhail Misiur-

Munekhin, attacks astrology, the Roman Catholic

Church, and the claims of the Holy Roman Empire,

and in this connection asserts that Russia, with

Moscow’s Dormition Cathedral at its center, is the

third and final Roman Empire according to the

prophetic books. Filofei’s unnamed opponent was

Basil III’s German physician Nicholas Bülew, who

promoted astrology and Church union with Rome.

The second epistle, addressed to an unnamed tsar—

perhaps Basil III (1524–1526) or possibly Ivan IV

(1533–1584)—and conceivably not by Filofei at all,

calls upon the addressee to enforce the proper ap-

plication of the sign of the cross by his subjects;

protect church wealth; suppress homosexuality; be

an ethical, just, and pious ruler; and, in oblique

form, fill hierarchical vacancies.

Third Rome thinking served to elevate Russia’s

conception of its place within the Orthodox Chris-

tian world and the requirement to preserve the faith

and its rituals in unadulterated form. If this po-

tentially messianic doctrine played a role in the es-

tablishment of the Russian patriarchate in 1589,

and may have helped Russians acquire a sense of

responsibility toward the Orthodox and later Uni-

ate subjects of Poland-Lithuania and the Ottoman

Empire, at no time did it figure in aggressive poli-

cies toward non-Orthodox or non-Uniate peoples.

Modern attempts to enshrine it as an essential ele-

ment of Russian consciousness since the early

1500s have no basis.

The Christian notion of migrating sacrosanct

goes back to the foundation of Constantinople as

New Rome (still in the official title of the patriarch

of Constantinople) and its subsequent claims to be

a New Jerusalem, the center of a messianic king-

dom. In the course of competing with Byzantium,

even before the Eastern and Western Churches sep-

arated (over the course of the 860s to 1054), the

German (Holy Roman) emperors also claimed to

represent the true Rome. Similarly, while the

Byzantine Empire still existed, among the Ortho-

dox Slavs, Bulgarians claimed that their capital, in

THIRD PARTY PROGRAM

1542

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY